PDA

View Full Version : FAQ is here!!!!!



ForgottenLore
06-05-2010, 09:01
Thanks to Osbad on the One Ring for pointing this out

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=10500005a&start=2

To summarize some major points

An about face costs no movement

Glorfindel can move 12"

Thrown weapons do not have long range modifier

Terror does transfer to formation

Casualties from duel DO apply to victory

ES works in duels (though I still fail to see how you activate it for the duel)

Having the Witch King "behind" you does not mean rear arc (I don't know what it DOES mean now)

3 1/2 pages of FAQ. A few Surprises in there

No discussion of counselors.
Big issue is obviously ES in duels, but they don't address how it applies sadly.


I was honestly expecting this to come out soon, but not till after Battlehosts was released. Great timing though. I just finished my last final exam and an hour later a WotR FAQ is put up. What a great reward for finishing my schoolwork.

Steam_Giant
06-05-2010, 09:05
about bloody time !

and......... the Epic strike argument is resolved.

At least they admit it will be a WIP document, plenty still to be addresssed im sure

- V -
06-05-2010, 09:42
Except for what is allowed in duals, I agree with most of the rulings, however what are your take on these two?

Q. Can Gollum move to different formations as the game
goes on?
A. Yes, subject to the normal rules for Epic Heroes.
So he has to be moved to a friendly formation? Not really sure you are interested in that. (same with Grima)

Q. In the Witch-king’s ‘Shadow of Terror’ special rule does
‘somewhere behind it’ mean somewhere in the model’s
rear arc?
A. No.
What the **** does it then mean?

ForgottenLore
06-05-2010, 09:46
Yeah, I caught those too.

Grima and Gollum I am fine with assuming they mean to other enemy formations.

I have ----ABSOLUTELY---------NO---------IDEA---------how to use the Witch King now.

HRM
06-05-2010, 09:50
I have ----ABSOLUTELY---------NO---------IDEA---------how to use the Witch King now.

It probably means literally anywhere behind the model, even if 4 feet away. Think of a lateral in (American) football.

- V -
06-05-2010, 09:53
I also assume that it was their intention, that Gollum and Grima should be able to move between enemy formations. However that is not what the rules say. Hoping they update this soon...

- V -
06-05-2010, 09:55
@HRM: Yeah that is also about the only other thing that I can think off that would be a possible solution.

Enfid
06-05-2010, 09:56
Oh bugger. My captains will most likely be due for slaughtering from duels then :( Still, I'm not too worried as the might point will dry up quickly (1 for duel and 1 for ES just for one unit) What I'm worried about is the infinite might counselors which might just negate wise use of Might, and that has not been addressed.

And from this FAQ, this means the Ringwraiths are now even more undercosted!

ForgottenLore
06-05-2010, 09:58
OK, even I wasn't going to start clamoring for an updated FAQ this soon.;)

I was going to wait until tomorrow.

I figure with the witch king, they must mean directly perpendicularly to the rear, can't be slightly offset but still in the rear arc.

No, they could also mean between the formation and and the formation's table edge, regardless of facing. That is not the way ANYONE plays it, but that could be what they mean. Would make Maelstrom of Battle deployment problematic though.

Enfid
06-05-2010, 10:09
Perpendicular to the formation to the rear seems just about right, though playing on very long tables can lead to awkward looking ruling.

ForgottenLore
06-05-2010, 10:14
If that is how it works, then since you will be guaranteed the At the Double roll you can simply rotate each unit at the end of its first move so that the stationary Witch King is directly behind them.

Your enemy can do the same to avoid the penalty, though I guess you could use that to discourage some facings and there is always the possibility that he will fail the roll anyway and be facing the wrong way then. Seems like and incredibly meta-game way to rule the ability though.

Nu Fenix
06-05-2010, 11:20
The first thing I noticed is that Black Guard are Strength 5, not Strength 4! I have no idea where that came from, but becoming Strength 7 or 9 from Berserk isn't something I will say no to!

On the whole, the rest of it seems to be how I interpretted the rules, although being told that a company can turn 180 without cost is very good to know, and what I have been doing with the agreement of everyone anyway.

Hellfury
06-05-2010, 11:47
Good or bad (along with some even more confusing answers ala witchking and grima/gollum) at least we have some official answers so we have an even playing field.

Fixing the issues can now come later when feedback is given since we all know what to expect instead of guessing (even if the guesses are more educated than what GW has answered as).

Regardless, a very timely release since we just started our escalation league a week ago and the battlehosts book is on sale at midnight tonight.

ForgottenLore
06-05-2010, 11:49
Shouldn't battle hosts be on sale at midnight tomorrow? The release date is the 8th.

Hellfury
06-05-2010, 12:01
Heh. I know of a gondor player who is going to be miffed at the court of the dead king's errata increasing the points as it should be, since it is cheaper to take them with all their bells and whistles than an equal sized army of the dead listing.

darkened sun
06-05-2010, 12:13
The FAQ took soo long, too long.

Alot of weird stuff cleared up like whether you have to take a test after you wipe out the enemy but lose the combat. I remember some people arguing about that (online).

Some of the stats changes are pretty shocking, ST5 Black Guard... as if their strength wasn't high enough already with bezerk, strength from corruption, and the +1 S fate if you took it.

Court of the Dead King are pretty useless now, not worth taking except in *massive* games.

Anyway, this FAQ is very good for the game, especially for tournament umpires and the like. Bit of a shocker that the counsellor loop wasn't mentioned, but it shouldn't be allowed anyway by house rules.

Midloo
06-05-2010, 14:37
All in all my initial impressions of the FAQ were very positive. Most of the rulings are applied with common sense. I like the snarky tone they take in their FAQs - almost like they are reminding folks, "it's a game! Just enjoy and remember that you are not a supreme court justice."

Golum and Grima does seem a bit vague with the reference to "as normal", but the sensible answer seems to be that they can move into other enemy formations.

The Witch King on the other hand... hmmmm... well... I understand they can't get into a philosophical discussion regarding positioning, but seems like a bit of a copout. I'll bet they wished that rule just didn't exist. It's open to abuse no matter how they intended it to be played.

Here's hoping that, after waiting a year for a good FAQ, they aren't bluffing when they say it will be updated as needed. I have a feeling the community's definition of "need" and GW's might be a bit different ;)

Reinholt
06-05-2010, 14:51
The only thing I don't like is Epic Strike in duels, after a quick read-through.

I have a feeling you are going to be seeing a lot of "counts-as" heroes in other lists now, or just heroes thrown in totally out of place because, unless you house rule it, it's such a decisive action that you can't play and have a reasonable shot at winning without it.

Sad that now, for instance, my main opponent will be running an Isengard list with Durburz, a Ringwraith, and Dalamyr as allies...

This is going to produce some very strange lists.

Sedge
06-05-2010, 14:55
I like the majority of it but it would have been better if they'd cleared up the order of declairing Epic actions. Do they stack like Heroic actions? Could you get Epic Dueled before the epic strike takes effect (I hate ES in duels). Can you pounce on Radagast unit before his tranquility takes effect? Still so many questions.

Avatar of the Eldar
06-05-2010, 15:19
My 2 cents:

I'm against ES in duels but my group will revisit our decision to house-rule against it. I think we will stand by our modification.

I don't think the Gollum/Grima rule is at all unclear. Start of move, hop to any (in this case enemy) formation within 18" like other Epic Heroes.

Yeah, the Witch King rule. It seems to me gaming groups have a choice here:
impose house rule clarity (eg within the formations back "charge arc") or, as long as the WK is behind the evil lines, the whole line benefits and visa-versa behind good lines.

Implications of that:

- The house rule I reference (and we use) above means the Witch King can "drive" more units the further back from the battle line he moves. Which does force a trade off of advancing more formations or being within spell range. (Remember, you can move the formations he effects - how ever you decide that - then move WK down the line to effect (most) of the rest) like in the recent WD batrep)

- On the other hand, if "behind" means anywhere behind the lines, this does simulate what I understood from my reading of Tolkein: The WK's presence "behind the lines" drives the whole army but not when he's off terrorizing the other side. And when he's over there, his presence is pretty much felt through that army. But that would free Mordor from buying Captains to make "at the double" rolls. But then their Courage is even suckier. Still that's a lot of points freed up by purchasing just WK on FB.

- One third variant might be to arbitrarily decide a radius like 24". That would prevent flying off to a safe corner of the opponents deployment zone and jacking up the entire 6' - 8' battle line.

How do you all play it?

Hellfury
06-05-2010, 15:33
How do you all play it?

I prefer the definition of:
In a place or condition that has been passed or left

So if the WK is on the left side of the field 6 inches from your table edge, but the rest of the army is one the right side of the field 8 inches from the table ledge, the WK is behind the rest of the army and the rest of the army thus benefits from the WK's special rules.

Its only as complicated as people want to make it. I prefer simple, hasslefree interpretation as opposed to agonizing over it in an attempt to get the 'correct' interpretation and lose track of what the hell we were doing in the first place..

Midloo
06-05-2010, 15:44
The only thing I don't like is Epic Strike in duels, after a quick read-through.

I have a feeling you are going to be seeing a lot of "counts-as" heroes in other lists now, or just heroes thrown in totally out of place because, unless you house rule it, it's such a decisive action that you can't play and have a reasonable shot at winning without it.

Sad that now, for instance, my main opponent will be running an Isengard list with Durburz, a Ringwraith, and Dalamyr as allies...

This is going to produce some very strange lists.

Yeah... but it seems you play with a lot of optimizers. Maybe it's because we're a smaller community where I am, but if anyone brought a list like that, folks would probably have a giggle. I know I've personally played a couple of games with folks like that in the hope that by bludgeoning me with their OTT nonsense, they might learn that it's not that much fun. Maybe they'd even bring a more sensible list next time.

If folks come to the table looking to have fun and not to spam ES, it's not a big deal.

Hellfury
06-05-2010, 15:47
If folks come to the table looking to have fun and not to spam ES, it's not a big deal.

Word. Agreed.

Reinholt
06-05-2010, 16:03
Agreed up to the point that some armies are clearly built for it and don't offer nearly so much choice... take Gondor and the Fallen Realms.

Suladan, Dalamyr, and Amdur, as well as all of the Ringwraiths, have Epic Strike. Their only leaders that do not are the Gold King and Beruthiel. Similarly for Gondor, unless you are taking a hobbit or a legendary formation, you are getting Epic Strike.

Conversely, Rohan's only choice to get Epic Strike is Eomer. So what you end up with is casual games being determined by someone's choice of army, which doesn't make much sense.

I've seen a game between a local Isengard player (who brought ugluk and vrashku) and a local Gondor player (who brought Imrahil). The key fight of the game, where two big units collided in the middle (swan knights against armored uruk hai) was ruined by this very rule when, after clipping Ugluk's formation, an Epic Strike + Heroic Duel against Ugluk killed Ug and 12 uruk hai before the combat began, leading to a rout.

This was the game that caused us to start using the "No ES in duels" house rule, as it followed right on the heels of my using Buhrdur to slaughter Floi and a unit of dwarves in similar fashion.

So the problem with that in "fun" games is that some lists are pre-optimized to have a lot of Epic Strike while others are not. Without the allies rule, and with allowing ES in duels, I would argue the game is actually unbalanced heavily between armies. This, I think, is why you are going to see a lot of this.

ForgottenLore
06-05-2010, 16:17
My guess is that my group will now insist on at least trying the game with epic strike, which is OK, but my hope is that I will be able to convince them fairly soon that a house rule for unmodified fight in duels is the way to go.

If I get around to organizing a tourney that is a rule I will put into place.

You know, I play a moria army and I didn't even realize that Durburz had ES. (OK, I haven't played it a lot, but still)

Hellfury, so the Witch King is "behind" your army in that situation, even if your formations are turned around he is in their front arc? Just trying to clarify.

With the ES ruling now, I think adding a Stone Giant to my army just got bumped up in importance.

Reinholt
06-05-2010, 16:23
Durburz is actually the most efficient ES+HD delivery system in the game for the points. Thrydan, Suladan, Boromir, Faramir, and Aragorn all make the list as well.

This is part of the problem with the ruling; the best ES characters can do it 2-3 times per game, and being able to do that matters quite a bit. If you don't have them in your list or can't ally them in, it will have a very material negative impact on you compared to other lists that can. I think this ruling does a lot to harm friendly gaming as a result, as I don't want a "banned" list that is 25 models deep just to play a friendly game.

Hellfury
06-05-2010, 16:25
Hellfury, so the Witch King is "behind" your army in that situation, even if your formations are turned around he is in their front arc? Just trying to clarify.

Er...no...because then when the unit is facing the witchking to their front, he is no longer behind them.

Hellfury
06-05-2010, 16:28
This is part of the problem with the ruling; the best ES characters can do it 2-3 times per game, and being able to do that matters quite a bit. If you don't have them in your list or can't ally them in, it will have a very material negative impact on you compared to other lists that can. I think this ruling does a lot to harm friendly gaming as a result, as I don't want a "banned" list that is 25 models deep just to play a friendly game.

Who needs to ban anything when you discuss with your opponent before the game what you both expect from it. Two reasonable people trying to have fun should be able to do that.

Dont want to play overly powerful stuff? Agree to either not take heros with ES or agree not to use the ES in a duel.

Its the beauty of a FAQ. It gives you a guideline to play, not hard fast rules. That is relegated to errata.

ForgottenLore
06-05-2010, 17:03
Er...no...because then when the unit is facing the witchking to their front, he is no longer behind them.

OK, it sounded like you were saying that as long as the Witch king is closer to your table edge than the formation he is "behind" them.

My next guess, which I had not considered before, is that you are extending the rear edge of the formation straight out to the formation's left and right and that as long as the WK is on the correct side of that line he is "behind". sort of an extended rear arc. Is that right?

Gee, I hadn't even considered that when they said it wasn't the rear arc they meant that the rear arc was too restrictive, I assumed the intent was to limit the ability more than that.


Hey GW! We need a FAQ on the FAQ!!!

With ES, I am concerned about overlords being used to call the heroic duels so that the ESers can be used even more often.

Avatar of the Eldar
06-05-2010, 18:18
Er...no...because then when the unit is facing the witchking to their front, he is no longer behind them.

Here I would say that an about-faced unit (now generally facing the WK parked behind the lines) would not get to AUTOMATICALLY "at the double" to the rear, but could roll for it with a captain or EH in the formation.

I think the obvious intention is that dread of the Witch King provides "tail wind" to move away from him and towards the enemy, where otherwise low courage orcs would be balky and dodgy.

Midloo
06-05-2010, 18:41
Well I've played the game both ways. I'd like to think that if GW is going to say ES works in duels, then they've already written the rules in a way that there is a natural foil to its effect in armies that don't have many ES heroes. Regardless, Just last week I saw a F5 character duel an ESd F10 wraith. Good hero got +1 for calling the duel, evil rolled a 3, good rolled a 5, and evil won by 2. Two rolls were made on the table and a couple of troops died... not a big deal, but that wraith now had no might points.

Maybe a poor example, but there are so many nutty, killy, things in the game, I personally don't see a huge difference between games with ES in duels and those without, but again - no one in my hometown is looking to play in tournaments. I try to actively discourage the arms-races that occur when one player starts to bring 3+ wraiths in a 1000 list, or puts counselors in a unit with Radagast, or puts the Betrayer in a unit of Arbalesters, or Gimli with Aragorn, etc etc etc... We just like the LotR world.

I think it's going to be more fun to game in it now that there's a FAQ that at least baselines some of the concerns of the community. However, despite whatever the official FAQ says, it's great to have house rules in place that keep your group coming back for more!

Reinholt
06-05-2010, 18:43
Who needs to ban anything when you discuss with your opponent before the game what you both expect from it. Two reasonable people trying to have fun should be able to do that.

Dont want to play overly powerful stuff? Agree to either not take heros with ES or agree not to use the ES in a duel.

Its the beauty of a FAQ. It gives you a guideline to play, not hard fast rules. That is relegated to errata.

Agreed minus the difficulties of pickup games and tournaments that this creates.

I'd prefer not to have to have a totally unfluffy, hard-edged tournament style list that I have handy for games where people want to use ES. I will have one, and I'll beat them savagely with it, in a frothing rage over the fact that they would prefer to be cheese-mongering troglodytes, of course.

;)

I just prefer the "official" rules to be coherent and fair; if GW is going to sell me a rulebook, it should probably justify the price. If I wanted to write a game myself, I could have already done that!

Midloo
06-05-2010, 18:58
I just prefer the "official" rules to be coherent and fair; if GW is going to sell me a rulebook, it should probably justify the price. If I wanted to write a game myself, I could have already done that!

Yeah agreed here... I guess it's a delicate balance between burdening the official rules with tons of minutea and asking players to come to gentlemenly agreements, write their own house rules, etc.

I'm always excited to play some WotR, but actually seeing a document in black and white pixels that I never thought would see the glow of a monitor has me really fired me up to get in some games. Hope my group feels the same... and we've got some nice new plastic kits on the way to stores now.

Give me a kick-back GW, I sound like a damned commercial!

Paraelix
06-05-2010, 19:40
The first thing I noticed is that Black Guard are Strength 5, not Strength 4! I have no idea where that came from, but becoming Strength 7 or 9 from Berserk isn't something I will say no to!

On the whole, the rest of it seems to be how I interpretted the rules, although being told that a company can turn 180 without cost is very good to know, and what I have been doing with the agreement of everyone anyway.

Black Guard. F-Yes. Those guys are even hotter than before... And I was already considering using those boys in my Mordor force :D

Sedge
06-05-2010, 19:58
Black Guard with S5!
Man they were almost too good with strength 4. I think they just made a great choice into a no brainer

Xelee
06-05-2010, 20:18
I stoked there is a FAQ. I haven't read it yet, because I am on the run but re: the Epic Strike thing - for me the issue has never been the legality and I think those that want it out of duels purely because it skews lists have a sufficiently strong arugment that it can stand on its own merits.

Nu Fenix
06-05-2010, 20:29
Is it wrong that I want to buy another three companies of Black Guard?
Or would people want to hurt me?

Reinholt
06-05-2010, 20:55
Is it wrong that I want to buy another three companies of Black Guard?
Or would people want to hurt me?

Like we don't already!

;)

My view: For gloves-off competitive play, go for it. But don't do it with friends.

Gaargod
07-05-2010, 12:50
urgh, Black Guard are all kinds of hideous. D7 S7 troops for 15pts more than uruk hai (with stalwart, no less), yes please!


Still, the FAQ didn't address two problems:

Can you ally good stuff with an evil army (personally, no. But... well i won't call him a friend as he's actually rather irritating... argues that you can. Despite the fact anyone have any level of english can clearly see you're not meant to. Git just wants to field stone giants with dwarves).

What order do epic/heroic actions go in. WHat order are they declared in? I.e. can someone quickly declare an epic fight to avoid the ES+duel combo?

Glabro
07-05-2010, 13:38
and......... the Epic strike argument is resolved.



Well, I don't think many people were under the illusion that RAW and RAI supported ES in duels - it's just the retarded design aspect of it combined with the confusion on activation that people played without it.

Personally, I'll wait for the second edition of the game as the first one is too broken (=broken enough that it doesn't justify me spending so much more per army than 40k or even Fantasy to start it). I guess I could hawk the first ed rulebook still to someone?

Hellfury
07-05-2010, 14:08
OK, it sounded like you were saying that as long as the Witch king is closer to your table edge than the formation he is "behind" them.

My next guess, which I had not considered before, is that you are extending the rear edge of the formation straight out to the formation's left and right and that as long as the WK is on the correct side of that line he is "behind". sort of an extended rear arc. Is that right?

Gee, I hadn't even considered that when they said it wasn't the rear arc they meant that the rear arc was too restrictive, I assumed the intent was to limit the ability more than that.

Hey GW! We need a FAQ on the FAQ!!!

I think its more of a matter of visualization within the mind rather than a FAQ for a FAQ. But yes if I read you correctly then thats how I see it.

I will let the following illustrate my point since a picture is supposedly worth a thousand words. (and because I REALLY hate typing.)

If the following diagram is assumed to be true:
(see attachment: WK Example 1)

Then the following diagram must also be true:
(see attachment: WK Example 2)
(Also, note how the upper most formation is still to the right of the WK, but the WK is still in the area "behind" it)

This is how I interpret the Witchking being behind a unit. Its relative to the position of formations, not the board.

edit to add add these as file attachments instead of linking to photobucket.

ForgottenLore
07-05-2010, 14:24
Yes, that is what I thought you were saying.

That is a much more liberal interpretation of "behind" than I had been thinking. When they said it wasn't the rear arc I assumed they were trying to limit the ability. That the rear arc definition allowed the ability to be used in too many circumstances. YOu expanded the ability to make it even more applicable.

Now I don't have any idea what was intended or how it is expected to be played.

Hellfury
07-05-2010, 14:31
Now I don't have any idea what was intended or how it is expected to be played.

Seriously?

Q. In the Witch-king’s ‘Shadow of Terror’ special rule does
‘somewhere behind it’ mean somewhere in the model’s
rear arc?
A. No. It's usually obvious if the Witch-king is ‘behind’
another formation. In case of doubt, the players should
use common sense

So from this we glean that:

The WK doesnt have to be in the rear arc
It only has to be 'behind' the formation


I think the illustration pretty clearly shows what is behind something and what isn't.

While I agree that they could have delineated it better and not relied on the assumption that the reader has a good sense of visualizing geometry, I think its pretty clear what was intended and how it should be played.

Midloo
07-05-2010, 14:38
Personally, I'll wait for the second edition of the game as the first one is too broken (=broken enough that it doesn't justify me spending so much more per army than 40k or even Fantasy to start it). I guess I could hawk the first ed rulebook still to someone?

*scratches head* Really? I don't see how WotR is more cost-prohibitive than WHF or 40k. If you are working with the plastic kits, you can get a formation of 3 companies for less than $30.

The popularity of the big three goes:
1. 40k
2. WHF
3. WotR

It seems GW is pretty well aware of this as, IMO, the pricing from most to least expensive is:
1. 40k
2. WHF
3. WotR

Sure the rules need to grow up a bit, but I think the current ruleset is a heckuva great start. It's a fun game to play. Even without a 2nd edition, a few years of play will help create some standards in the game and iron out some issues. We also now have a FAQ that addressed many of the more glaring problems and misprintings. I don't think we need a 500+ page rulebook like WHF is getting this year! Keep the rules streamlined and focused and let players make decisions on some of the more esoteric issues that you would run into in any game (as is suggested at the beginning of the WotR rulebook... 4+ an issue)

Nu Fenix
07-05-2010, 15:03
Like we don't already!

;)

My view: For gloves-off competitive play, go for it. But don't do it with friends.

Always nice to feel loved Reinholt ;)

Considering that locally many of them like playing powerful lists, including an Ent and Elrond in a 1k Elf list, or three Trolls, three Ringwraiths and a Fellbeast for a 1500 Mordor list, another formation of Black Guard shouldn't bother many of them. That and the fact I use masses of infantry means they may sneak in without being noticed...

ForgottenLore
07-05-2010, 15:05
(=broken enough that it doesn't justify me spending so much more per army than 40k or even Fantasy to start it)

WHAT????

A WotR army is like less than half the price of a 40K army.

I've spent seversl thousand dollars over the years on my Tau, $500 has got me 2 very playable armies for WotR.

It's WAY cheaper than warhammer. That's one of its main selling points.

As for "broken". The FAQ GW just released is 3.5 pages.

I could probably add another 3. Let's be generous though and say 8 total pages of WotR FAQ

WotR FAQ - core rules and 10 army lists - 8 pages (including player additions)
40K FAQ - core rules and 10 army lists - 23-31 pages, depending on what armies you count
WFB FAQ - core rules and 10 army lists - 43-60 pages

and people are saying it's WotR that's "broken"!!!!?????

Midloo
07-05-2010, 15:20
WotR FAQ - core rules and 10 army lists - 8 pages
40K FAQ - core rules and 10 army lists - 23-31 pages, depending on what armies you count
WFB FAQ - core rules and 10 army lists - 43-60 pages

and people are saying it's WotR that's "broken"!!!!?????

Good point!

And that's part of the effect I'm talking about. I think it's kind of a shame when rules-lawyers take things to the extreme and demand FAQs of the length of WHF and 40k... (well... a lot of the issue with WHF and 40k is also that there are so dern many special rules spread out over too many army books) Who wants a rules system to turn into a judicial review with subsections and footnotes and blah blah blah??? WHF and 40k do what they do and that's great, but the rules have gotten kind of bloated over the years (WHF especially). I personally would hate for the WotR rules to get belabored and full of technicalities.

Also - the other big two have been around so long that years of play has created standard resolutions to certain rules issues - they are just understood as being resolved in a particular way by the community. WotR will get there too.

Hellfury
07-05-2010, 15:26
WotR FAQ - core rules and 10 army lists - 8 pages
40K FAQ - core rules and 10 army lists - 23-31 pages, depending on what armies you count
WFB FAQ - core rules and 10 army lists - 43-60 pages

and people are saying it's WotR that's "broken"!!!!?????

Just because its worth quoting a second time. :cool:

[edit]Though to be fair, it can be as expensive if not considerably more so to collect a WotR army than the other-two-which-shall-not-be-named. Its pretty relative.

Example being those metal models which are the bane and goal of many who play WotR. $15 for three plebeians? What the hell are they made of? Gold mined directly from Jervis Johnson's rosey red virgin butt? :D

Durins Guard:
1 blister of Durin & Mardin $20
1 Blister of Dwarf Command for the banner $15
3 boxes of Balins Guard (for the 24 Khazad Guard you will need) $120
= $155 for three company formation of...dwarves! :eek:
And you still need to convert your own hornblower. (I think its fun, but many people expect a model to be made by GW)

Granted you can make your own banner so the cost is somewhat reduced, but I think this is a typical example of how expensive the game can get if taken to the point of getting ultra specialized stuff.

I played a guy in kentucky last year who had an all khandish army. Great theme...but he sure did pay for it. Likewise, the owner of Tower Games here in Minneapolis is doing an all metal goblin army for WotR...now thats just crazy. Good thing he gets a good discount on his models for his own army...

fracas
07-05-2010, 15:28
FB and 40k have issues with each codex/army books as these give the said army some sort of exception from the core rules. with each codex/army book it gets murkier and murkier.

the problem with WotR lies more in its core mechanics rules. while a good set, there are sill bugs not addressed in the FAQ.

ForgottenLore
07-05-2010, 15:35
Yeah, but that is always going to be the case, and mostof the bugs in WotR are fairly minor and easy to work out with your opponent (or by a tourney organizer in advance).

ES in duels has been more or less settled
Counselors has a simple house rule fix that pretty much everyone who plays can see the need for.

Everything else is all fairly minor tweaks, which is AMAZING for a brand new rules set and completely, off the charts unlikely for something from GW. But they did it.

MarkofKhorne
07-05-2010, 19:53
IThis is how I interpret the Witchking being behind a unit. Its relative to the position of formations, not the board.

Yep. Just ask one simple question. If the Witchking charged the formation by the shortest distance possible, would he be charging the rear? If, so then he's pretty much guarenteed to be behind the formation.

ForgottenLore
07-05-2010, 20:11
Except that is what they just ruled against

you charge into the arc you started the charge in but gw just said that behind does not mean rear arc

hellfurys way behind also means portions of the side arcs

IllidanStormrage
07-05-2010, 20:38
good that they released before battle hosts!

Xelee
07-05-2010, 20:45
Well the 'not rear arc but behind' ruling did clear up the situation with monsters.

Hellfury
07-05-2010, 20:59
hellfurys way behind also means portions of the side arcs
(not directed at you FL, just using your post to illustrate)

I think it is much simpler to understand if people just stop talking about side or rear arcs. It has nothing whatsoever to do with arcs.

Its either behind or it isn't. I don't know how to explain this in a fashion that is easier to understand.

Hellfury
07-05-2010, 21:00
Well the 'not rear arc but behind' ruling did clear up the situation with monsters.

What situation? Did I miss something?

Xelee
07-05-2010, 21:59
What situation? Did I miss something?

When people were talking about arcs, it only encouraged a certain type of player to point out what the rules say about monsters.

fracas
07-05-2010, 22:40
WK: my take

draw a line where the WK is, perpendicular to the one between you and your opponent deployment zone. any units forward of this line the WK is behind.

Hellfury
07-05-2010, 23:14
WK: my take

draw a line where the WK is, perpendicular to the one between you and your opponent deployment zone. any units forward of this line the WK is behind.

So using you example if the WK's own units are facing the WK, the WK is still behind them?

Spiney Norman
07-05-2010, 23:32
Well, now at least we know, heroic duels are officially shafted, rather than just notionally shafted.

Epic strike and failed terror are both taken into account for Fight modifications in the duel.

So to summarise; heroes without ES are auto brown bread (prob along with most of his formation) whenever they duel a hero with ES and the good side "inner glory" bomb does work. Makes me wonder if there really is any point in fielding a combat hero that doesn't have ES...

Its kinda funny, because when I read the answer to the "do pikes affect the hero's F skill" question I was hopeful when I read the words "Except in heroic duels where they use their basic Fight Value"

Mat Ward uses his last might point on an EPIC FAIL

destroyerlord
08-05-2010, 00:59
Mat Ward uses his last might point on an EPIC FAIL
That was so full of win right there. You just made my day. :D

fracas
08-05-2010, 01:22
So using you example if the WK's own units are facing the WK, the WK is still behind them?

why would any mordor units be dumb enough to face the WK rather than the enemy?
for stupidity i would say they gain nothing from the WK except scorn and pain

Hellfury
08-05-2010, 01:35
why would any mordor units be dumb enough to face the WK rather than the enemy?
for stupidity i would say they gain nothing from the WK except scorn and pain

Well first of all it was a question that could have been simply answered with a yes or no.

Secondly, many reasons. Do You think you're the only one who is wanting to be in the enemy deployment zone? Thats right, you now have the enemy in your face. Are you going to continue facing the opponents board edge when you could just turn around and get a rear charge against the enemy formation?

Does it seem so stupid now?

If you answered yes to one or more of these questions I think I can safely disregard your opinion about how WK ability works.

fracas
08-05-2010, 10:46
you are free to disregard anyone opinion you want. we all can. :rolleyes:

the faq now does not limit the wk ability to within the rear arc, yet it still limit it to "behind". together I take it to mean side arc works as long as the unit faces the enemy deployment zone and ahead of the wk's "line".
yes it would be lovely to on the double back to face an enemy in your own deployment zone but then all abilities have limits.
it is fear of the witch king that drive them foward, not his will.

dtjunkie19
08-05-2010, 13:26
Well, now at least we know, heroic duels are officially shafted, rather than just notionally shafted.

Epic strike and failed terror are both taken into account for Fight modifications in the duel.

So to summarise; heroes without ES are auto brown bread (prob along with most of his formation) whenever they duel a hero with ES and the good side "inner glory" bomb does work. Makes me wonder if there really is any point in fielding a combat hero that doesn't have ES...

Its kinda funny, because when I read the answer to the "do pikes affect the hero's F skill" question I was hopeful when I read the words "Except in heroic duels where they use their basic Fight Value"

Mat Ward uses his last might point on an EPIC FAIL

agreed. WOTR took a big hit here. Can't wait until they try a tournament and it is completely not fun.

Reinholt
08-05-2010, 22:26
Just played my first game of war of the ring after the FAQ came out.

Characters without Epic Strike on the battlefield? Zero.

Coincidence? I think not.

HRM
09-05-2010, 01:10
Just played my first game of war of the ring after the FAQ came out.

Characters without Epic Strike on the battlefield? Zero.

Coincidence? I think not.

As a Rohan player, this kinda sucks - I only have one dude with ES, and I wasn't even planning on including him in my initial 1,000-point army.

- V -
09-05-2010, 01:33
That's why the ruling sucks... You may call it balanced in saying everyone has access to it, but I think that it is driving the game in the game in the wrong direction, if forces "choices" upon your army list creation, in addition to the unbalancing of each "race" access to it. Leave it at home, it ruins the game.

dtjunkie19
09-05-2010, 02:34
Not a fan of the ES ruling.

Got a call from a player asking me to play WotR today at the store...told him I didn't feel like it. Normally I'd jump for a chance to haul my large rings collection into the store.

However I do think otherwise, the FAQ was decent (the WK ruling is confusing as well, and some issues weren't properly addressed). But overall not bad, and sooner then I was expecting.

malisteen
09-05-2010, 02:47
I'm really confused as to what 'behind' means now, since 'back arc' and 'closer to board edge' both could conceivably work, but the former is not faq'd as not the case, and the latter doesn't work with all scenarios.

