Quickbeam and Beechbone

Debate all the finer points of our fine hobby under the gaze of the Lidless Eye...

Quickbeam and Beechbone

Postby thorhak » Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:36 am

So one of the CO studs is starting to gear-up for MitM.

And in doing so is fielding an Ent army, that he's making from scratch!

His question to me: can he use the stats for Quickbeam and Beechbone that GW has posted here

To me they look like WotR rules, not SBG because they include some mysterious "R" value, but do not list M/W/FT values.

Any thoughts!

Thanks!! :twisted:
Mayhem in the Mountains 2014?!?!?!?! Stay tuned! Adeptus Mile High
User avatar
thorhak
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:27 pm

Postby BostonNazgul » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:16 am

GW put out generic ent rules in a WD.... I have no idea what issue though. It had stats for oak, willow etc. anyone else remember these or am I just crazy?
User avatar
BostonNazgul
 
Posts: 2432
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Jobu » Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:28 am

The basic "ent" was a century in points with no m/w/f, with "upgrades" for each species being between 10 and 25 points. I have this list in the best of white dwarf:return of the king edition. The best one has to be the ash upgrade for 15 points, they may always resist enemy spells with 2 dice.
Jobu
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:29 pm
Location: Richmond, Va

Postby febber » Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:52 am

thorhak wrote:His question to me: can he use the stats for Quickbeam and Beechbone that GW has posted here

To me they look like WotR rules, not SBG because they include some mysterious "R" value, but do not list M/W/FT values.



Keith, to your point, those are indeed WOTR rules which don't fit SBG.
They can't be used in SBG as they don't have the proper stats. However, keep reading . . .

BostonNazgul wrote:GW put out generic ent rules in a WD.... I have no idea what issue though. It had stats for oak, willow etc. anyone else remember these or am I just crazy?

Jobu wrote:The basic "ent" was a century in points with no m/w/f, with "upgrades" for each species being between 10 and 25 points. I have this list in the best of white dwarf:return of the king edition.


GW published Ents SBG variants in WD issue 281 (June 2003), which are indeed recapped in the ROTK version of "The Best of White Dwarf." These are considered unofficial and normally not permissable under the IGT rules. However, Keith, I wouldn't care at all if you authorized the player to use the WD rules (which I can provide for you and your friend if you'd like.) Keep in mind that some of these were listed in Legions and were supposed to have official rules eventually (see the Fangorn list under Elven Havens). Just publish something in advance about these so people are aware. As TO you have the right to do this. I think it's way cool tthat he's making them.
All-time LOTR Grand/National Tournament Record: 92-18-45 (W-L-D), 63 major victories
21 awards in 35 events inc. 5x Best Overall; 2x 2nd Overall (w/o Best General); 9x Best General
2007 National Circuit Champion
2008 National Circuit Champion
User avatar
febber
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Postby BrentS » Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:18 am

While it's a neat idea, I can say from BBB perspective, I wouldn't allow those previous WD profiles to be used. It just opens too many potential loopholes. Part of my issue is that all those types of profiles predated my time playing the game and I'm nit interested (and to lazy) to go back in time for these. It is a shame that GW just didn't go ahead and release profiles for those two ents when they releases the plastic kit. It seems that they knew at that point that the days of the sourcebook were over and wouldn't have been much harder to include SBG rules.
User avatar
BrentS
 
Posts: 6295
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:38 pm

Postby jlong05 » Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:50 pm

To be fair though, the standard rules should still apply with profiles. Older profiles are valid until a newer updated profile is put into print. Given that GW did these back in 2003 and never updated them specifically can be because of any variety of reasons including, they forgot, dont care, think they are still acceptable, or simply havn't gotten around to it. One could however argue that those older variant prfiles were replaced by the ORB(2005) or even the Two Towers(2006) books both of which were published later without the additional options.

As long as the rules are not 'crazy' out there I dont see why they couldn't be allowed. For me personally, I wouldn't have an issue playing against those original profiles.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
User avatar
jlong05
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ (In a lead-lined fridge)


Return to Rules Discussions (LotR)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron