PDA

View Full Version : A few thoughts and questions on WotR



Odin
10-04-2009, 01:20
A few things strike me about WotR that I haven't seen mentioned so far...

1) The use of the word "hit" where other games would generally use "wound" can be very confusing. It seems to have even confused the writers. For example, roll a 3-5 on the artillery table, and "the target suffers D6 hits at the siege engine's strength". But if it uses the game's definition of "hit", you don't need to use the strength value, because a hit is a wound. What I'm pretty sure they mean is that you make D6 rolls "to hit" using the siege engine's strength. Very poorly phrased, in an otherwise rather well-written book.

by comparison, the other two comments are pretty minor...

2) Rangers of Arnor - same price as Rangers of Gondor, but with -1 Courage. Why would anyone take them, ever? :wtf:

3) Shame (and odd) that the Fiefdom units (apart from Dol Amroth) can't have generic captains. Do Forlong, Angbor and Duinhir have problems delegating?

Sarah S
10-04-2009, 01:31
1) The use of the word "hit" where other games would generally use "wound" can be very confusing. It seems to have even confused the writers. For example, roll a 3-5 on the artillery table, and "the target suffers D6 hits at the siege engine's strength". But if it uses the game's definition of "hit", you don't need to use the strength value, because a hit is a wound. What I'm pretty sure they mean is that you make D6 rolls "to hit" using the siege engine's strength. Very poorly phrased, in an otherwise rather well-written book.

Yes! It's all over the place. It's like at they couldn't keep "attack," and "hit" separate in their own minds.


2) Rangers of Arnor - same price as Rangers of Gondor, but with -1 Courage. Why would anyone take them, ever?
Rangers of Arnor have Pathfinder (Master), while Rangers of Gondor have Pathfinder (Woodland).

If there is terrain on the table other than forests, Arnor have a significant advantage.

Odin
10-04-2009, 12:17
Yes! It's all over the place. It's like at they couldn't keep "attack," and "hit" separate in their own minds.


Rangers of Arnor have Pathfinder (Master), while Rangers of Gondor have Pathfinder (Woodland).

If there is terrain on the table other than forests, Arnor have a significant advantage.

Ah, I wondered if I'd missed something on the Rangers. Makes sense.

The confusion with the meaning of "hit" is pretty inexcusable. They decided on the rather odd terminology, and then confused themselves with it.

ThrowN
10-04-2009, 12:48
Confuses me too.

I'd also love to know the developers thoughts behind some point costs, especially those for shamans.

Emissary
10-04-2009, 12:51
I can understand the shaman cost. Getting a free spell that automatically works is really, really good. It's just their cost compared to things like kardush and the mouth of sauron that doesn't make sense in my mind.

ThrowN
10-04-2009, 13:09
That's what I meant...

Odin
10-04-2009, 14:15
Another fairly minor point, but Boromir's banner is pretty bloody pointless isn't it? All it does is count as a banner & musician. But you'll want him in a combat unit anyway, and all your combat units will probably have a banner & musician anyway (for the same cost). Can anyone see any reason to have this? I suppose he could give the benefit to a Ranger formation (who can't normally have banners & musicians), but they're hardly front-line close combat troops are they.

Emissary
10-04-2009, 14:25
Or just don't buy them in the unit you'll put boromir in. No reason to double up. But it does allow you to get a banner and hornblower into units that can't normally have them as you stated.

Odin
10-04-2009, 15:07
Or just don't buy them in the unit you'll put boromir in. No reason to double up. But it does allow you to get a banner and hornblower into units that can't normally have them as you stated.

Problem is, you may want to move Boromir to a different unit during the game, thus leaving his original unit without a banner & musician. And as it costs the same points, there's no reason to give the upgrade to Boromir rather than the unit.

Nilhouse
10-04-2009, 17:51
Problem is, you may want to move Boromir to a different unit during the game, thus leaving his original unit without a banner & musician. And as it costs the same points, there's no reason to give the upgrade to Boromir rather than the unit.

I believe the option was given because there is a model that represents it already.

Math Mathonwy
10-04-2009, 18:31
Problem is, you may want to move Boromir to a different unit during the game, thus leaving his original unit without a banner & musician. And as it costs the same points, there's no reason to give the upgrade to Boromir rather than the unit.
In a cavalry unit it increases their survivability by quite a lot since you can't have more special models than common models in a company. A three-company formation with an Epic Hero, a Banner bearer and a Musician would lose one of those on the first casualty.

Sarah S
10-04-2009, 19:16
That's not quite true.
The only rule is:

You may never have more Epic Heroes in a company than that company has 'normal warriors' (i.e. not Heroes or upgrades of any kind).

So any time you have an epic hero in a cavalry formation, the other model in his company MUST always be a regular trooper, and not a command member or another epic hero.

So that would mean in your 3 company cav formation you would have:

Command Company with: Banner Bearer + Musician
Company 1 with: Epic Hero + regular model
Company 2 with : regular model + regular model

So first casualty, take it from Company 2: regular model
Second casualty, take it form Company 2: regular model
Third casualty, take it from Company 3: This would be a regular model, but doing so would make the company have more Epic Heroes than regular models, so the hero must go.

So it's on the third casualty that you lose the hero.

On the other hand, if you were willing to sacrifice the command company, then you'd be able to take another 2 casualties before losing the hero.

Not too bad, but still a good reason to not take formations of 3 cavalry companies with command and epic heroes.

Odin
10-04-2009, 23:57
I believe the option was given because there is a model that represents it already.

They could have given it decent rules though. I wanted to use the model with the banner, but it's just not worth it so I've built him without.

Odin
10-04-2009, 23:59
In a cavalry unit it increases their survivability by quite a lot since you can't have more special models than common models in a company. A three-company formation with an Epic Hero, a Banner bearer and a Musician would lose one of those on the first casualty.

I thought that only applied to Epic Heroes? In other words, you'd have the banner and musician in the Command company, and Boromir in a second company. Fair point though - he's still better protected if he's in the command company.

lorelorn
11-04-2009, 03:02
The only rule is:
So any time you have an epic hero in a cavalry formation, the other model in his company MUST always be a regular trooper, and not a command member or another epic hero.

Sarah S has it spot on with this. Let's take an actual in-game example:

In my Fallen Realms list I have an Easterling Kataphrakt formation, of three companies.

As per the bestiary entry, the formation includes a command company with the following upgrades: banner bearer, dragon knight, musician.

On the table I will have:
1st a command company with a banner bearer and dragon knight
2nd a company with musician and normal warrior
3rd a company with two normal warriors

During the game, if I want Khamul the Easterling to join that formation I must place him in the 3rd company, as this is the only place he will fit.

Doing this makes Khamul quite vulnerable, and so could be called a 'calculated risk'. My opponent now has the opportunity to put me in difficult position of deciding whether to remove Khamul, or command company models.

eg dealing three casualties (after Khamul's reflection ability) will force me to
1. remove the musician and normal warrior from the 2nd company, and
2. remove either the dragon knight or banner bearer, or the normal warrior and Khamul from the 3rd company.

Having epic heroes in small cavalry formations can give those formations some extra punch, but it opens up an window of opportunity for your opponent to take those heroes down through magic or shooting.

The best time to place an epic hero in a small cavalry formation is just before they charge, although you have to place the epic heroes in those formations before they move at all, the idea is to move to a relatively sheltered position, and then charge in. You should ideally start the game with your epic heroes all sheltered in fair-sized infantry formations, and only move them to cav formations when you are about to hit home. That, or take only large cav formations.

Where your opponent doesn't realise this, you can take advantage and start knocking off epic heroes with shooting and magic a little more easily than otherwise.

majinga
11-04-2009, 09:43
Played our first game yesterday and the 'hit' buissines really bugged us untill we notised that some spells and a coupple of other bits it says caused 'automatic hits'

Another think that bugged us was turning a co round has 2 interpritations.

1 you can just do it costs no movement (as the co is in the same place) and you can move on from there.

or

2 an inf co takes @ an 5 inch move to turn round ( as the corners are reversed) and then can continue movement . This can be a pain if your within 6 of an enamy as a normal move you cannot turn round and if thers several co in a formation you cant even half turn and keep your formation legal.

Odin
11-04-2009, 10:18
Played our first game yesterday and the 'hit' buissines really bugged us untill we notised that some spells and a coupple of other bits it says caused 'automatic hits'

Another think that bugged us was turning a co round has 2 interpritations.

1 you can just do it costs no movement (as the co is in the same place) and you can move on from there.

or

2 an inf co takes @ an 5 inch move to turn round ( as the corners are reversed) and then can continue movement . This can be a pain if your within 6 of an enamy as a normal move you cannot turn round and if thers several co in a formation you cant even half turn and keep your formation legal.

Yes, I noticed that one. My interpretation is that it takes about 5 inches to turn around, but it needs to be FAQd.