Oh, well. whatev's.

I'm hoping for a new version of this game in the next year or so. I like WotR, but it's buggy as all get out.

Another thing not addressed: there are a number of things in the game that cause some number of strength X hits: like the mumak which causes "D3 Strength 7" hits if it was charged, or "D3 Strength 9" hits if it did the charging. Are those automatic hits? If so, why list the strength? If not, then the wording is all wrong. That that issue crops up in several places, where the writers seemed to get their wires crossed with WHFB.....

HRM
09-05-2010, 11:03
Another thing not addressed: there are a number of things in the game that cause some number of strength X hits: like the mumak which causes "D3 Strength 7" hits if it was charged, or "D3 Strength 9" hits if it did the charging. Are those automatic hits? If so, why list the strength? If not, then the wording is all wrong. That that issue crops up in several places, where the writers seemed to get their wires crossed with WHFB.....

I was wondering about this myself.

KaldCB
09-05-2010, 16:26
As it have 3 different strength attacks, it should be obvious that you have to roll to hit.
Just use attacks instead of hits and your good to go.

malisteen
09-05-2010, 19:19
Yeah, but that's the kind of thing that should get errata or FAQ, as I've had more then one Fallen Realms player argue that 'hits means hits', and other then appeals to rai there's no good argument back. Since, after all, hits does mean hits in LotR, and automatic hits are very specifically defined.

Orangecoke
09-05-2010, 21:21
The thing that basically stopped us from playing (a long while ago) was we couldn't agree within our group if you could perform more than one heroic or epic action per turn or per phase. I'm kinda surprised this wasn't brought up in the FAQ at all. Disappointed really.

ForgottenLore
09-05-2010, 22:43
I have encountered that question once before. I am really not sure where the confusion lies. There is nothing in the book to suggest that you can't blow all your might at once if you want to.

There is nothing that says you can't call the SAME action multiple times in a row either, and I think that is actually an issue with some abilities.

Orangecoke
09-05-2010, 23:20
It's true, it's not in the book but people in my group seemed to find the wording vague in terms of "you can spend might to perform an epic action" or whatever. It has been a long time so my memory is fuzzy, but basically they found doing more than one a phase/turn seemed OP and felt the wording was ambiguous. Ultimately, because we couldnt agree the group ended up not really playing anymore (not due to animosity, but it just wasnt fun with that much lack of clarity in the rules).

fracas
10-05-2010, 00:35
Ultimately, because we couldnt agree the group ended up not really playing anymore (not due to animosity, but it just wasnt fun with that much lack of clarity in the rules).

this happened to us as well
we might try it again with the battlehost and the FAQ

silashand
10-05-2010, 00:58
Mat Ward uses his last might point on an EPIC FAIL

Nice. That's a win if I've ever seen one :D.

I must say I have to agree though about the Epic Strike ruling. Pretty stupid overall since it will do absolutely nothing but promote lists that actually run contrary to the LotR background.

I also have to say the ruling on character special rules such as bane, etc. seems pretty idiotic as well. I will never understand the reasoning for including rules that serve no purpose in the game. IMO if they are there they should be used. If they are not supposed to be used they should not be there.

Cheers, Gary

warlorddrax
10-05-2010, 09:58
for those of you that complain about not having ES in your army, you can always ally heroes with ES if you really want to.

and if it pisses you off that much than you have 2 options. 1 stick with the common house-rule of no ES in duels. OR use a Shade or 2 to nullify it so that its useless anyways. i'm reasonably sure that goblin captains + shade + duels VS most epics = win

personally, i am just really happy to see the court of the dead king get that points cost typo fixed. i was really annoyed that the good guys get better ghosts for cheaper than my all ghost Angmar army does... that ruling makes me happy!


same with the Shade ruling, i am really happy about it... the people at my LGW were just about to declare that ES bypasses the shade, which would really suck because my army has no ES in it, unless i tun Ghulivar... (ES always worked in duels over there, i've lost entire units to it...)

- V -
10-05-2010, 10:46
for those of you that complain about not having ES in your army, you can always ally heroes with ES if you really want to.Well what if you want a themed army? Or don't like to have "choices" forced upon you, as it is clearly unbalanced. The intention for Heroes in WoTR was to make them upgrades, and therefore not as important as the formation they are in, this ruling is drawing the game in another direction, a term also known as Herohammer, which I find a very stupid move.



and if it pisses you off that much than you have 2 options. 1 stick with the common house-rule of no ES in duels. The point is that it is now clearly a house rule, and not a way to understand the rules, what I mean is that tournaments and pick up games, will have ES in duals as a default, something I still believe is very bad for the game.



OR use a Shade or 2 to nullify it so that its useless anyways. i'm reasonably sure that goblin captains + shade + duels VS most epics = winWhat if you are playing the good?



personally, i am just really happy to see the court of the dead king get that points cost typo fixed. i was really annoyed that the good guys get better ghosts for cheaper than my all ghost Angmar army does... that ruling makes me happy! Yeah, that's quite ok.

Midloo
10-05-2010, 13:42
Well what if you want a themed army?

Then make a themed army. There's nothing stopping you other than your desire to have access to ES in duels.

After spending many hours reading the lore, watching the movies, thinking about a theme, and preparing your miniatures, is ES in duels a big enough deal to negate all that effort? Does that advantage bring more to the table than a cool looking, themed force?

As miniatures gamers, we should be interested in the creative aspect of the hobby as well as the gaming/list building... If you're only interested in rules, power-gaming, and optimization, I'm going to be forward enough to suggest that you play something else. Play a video game, board game, card game, etc... You'll have more fun. Board games have focused rulesets that put players on an even level and don't often create the issues you see in miniatures games. Video games rely on their code logic and the players' ability to master it through strategic thinking and control. Each one is a closed system that can reach its full potential without the honorable behavior of the player participants - the programmer's code limits your behavior to those actions it allows you to take.

We have more freedom to choose our own actions as miniature gamers. Miniature battles are a gentleman's game for creative people who enjoy building things. If being a gentleman involves looking for every potential advantage afforded you in the rules, then your not someone I personally would enjoy playing.

Of course, I'm admittedly not a fan of miniatures tournaments. They encourage bad behavior and a playstyle that runs contrary to the spirit of these games. I much prefer events that get a bunch of gamers together for some fun and don't concern themselves with prizes for "winners".

Though I would argue that all the big three are unsuitable for tournament play, WotR is probably the least equipped. The ES ruling may effect those people that cling to the desire to make this game competitive, but in my opinion, those folks are trading in what makes the game worthwhile for the desire to win at all costs.

P.S. - If you feel like me and come across someone with an OTT list, just understand that their interests in the game are slightly different from your own. Proudly deploy the army you have lovingly created, and play as well as you can. Have fun... Play with some sportsmanship and graciousness to the person across the table from you. If you lose you lose. If you win you win... though if you win, you might savor the victory more since you can consider yourself a gentleman and a 'gamer in full'. ;)

Steam_Giant
10-05-2010, 13:52
Great post Midloo, I agree wholeheartedly :)

- V -
10-05-2010, 16:24
@Midloo: Is ES in duals big enough an issue? Its a tough call. Would it prevent me from playing against someone, probably not, but its is certainly not something I think is good for the game, like counsellors counselling councillors, yes you can do it rule wise, but the game looses its spirit.

I believe the whole "play video games" part, and the belief that I am a total powergamer, relies on a misunderstanding.

I am rather biased when it comes to tournaments, I can definitely follow your point in that it brings out the worst in some people, but then again as a competition it also has its appeal to me, to challenge your self to play a game better than another, has its own charm, or at least to me.

@ your P.S.: Well when our force is eradicated by a few heroes or you face heroes with 10 might points each turn, then its quite hard to face these armies with a straight face.

All that said, in my local group we play without ES in duals, and therefore we could be rather ignorant on the ruling from GW, but the problem arises in pick up games and tournaments, as I said before, it is now clearly a house rule, and not a way of understanding them, thus making them harder to force through in an open tournament/event.

malisteen
10-05-2010, 16:43
to me the whole duel rules are borked. Maybe it's just my biases from fantasy, but to me duels should be fought beteen the characers, and should result in the loser dead and the winner too busy killing the loser to do much ese that combat round. It should be a way for powerful heroes to pick out weaker ones, or for weaker heros to sacrifice themselves for the good of their men, not a way for strong heroes to murder even more of the little dudes then they would kill otherwise. I mean, think about it. A hero has bent their full will to slaying peons - maybe kills a few. yet somehow a hero who ignores the peons to chase another hero can end up slaughtering dozens of them, and possible not even reaching the guy he's trying to fight? Orcs with a champion should not be more vulnerable to getting murdered by an enemy hero then orcs without one.

