Originally posted by Sir John
Galvorn should also be in altough im not sure wether it should be a lux or a strat. Im leaning towards strat as it was used to make armour. It should be a +4s+0f+2\3c this should be quite rare and it would be something that you would want... This could be a preq for some pretty good defense units, but ofcourse mithril would be a preq for the best defensive units.. (perhaps some of the offensive too...)

No no, Sir John, no galvorn. That idea doesn't fly, it's an alloy made by a single moriquendi hiding in the forest. He only made it for himself. I said as much a few posts into
this page of the same thread we're on. (Incidentally, how does one link to a particular
post on a thread, instead of just the page it's on?)
Are you sure you've done a thorough read-through of the posts preceding yours, Sir John? It seems to me that you're rehashing a lot of what's come before, even if it was only brought up several pages back in this very thread.
The negative "resource" idea sounds like fun, though. That's novel to me. They would be bonus resources, though, eh?!
Rhûn isn't empty. It's full of Easterlings, Variags, Wainwriders, and whatnot, although these may be names for roughly the same poeple. Even Dorwinion is full of Dorwinions (or whatever they're called), but nothing shows up on the map for them. Probably because nothing
happened there in the story we read.
I agree, "roch" doesn't sound very spicy. Maybe the proper plural will sound better. But hey, it is
genuine Elvish, what with it being the root of Rohan, Rohirrim, Roheryn and Elrohir. Not much of an "abomination," eh Arathorn?

But being genuine Elvish, it has
authentic spice, and it's clear connection to horses used in warfare makes it a ready candidate (if somewhat loosely translated) for a special "war horse" resource. And sometimes the spiceyness can be a little jarring at first, but then it can open our horizons too (e.g., hunting for an Elvish plural, etc. etc.).
And the thing is, Arathorn, that Mearas is overkill for a Civ-scale resource. Sure, there was a whole breed of horses in the North of which Felaróf was only one. But the Mearas are only the decendants of Felaróf, not the entire breed from which they decended -- another reason why Mearas is probably not the best term for this scattered resource. And seeing how only the line of the Kings of Rohan
could (not "would") ride the Mearas (save Gandalf, thus his stature...and the initial
bad blood between him and Théoden), I do not think that Rohan was sending "Mearas" to Minas Tirith in time of need, nor would it be likely that Mordor was stealing "Mearas" from the Eastfold... Rohan would be sending their knights (rohirrim) or their horses (roch-plural),
not their Mearas (so "multiple" Ardan "civs" were not using them) -- which doesn't literally make "roch" = "special Rohan-style war horses," but does give us a decent excuse for a flavourful term for "war horse." Heck, the term is virtually interchangeable with "knight." So I don't think my idea flouts proper terminology, but rather the inverse. The text actually undermines our using the term "Mearas," which is what PCH suspected earlier and I responded to. Cool?
Keep in mind the whole "roch" idea is just there because of
the assumption that we'll also have a plain old "horses" luxury or something
in addition to the "roch/war horse/mearas". (That is, I think I'm trying to work out a compromise with PCH!

) Let there be no mistake:
if there is to be only one horse-type resource, then for Pete's sake lets just call it "horses"! 
That is, of course, precisely what mrtn said above. I've just been operating on the assumption that everybody else still wants two (2) horsey resources.
Am I wrong in that assumption, then? Whoopee!!! [dance]
P.S. It may look as if I'm posting in the middle of the night, but remember I'm in Europe...so usually it's the
short posts that are the result of brain pain.