Mr_Rose
11-04-2009, 10:46
No it doesn't. The rules are quite explicit that you can move your companies in any direction and they may end up with any facing, as long as no part of the company moves more than their M value. If you were being especially strict about "no part" you would need to deduct the depth of the company from its movement at most (for a company moving directly backwards).

majinga
11-04-2009, 12:56
But thats the point.

If no part of the co can move more than its M say 3inches for some minas tirith warriors within 6 of an enamy.

You cant turn round as to so transposes the corners of the co bace DIAGONALY which is more than 3 inches its about 5.

Sarah S
11-04-2009, 16:26
The movement isn't measured as the amount of distance the parts of the units traverse, it's simply the straight line between where it started and where it finished.

How it gets there is specifically abstracted out in the WoTR movement rules. There's no wheeling here.

Mr_Rose
11-04-2009, 16:28
But thats the point.

If no part of the co can move more than its M say 3inches for some minas tirith warriors within 6 of an enamy.

You cant turn round as to so transposes the corners of the co bace DIAGONALY which is more than 3 inches its about 5.
But that then gets silly, since in that case a unit can march backwards faster than it can turn around and march forwards in the same direction.

Kroot Lord
11-04-2009, 22:22
I'd go about like this:

The officers yell orders to their warriors to turn around and face the enemy behind them. This costs no movement. However, considering that the officers (Captains, Epic Heroes, Heroes and such models) would be leading from the front, they need to move from one slot to another to get to the front, which costs a single inch, resulting in Movement- 1". Seems fairly reasonable to me, not entirely game breaking or such either.

Sarah S
11-04-2009, 22:30
I'd go about like this:

The officers yell orders to their warriors to turn around and face the enemy behind them. This costs no movement. However, considering that the officers (Captains, Epic Heroes, Heroes and such models) would be leading from the front, they need to move from one slot to another to get to the front, which costs a single inch, resulting in Movement- 1". Seems fairly reasonable to me, not entirely game breaking or such either.

Also totally unsupported.

Turning, changing facing, wheeling, none of that matters. Movement is totally abstracted.

To move a company, pick it up and move it in any direction, ensuring that no part of the company ends the move a distance greater than its Move value away from its start position.
...
As they move, companies can move through other companies from the same formation.
...
As a formation moves, you can rearrange its companies as you wish. Companies must remain touching but can be turned around or arranged into a different legal configuration as you wish.
page 32.

You measure where it starts, and where it ends. Nothing else in between matters.

Odin
12-04-2009, 00:43
page 32.


To move a company, pick it up and move it in any direction, ensuring that no part of the company ends the move a distance greater than its Move value away from its start position.
...
As they move, companies can move through other companies from the same formation.
...
As a formation moves, you can rearrange its companies as you wish. Companies must remain touching but can be turned around or arranged into a different legal configuration as you wish.

You measure where it starts, and where it ends. Nothing else in between matters.


So, the front right hand corner moves to where the rear left hand corner was, which is a move of several inches, just to turn around. Seems quite clear to me. If you simply turn around for free and then move your full move, the front corners have clearly moved "a distance greater than their Move value away from their start position".

Sarah S
12-04-2009, 00:48
clearly moved "a distance greater than their Move value away from their start position".

That's not what it says!

I even underlined it above.
:cries:


ensuring that no part of the company ENDS THE MOVE A DISTANCE GREATER THAN ITS MOVE VALUE AWAY FROM ITS START POSITION

There, now it's underlined, in bold and capitals.

Will that be enough?

You measure between the start point and the end point. That's all. Everything else is abstracted.

Mad Makz
12-04-2009, 02:12
So, the front right hand corner moves to where the rear left hand corner was, which is a move of several inches, just to turn around. Seems quite clear to me. If you simply turn around for free and then move your full move, the front corners have clearly moved "a distance greater than their Move value away from their start position".

I get your reading - you're not saying you have to turn around, then move forward, measuring each separately. You are saying you just have to move the right hand corner to where you want it to be, and check that in the process the left hand rear corner hasn't moved further than a 6" radius from where it used to be, rather than simply stating that the company's entire 'footprint' must remain entirely within 6" of it's starting point, irrespective of facing.

Personally, I think the intention is definitely that the company's 'footprint' can not move more than 6" away, and how it ends up facing after movement is it's official facing. Measuring point to point 'vectors' for distance between every point of the base seems like far too much work for no tangible reward in game logic, don't you think?

Odin
12-04-2009, 11:13
That's not what it says!