So yeah, I would love to see a rewrite of the entire heroic dueling rules, and that's probably outside of the bounds of an Faq. It was pretty clear what the spirit of the rules was before, those who didn't allow ES in duels were running house rules already. No reason for them not to continue doing so.

As for the tourney scene - what tourney scene? ES in duels is hardly the only thing keeping WotR from being a competitive game at this point. It really does need a new edition for that.

Xelee
10-05-2010, 19:16
Though I would argue that all the big three are unsuitable for tournament play, WotR is probably the least equipped. The ES ruling may effect those people that cling to the desire to make this game competitive, but in my opinion, those folks are trading in what makes the game worthwhile for the desire to win at all costs.

P.S. - If you feel like me and come across someone with an OTT list, just understand that their interests in the game are slightly different from your own. Proudly deploy the army you have lovingly created, and play as well as you can. Have fun... Play with some sportsmanship and graciousness to the person across the table from you. If you lose you lose. If you win you win... though if you win, you might savor the victory more since you can consider yourself a gentleman and a 'gamer in full'. ;)
I think you are selling WOTR short there. It is pretty balanced for that type of play, but you need to structure your heroes in a certain way. There has IMO been over much of this 'it breaks the game!!!' (from other posters, not the quoted) recently. It doesn't, locally we have never played it any other way and it works perfectly fine. Some locals are even bemused to see me gently suggest a houserule to take it out. What it does do is skew things toward taking heroes with ES and avoiding heroes without it. It does not mean you can't take heroes without it, just that you end up thinking a bit about how to protect them.

My reaction to facing OTT lists is to grumble a fair bit then restructure my list to cope with them. :) I've found a way that sort of matches the source material as expressed in the rules (a little too much switching to ES heroes over named Captains, but there you are) and fits the heroic fantasy genre - lots of troops in great battles led by mighty heroes.

And I have fun with it.

PS. I think people should worry about massed spell casting and massed xbow a little more than they do ;)

someone2040
11-05-2010, 07:42
to me the whole duel rules are borked. Maybe it's just my biases from fantasy, but to me duels should be fought beteen the characers, and should result in the loser dead and the winner too busy killing the loser to do much ese that combat round. It should be a way for powerful heroes to pick out weaker ones, or for weaker heros to sacrifice themselves for the good of their men, not a way for strong heroes to murder even more of the little dudes then they would kill otherwise. I mean, think about it. A hero has bent their full will to slaying peons - maybe kills a few. yet somehow a hero who ignores the peons to chase another hero can end up slaughtering dozens of them, and possible not even reaching the guy he's trying to fight? Orcs with a champion should not be more vulnerable to getting murdered by an enemy hero then orcs without one.

So yeah, I would love to see a rewrite of the entire heroic dueling rules, and that's probably outside of the bounds of an Faq. It was pretty clear what the spirit of the rules was before, those who didn't allow ES in duels were running house rules already. No reason for them not to continue doing so.

As for the tourney scene - what tourney scene? ES in duels is hardly the only thing keeping WotR from being a competitive game at this point. It really does need a new edition for that.
To me, I actually think the opposite. It's not like a big ring just forms around 2 guys in the middle of combat while they duel. More likely both the combatants are going to be moving around, swinging. Bad guys throwing lackeys in the way, good guys throwing their bodies in the way of harm to protect their leader.
I don't think a heroic/epic duel is just two guys stabbing at each other in an honourable combat. Just supposed to represent that one of the guys (The one who initiated it) is trying to go after the other one to slay him.

Fantasy takes on a more... fantasy duelling system.

That's my oppinion of it anyway.

Hellfury
11-05-2010, 12:27
I think you are selling WOTR short there. It is pretty balanced for that type of play, but you need to structure your heroes in a certain way.

I disagree. The competitive mentality that follows suit is not relative to the strengths of their rules. WotR in 'ard boys is a great example of something that should never be combined. A local tourney where everyone knows each other...maybe. But there would have to be a big disclaimer about gentlemans rules to remind people that the rules simply arent good enough to nit pick over to consider them competitive. (I blame M:tG for this whole mess of every game should have a tournament mentality)


There has IMO been over much of this 'it breaks the game!!!' (from other posters, not the quoted) recently. It doesn't. Locally we have never played it any other way and it works perfectly fine.

However, this I totally agree with.
The sky is falling. Yeah, we get it. We got it the first 500 times we heard it even during discussions that had nothing to do with it but devolved into just that rant. I cant wait for the next round of that rant. I haven't heard it enough times before. :rolleyes:

Reinholt
11-05-2010, 14:48
PS. I think people should worry about massed spell casting and massed xbow a little more than they do ;)

Ironically, the ES rule is part of what makes me significantly more concerned about mass spellcasting. Previously, if you got in on a Ringwraith, you could usually punk the dude and steal his lunch money in a single turn with the right hero (Imrahil, Aragorn, etc). The answer to their powerful magic was to exploit their fragility in duels, which seemed like a balanced solution.

Now that every ringwraith has one "get out of duel free" card, they are suddenly far harder to kill quickly if your opponent plays aggressively with them. Ironically, I think one of the side effects of the ES rule is that magic, for the evil side, is now a bit overpowered if you take multiple ringwraiths...

Law of unintended consequences and all that. The FAQ has made me change my opinion on ringwraiths from "tough but still fair" to "you probably shouldn't take this if you want to have friends" (especially the more powerful ones, like Khamul and the Betrayer, as I would be less concerned with a single choice of one of the weaker wraiths, like the Undying).

I'm also not as worried about mass x-bows, as the Isenguard ones are D5 and the Arbalesters are a rare choice (though, as we have repeatedly discussed, possibly the most undercosted unit in the game) to the extent that I am about mass magic.

Avatar of the Eldar
11-05-2010, 15:11
WotR in 'ard boys is a great example of something that should never be combined... (I blame M:tG for this whole mess of every game should have a tournament mentality)

Amen +2


Now that every ringwraith has one "get out of duel free" card...


Just to be clear, you mean burning their single point of Might to Epic Strike and, in most cases, win the duel, right?

Despite the official FAQ ruling on this, I'm still in the no-ES-in-duels camp. Mostly because I'm averse to one powerful mechanic warping players choices towards maximizing that advantage - at the cost of theme. Gotta pack in those ES heroes, even if it means importing strange bedfellows.

But hey, it's just a theoretical argument because the only people I know that play WotR are mostly my friends and we'll do as we please.

MarkofKhorne
11-05-2010, 15:18
Now that every ringwraith has one "get out of duel free" card, they are suddenly far harder to kill quickly if your opponent plays aggressively with them. Ironically, I think one of the side effects of the ES rule is that magic, for the evil side, is now a bit overpowered if you take multiple ringwraiths...

The quicker fix for this issue is simply to dual the Captain of the unit the Ringwraith is with. That guy definitely doesn't have Epic Strike. Kill the formation and the Ringwraith's Epic Strike goes away unused.

As written, only Epic Heroes can take on Ringwraiths 1on1 either by having Epic Strike themselves or a better fight stat and more Might. It is foolhardy for a "mere mortal" to issue the first challenge against a Ringwraith...and it should be.

Without Epic Strike for the first duel any generic formation captain could challenge a Ringwraith and win 50% of the time. Having as good or better fight stat, +1 for issuing the challenge, and 1 might left over to boost the roll. Talk about not fitting the LotR background...

Reinholt
11-05-2010, 15:27
To Avatar: yes, I mean burning your might to defend yourself once. It buys you, at least, another whole turn of life for a model that would otherwise likely be dead in that situation.


The quicker fix for this issue is simply to dual the Captain of the unit the Ringwraith is with. That guy definitely doesn't have Epic Strike. Kill the formation and the Ringwraith's Epic Strike goes away unused.

