Link to pictures and report here:
http://roughwotr.blogspot.com/2011/03/wotr-batrep-natcon-prep-1000pts-beige.html

Now I have finally done the report, we will have to play again. Maybe the forces of good should actually get an outing. As a final note, someone has suggested that the line in the Battlehosts book stating that additional heroes may not be included in the battlehost may actually be a statement with a meaning beyond armybuilding. You may be supposed to never put another hero in there. If this is so (and it would sort out the Gorgoroth Orcs nicely!), then I would need to rethink this force. At the monent there is only one non-battlehost formation in there, which is quite the risk for any other heroes I should take...

_________________
http://www.roughwotr.blogspot.com

Very nice Battle report, and Isengard vs Dunlendings is an interesting match up. I wonder how Saruman dropped the ball and allowed that to happen! I like the musing about battle hosts and heroes; any official statement on this? Personally, I'm going to be playing it as such. I shan't allow other heroes to join, and therefore 'super-charge' already powerful Battlehosts. I t keeps the Battlehosts 'in character', means you don't have a dozen special rules for each formation, and it 'feels' right. No more Gothmog or Khamul marching with the Gorgoroth Horde!

I agree. I had a think after the guy brought it up and decided that I would just shelve the Dunlending 'morph' idea and go back to using them for just Carn Dum. It had really been a 'trick' army for the current RAW binge anyway. There is currently no official statement for this. However, what sways me is that (despite the fact that this is in the army builidng, not playing, section) it is a totally meaningless phrase if all it applies to is armybuilding. I wouldn't put it past the copyeditors they have to have had a 'logic fail' there too, but I am not personally going to err on the side of pushing the envelope to allow odd combos.

_________________
http://www.roughwotr.blogspot.com