I even underlined it above.
:cries:



There, now it's underlined, in bold and capitals.

Will that be enough?

You measure between the start point and the end point. That's all. Everything else is abstracted.


Same thing. Each company has a front and a back (used for determining their arc of sight). Nothing in the rules says the front and back are interchangeable. In fact, page 25 specifically states that "models in a company must continue to face this direction during the game - they cannot turn to face their sides or rear". So the front remains the front. Therefore if you turn the company round, then move the full distance, the front right hand corner (and front left of course) ends the move a distance greater than its Move value away from its start position, which isn't allowed.


I get your reading - you're not saying you have to turn around, then move forward, measuring each separately. You are saying you just have to move the right hand corner to where you want it to be, and check that in the process the left hand rear corner hasn't moved further than a 6" radius from where it used to be, rather than simply stating that the company's entire 'footprint' must remain entirely within 6" of it's starting point, irrespective of facing.

Personally, I think the intention is definitely that the company's 'footprint' can not move more than 6" away, and how it ends up facing after movement is it's official facing. Measuring point to point 'vectors' for distance between every point of the base seems like far too much work for no tangible reward in game logic, don't you think?

The rules specifically state that you should "keep an eye on the corners of each company as the formation moves". Not just the formation in general, but the specific distance moved by each corner.

It could have been written a lot more clearly, but when you re-read the relevant bits it's clear that turning round is not free.

Kroot Lord
12-04-2009, 11:16
Also totally unsupported.

Duh.

That's why I said "I".

Mad Makz
13-04-2009, 03:44
The rules specifically state that you should "keep an eye on the corners of each company as the formation moves". Not just the formation in general, but the specific distance moved by each corner.

It could have been written a lot more clearly, but when you re-read the relevant bits it's clear that turning round is not free.

Ah, but it goes on to say "As a formation moves, you can rearrange companies as you wish. Companies must remain touching but can be turned round or arranged into a different legal configuration as you wish." The fact that companies can be "turned round" as "you wish" it what makes me favor the interpretation that companies simply are placed within 8" of their starting 'footprint' over having to measure each corner individually.

It does need a clarification - but I think the rules do not intend you to measure at all for turning or wheeling in any way, just that each company, in whatever facing, can not end up further than 8" from where it started.

Rioghan Murchadha
13-04-2009, 04:19
Same thing. Each company has a front and a back (used for determining their arc of sight). Nothing in the rules says the front and back are interchangeable. In fact, page 25 specifically states that "models in a company must continue to face this direction during the game - they cannot turn to face their sides or rear". So the front remains the front. Therefore if you turn the company round, then move the full distance, the front right hand corner (and front left of course) ends the move a distance greater than its Move value away from its start position, which isn't allowed.



The rules specifically state that you should "keep an eye on the corners of each company as the formation moves". Not just the formation in general, but the specific distance moved by each corner.

It could have been written a lot more clearly, but when you re-read the relevant bits it's clear that turning round is not free.

Tell you what. If I were ever to play you, and I wanted to turn a company around, I'd just pivot each of the models in the tray, that way the corners stay in the same place, then I'd continue my move as normal. Problem solved.

rakath
13-04-2009, 08:04
I think it's the Fantasy Battle mentality that's coming thru here.

WotR has no wheeling or fiddly movements. The rules clearly state, that you move the companies so that no part of the tray ends up further than M inches. You can turn and rearrange them as you wish.

This is how it works in Five Armies, Epic (and I guess Warmaster), where this movement style is inherited.

Just forget FB. This is WotR. No fiddly movements here.

Odin
13-04-2009, 10:45
Edit: Mad Makz, I think you've got me convinced. Very poorly written though (2nd Edit: Not saying your argument is poorly written! I mean the rulebook.).

Frankly, I preferred my interpretation. The idea that a company can travel just as fast backwards as forwards is absurd.

Still needs an FAQ to ensure everyone's using the same rules.

Mr_Rose
13-04-2009, 14:09
Maybe, but is it more absurd that a unit could travel directly backwards, marching in reverse lockstep, than they could if they turned around first and then moved forwards in the other direction? Because that's where the other interpretation leads.

The reason the rules say you should be keeping an eye on the corners is, I feel, adequately illustrated on p.32 where it shows the warg rider unit moving forward and turning slightly. Note the difference between the two interpretations.

Mad Makz
14-04-2009, 07:22
Edit: Mad Makz, I think you've got me convinced. Very poorly written though (2nd Edit: Not saying your argument is poorly written! I mean the rulebook.).