That assumes a captain exists in a formation. I haven't seen one since the FAQ. Nobody around here will take them now (partially because of my exploits with Buhrdur when we were playing with ES in duels to test it, to be fair). I've seen a grand total of one hero without ES now in three games (Gandalf, used very defensively). I also played a Rohan list where the heroes in the army were Eomer, Faramir, and Eorl (with the latter two "standing in" for the usual Rohan heroes).

People have just stopped taking captains, for precisely the reason you just stated. It makes the units more vulnerable; I would think twice about taking a captain for zero points if it's going to cause me to auto-lose combats. I'm certainly not paying 50 points for them, and neither is anyone else I'm playing in any great number.

For the ringwraith thing, I rarely see them outside of large units, and it's usually Khamul or the Betrayer, so engaging that large unit is going to be ugly.


As written, only Epic Heroes can take on Ringwraiths 1on1 either by having Epic Strike themselves or a better fight stat and more Might. It is foolhardy for a "mere mortal" to issue the first challenge against a Ringwraith...and it should be.

Without Epic Strike for the first duel any generic formation captain could challenge a Ringwraith and win 50% of the time. Having as good or better fight stat, +1 for issuing the challenge, and 1 might left over to boost the roll. Talk about not fitting the LotR background...

Totally fair, but then I think you would also concede the point that a ringwraith should cost significantly more points than a "mere mortal" to account for their vastly superior abilities?

They don't; that's the crux of the problem. If a ringwraith were a 200 - 250 point character, I don't think anyone would be terribly upset with them. The problem is they are, with the ES rule as it is, probably the best 125 points you can spend in the game (ignoring, perhaps, 125 points of arbalesters or counsellors).

malisteen
11-05-2010, 15:39
Just supposed to represent that one of the guys (The one who initiated it) is trying to go after the other one to slay him.


I'm still confused why the one guy gets to kill more soldiers when he's chasing after a particular dude then when he's focusing all of his attention on just killing soldiers.

A hero normally contributes his fight to his company, adding an extra 3 or 4 attacks, and killing an extra two to three soldiers. A hero in a duel gets to do that, but also potentially kills several extra soldiers. Why is that?

I think it's a fundamental flaw in the design of the heroic duel rules that adding captains to a company frequently makes that company more vulnerable to getting murdered by enemy heroes. Maybe it shouldn't make them less vulnerable, but it really shouldn't make them more so.

Xelee
11-05-2010, 20:18
@ Hellfury, it doesn't look like any GW game is balanced on its own for tournament play, without at least some heavy form of 'comp' scoring to moderate imbalances. So I do think WOTR is being unfairly singled out. If you took a hit for doing certain things (taking the top tier Wraiths, Corsair Arbalesters, loading up on ES characters) and for ex counselling counsellors was not allowed, the game would IMO be as balanced as any of its stable mates.

Still, I have other game options for tournaments and they are much more balanced (albiet in on case through making the game boring and in another through a few years of revision), so they are what I'd play at a bigger event.

@ Reinholt, I still maintain that properly massed xbow (ie the majority troop) is a sight to behold in WOTR. I find it always a tough fight with an army that should be better than average against it and I've seen it eat one of the most experienced local players alive. Still, I haven't really seen any examples online, so we will have to see what others' experiences are.

Hellfury
11-05-2010, 21:13
@ Hellfury, it doesn't look like any GW game is balanced on its own for tournament play, without at least some heavy form of 'comp' scoring to moderate imbalances. So I do think WOTR is being unfairly singled out.

Ahh I see. I read the following as:


Though I would argue that all the big three are unsuitable for tournament play, WotR is probably the least equipped.

...to be more critical of GW games in general where WotR being the least tourney worthy due to it being the games first iteration and not enjoying the years of player feedback, playtesting etc that the other two have.

I dont think WotR is unfairly singled out for being unworthy of competitive play. Frankly, all GW games suck big donkey phalluses when it comes to tourney play.

Hellfury
11-05-2010, 21:21
They don't; that's the crux of the problem. If a ringwraith were a 200 - 250 point character, I don't think anyone would be terribly upset with them. The problem is they are, with the ES rule as it is, probably the best 125 points you can spend in the game.

So you propose ringwraiths to be as/or more expensive than characters such as Aragorn to maintain point parity?

Xelee
11-05-2010, 21:55
The top tier ones need to be more than Aragorn, just through virtue of their 'always on' formation wide abilities on top of their mastery 3 and access to good spell lists. The others should be more like Radagast/Gandalf the Grey in cost.

However, I'd much prefer a world in which Aragorn, Boromir (Amdur?) were clearly in a top-tier of duelists, followed by the likes of Imrahil, Elven Cpatains and those like Eowyn and Erkenbrand with the reroll but lower fight, followed by normal Captains ranked according to their fight. The stronger normal Captains would be a threat to the likes of Faramir, who could be forced to blow a lot of might to survive being dueled by an Uruk captain.

As it stands at the moment though, Faramir is only a little worse than Aragorn (Aragorn is better if he calls the duel) while being much cheaper.

- V -
11-05-2010, 22:08
Well Reinholt is a broken clock, or he was certainly right two times this day ;) I support what he states here, and hope you other guys sees his wisdom, sometime soon!:D

Hellfury
11-05-2010, 23:27
Well Reinholt is a broken clock, or he was certainly right two times this day ;) I support what he states here, and hope you other guys sees his wisdom, sometime soon!:D

I hope I see his wisdom sometime soon too.

Reinholt
11-05-2010, 23:28
So you propose ringwraiths to be as/or more expensive than characters such as Aragorn to maintain point parity?

I am proposing, at the very least, that the more powerful ringwraiths should be, yes.

As stated by Xelee, the fact that their abilities are always active, that they have mastery 3 and two very strong spell lores, that they have epic strike to try to avoid one duel from a duelist who will need to blow 2 might points to face them with a chance to win in most cases, and that you can take multiples of them makes them extremely good.

Certainly, I consider Khamul and the Betrayer to pretty much be "auto-includes" for any competitive evil list. I would still say this at 150, would finally start to think that there might be some niche situations where you would not want one or the other at 175, and would probably think them balanced at 200. Khamul alone (bouncing 1/3rd of attacks back into your opponent is a huge swing in combat resolution, as you subtract 1/3rd of the damage to you and add it onto your opponent for a total swing of 2/3rds of their combat damage) is worth multiple companies in any given fight. The bigger the fight, the better he is, also. Both Khamul and the Betrayer will turn the tide of the most important conflicts on the board in your favor, and will do so without having to expend might. That is extremely powerful.

As to the other wraiths, I find many of them still to be cheap (I'd probably be willing to pay more for the Dwimmerlaik, the Knight of Umbar, the Dark Marshal, and in Angmar lists, the Tainted). It's only the bottom of the barrel wraiths, namely the Undying and the Shadow Lord, that I consider to be fairly pointed as is.

So yes, in many cases, they are way too good for the points, as their impact on the game is far greater than anyone outside of someone like Aragorn, Gandalf, or Gil-Galad, yet they cost much less than those characters.

Previously, when their big weakness was getting punched in the face by a strong duelist if they were on the front line, this was much less of a concern; your 200 point Aragorn would kill a Ringwraith in a duel with something like 78% frequency (and the expenditure of only one point of might) if neither person could epic strike. Now, however, they almost always survive the first duel, and they require much more might to kill.

So yes, I think they are under-costed given the FAQ. If nothing else, assuming Aragorn would have to burn 3 might points to kill one instead of the old 1 point, that's a 50 point swing in value (up to 175, which I had bandied about above) going by the 25 points per point of might scale, from ES being usable in a duel.

Superomegla
12-05-2010, 01:46
What about a simple rule: Ringwraiths must spend 1 point of might to use their abilities for one turn.

malisteen
13-05-2010, 03:34
Doesn't address the disparity between the power of the various wraiths' abilities. Khamul and the Betrayer might still be too good, while most of the rest basically just wouldn't have special abilities.

And it doesn't address the problem of giving such cheap and powerful spellcasters a 'get out of duel free' card.

Balancing the wraiths would require the re-writing of the most powerful abilities. Some of them are powerful to the point that they just shouldn't exist in the first place, regardless of the points you charge for them. The wraith abilities should be flavorful, not game defining.

After that, you can adjust points costs and mastery levels until you're paying a fair price for them, but until the more abusive wraith abilities are gone there's just no fixing them.