Frankly, I preferred my interpretation. The idea that a company can travel just as fast backwards as forwards is absurd.

Still needs an FAQ to ensure everyone's using the same rules.

It's an abstraction, so it's not absurd - just abstract. ;) Making units pay quarter of there move (fantasies abstraction system) to turn around is equally absurd if you compared actual military companies and the 'abstracted' distance involved.

As an abstraction for the WOTR rule set, I actually quite like it, it means that in WOTR every formation has a very definite "sphere of influence" (or in actuality ellipse of influence based on the base sizes) which I find useful for planning tactics (Fantasy is much more 'lane of influence' based, which means far more importance is placed on deployment)

rakath
16-04-2009, 09:59
A couple of rules questions:

- Spells. They're cast during movement phase. But I couldn't find restrictions for this anywhere. So you're able to "On the Double!" or even Epic Move, and still cast a spell during any part of that long movement?
Shooting is prohibited, but nowhere is stated that spells == shooting.

- Distributing support dice. Some powers boost only the company that the hero is in.
So, for example, in a combat where 2 dwarven companies are in base contact (one including Dain) with the enemy, and 4 companies supporting.
The company with Dain can re-strike with successful hits. You've got 4 supporting dice coming, can you "allocate" them to the Dain's company, or are those support dice always "generic non-boosted" hits from the formation?
I couldn't find anything on this.

- Using simultaneously Might to boost dice rolls. The rulebook was pretty vague on this subject. You've got two infantry formations in close combat. The rolls were pretty even, so both players would obviously want to use Might, so that you'll cause one hit more than the opponent, winning CC.
If both players want to boost dice rolls, how is this dealt with? Marking down used might on a piece of paper in secret (like in SBG, but the rule doesn't exist in WotR) or do you take turns using Might to boost rolls?


Still, I had a LOT of fun playing two small games. Can't wait to play larger 2000+pt battles!

dtjunkie19
16-04-2009, 10:07
-Yes. Magic != shooting.

-No I believe not

-Since its vague, I would just say one person declares and the other then declares afterward. Simple and effective and they way we've been handling it in my games.

krashreed
16-04-2009, 13:45
1) The use of the word "hit" where other games would generally use "wound" can be very confusing. It seems to have even confused the writers. For example, roll a 3-5 on the artillery table, and "the target suffers D6 hits at the siege engine's strength". But if it uses the game's definition of "hit", you don't need to use the strength value, because a hit is a wound. What I'm pretty sure they mean is that you make D6 rolls "to hit" using the siege engine's strength. Very poorly phrased, in an otherwise rather well-written book.?

Actually, I don't understand the confusion here. I think the problem is most of the readers are equating WOTR to Fantasy. In WOTR if your roll according to the STR/DEF chart is equal/greater than what is required it is in fact a hit. The hit doesn't become a wound until you have more hits than what is required by the RESILIENCE. So for most infantry yes a hit does equal a wound but on larger creatures it takes two hits. With this in mind I think the writers were spot on, in their usage of hits and wounds. Anyhow, just my two cents.

Sarah S
16-04-2009, 15:57
You are not talking about the same problem.

Look at what you quoted by Odin.

The artillery rules say "The target formation suffers D6 HITS at the siege engine's strength."

Or any of the offensive spells such as tremor "...every formation within range suffers D6+3 Strength 6 HITS."

If they have a strength, and you have to roll to hit using that strength, then they aren't hits yet, they're just ATTACKS, but GW mistakenly calls them hits.

If they were hits, then the strength of the spells and artillery and whatnot would not matter because you would just compare the number inflicted to the target's resilience and start removing guys.

They used "hit" improperly in these instances.

CplHicks
16-04-2009, 23:06
IŽd like to see a clarification on the turning issue, too. Just to make sure. In real life, it is well possible to turn such a formation on the spot if the back simply becomes the new front which is mostly fine as long as e.g. the weaponry is homogeneous.

I need to check p. 25 about the front always stays the front. If that is the case, you cannot simply turn the models in the tray but have to at least change the position of the corners on the spot which is about 5 inches. I personally prefer the just pivot the miniatures variant.

Sarah S
16-04-2009, 23:54
The diagrams on page 32 make it pretty clear.

Imagine that the company of Warg riders had, instead of turning approximately 20 degrees had turned 180. That would be perfectly legitimate.

Turning counts for nothing. Final position is all that matters.

Also note that command companies are automatically pushed to the front without using movement whenever it finishes any action - see page 60.