Xelee
13-05-2010, 03:43
Agreed, for starters I'd suggest Khamuls became like Cirdan's 6+ save, with another 4+ bounceback (ie a 6/4 bounceback probability) and that the Betrayer and Knight of Umbar only conferred their abilities to one coy, like Aragorn et al do.

Then you could look at how to more fairly cost them as a group.

Reinholt
13-05-2010, 05:06
I had a few free moments at work and was toying with some probabilistic issues regarding Khamul and the Betrayer to try to make my point about how powerful they are.

Thus, here are a few bits of math regarding them:

Duels

In an Epic Strike duel, where the attacker spends 2 points of might (Epic Strike, Heroic Duel), and the Ringwraith spends 1 point of might (Epic Strike), there is about a 27% chance that the ringwraith dies. Very close to 1/4. Thus, the duel protection is not 100%, but it's very likely that a Ringwraith will survive that duel.

Special Abilities

With regard to Khamul and the Betrayer, the special abilities are particularly interesting.

For Khamul, each company attacking him suffers the following:

1/3rd reduction in hits delivered to the enemy.
1/3rd of their usual damage output returned upon them in the form of casualties.

Consider the situation with a unit of normal Minas Tirith Warriors facing a unit of Haradrim (4 companies on 4 companies, to equalize the points).

First, with no modifications, and assuming neither side charged (impossible, but avoids giving anyone an advantage in the calculations):

- MTW: 32 attacks, 1/3 chance to hit = 10.67 hits.
- Haradrim: 32 attacks, 1/6 chance to hit = 5.33 hits. Then you have 32 * 1/6 * 1/6 additional successful attacks from poison re-rolls, adding about .89 additional hits, giving us 6.22 hits.

Obviously, the MTW are very likely to win this combat, as they are better than the Haradrim. However, the issue is not so much that, but rather the scope of the swing that Khamul would introduce to the situation:

Now, let us keep points balanced by adding Imrahil to the good side, and Khamul to the evil side. Assuming that they are head to head in the fight, we have:

27% of the time, Khamul is going to get shanked in a duel by Imrahil (and, equally important, there is pretty much no chance Khamul is going to deal a R3 character in that situation, so we can assume Imrahil doesn't die). Thus, the result will be nearly identical to the above, minus Imrahil's company, which will pile on 6 extra attacks, giving us 13 hits to 6.22 hits.

However, the remaining 73% of the time, Khamul lives, and things go the other way. The MTW initially inflict 13 hits, but this becomes 8.67 hits after Khamul reflects 1/3, and adds 4.33 hits to the Haradrim. The Haradrim will inflict 6.5 hits, plus another 1.08 from poison, plus the 4.33 from the reflect, for a total of 11.92 hits.

Thus, we have:

.27 * 13 + .73 * 8.67 for the expected MTW hits on average, or 9.84

.27 * 6.22 + .73 * 11.92 for the Haradrim hits on average, or 10.38

Notice the magnitude of the swing from our initial 10.67 to 6.22; Khamul degrades the effectiveness of the opposing formation while greatly increasing his own.

Similarly, this effect is far greater if the other formation hits harder; if you have Khamul with Easterlings and the Knights of Dol Amroth bounce off them, you are extremely likely to wipe out the unit simply with rebound hits. Also, as these are reflected hits, they can snipe units that would normally be at least relatively secure facing low strength foes (dwarves, ents, etc).

Needless to say, this ability is pretty freaking good.

The Betrayer is a bit more simple, as he just re-rolls attacks. His modification would be that the MTW with Imrahil deliver the same 13 to 6.22 hit beating 27% of the time, but the other 27% of the time his guys take 13 hits but deliver 11.92 in return. They don't quite win, but that's still a pretty dramatic increase in the effectiveness of a formation. Notably, the Betrayer will do best in formations that have lots of dice to re-roll, but at least a decent chance of hitting with those dice (say, 5+), so that the re-rolls matter. He is somewhat weakened in impact with regard to Haradrim, as they lose a small portion of his benefit due to the 1/6 re-rolls they naturally come with.

As a comparison, if it was the Betrayer in MTW vs. Imrahil in MTW, you'd have this:

6.5 hits delivered by Imrahil's side vs. 11.92 hits delivered by the Betrayer's.

The Betrayer thrives, amusingly enough, in higher defense units that can survive to keep rolling dice, while the greatest impact for Khamul is often in units that hit hard but die easily, as he rebounds many more hits. Thus, the ironic situation is that the Easterling ringwraith should lead Haradrim and the Haradrim ringwraith should lead Easterlings, from a pure optimization standpoint.

Weird, but powerful.

Magic

I probably don't need to mention this, but Darkness has some pretty powerful spells. Strength from Corruption is one of the better ones in the game, and Wings of Terror may be the best. This is to say nothing of Black Breath, Black Dart, or Pall of Night, which all do some pretty ridiculous things themselves. Personally, I would strongly consider paying 125 points for a ringwraith with no special ability or might given how good this magic tree is... or, to put it differently, if you removed all 8 other wraiths from the game, I'd still field the Undying (my pick for the weakest ringwraith) in every evil list I'd play competitively for 125 points.

Conclusion

The TLDR version: Khamul and the Betrayer are really, really good. Probably better than any other 125 points you can spend in the game. If you figure out the right units for them to belong in, and how to protect them effectively and leverage their magic, they win you game after game. There's no way these guys are fairly costed at 125 points; I'd probably pay 200 for either of them, personally.

Midloo
13-05-2010, 15:48
@ Reinholt, I still maintain that properly massed xbow (ie the majority troop) is a sight to behold in WOTR. I find it always a tough fight with an army that should be better than average against it and I've seen it eat one of the most experienced local players alive. Still, I haven't really seen any examples online, so we will have to see what others' experiences are.

I was at a garage sale last summer and someone had a massive LotR collection. He was selling 50+ metal uruk crossbowmen for $20. I asked him if I was buying stolen goods and he assured me that he was just a well-paid I/T employee who wanted out of the hobby.

At any rate. I ened up with more than 5 companies of xbow. I've brought Vrashku's Talons with 3 companies to the table twice. They were devestating the first time. The second game, I decided to deploy them in a place where I knew my opponent would be able to minimize their effect through careful manuevering (I also didn't use the epic move/epic shoot). They were less hurtful, but still packed a wallop.

I probably won't bring them to a game again any time soon as they just aren't very interesting tactically. I never liked the "sit still and roll" shooting units. More fun to get in a fight :)

dtjunkie19
13-05-2010, 16:13
I had a few free moments at work and was toying with some probabilistic issues regarding Khamul and the Betrayer to try to make my point about how powerful they are.

Thus, here are a few bits of math regarding them:

Duels

In an Epic Strike duel, where the attacker spends 2 points of might (Epic Strike, Heroic Duel), and the Ringwraith spends 1 point of might (Epic Strike), there is about a 27% chance that the ringwraith dies. Very close to 1/4. Thus, the duel protection is not 100%, but it's very likely that a Ringwraith will survive that duel.

Special Abilities

With regard to Khamul and the Betrayer, the special abilities are particularly interesting.

For Khamul, each company attacking him suffers the following:

1/3rd reduction in hits delivered to the enemy.
1/3rd of their usual damage output returned upon them in the form of casualties.

Consider the situation with a unit of normal Minas Tirith Warriors facing a unit of Haradrim (4 companies on 4 companies, to equalize the points).

First, with no modifications, and assuming neither side charged (impossible, but avoids giving anyone an advantage in the calculations):

- MTW: 32 attacks, 1/3 chance to hit = 10.67 hits.
- Haradrim: 32 attacks, 1/6 chance to hit = 5.33 hits. Then you have 32 * 1/6 * 1/6 additional successful attacks from poison re-rolls, adding about .89 additional hits, giving us 6.22 hits.

Obviously, the MTW are very likely to win this combat, as they are better than the Haradrim. However, the issue is not so much that, but rather the scope of the swing that Khamul would introduce to the situation:

Now, let us keep points balanced by adding Imrahil to the good side, and Khamul to the evil side. Assuming that they are head to head in the fight, we have:

27% of the time, Khamul is going to get shanked in a duel by Imrahil (and, equally important, there is pretty much no chance Khamul is going to deal a R3 character in that situation, so we can assume Imrahil doesn't die). Thus, the result will be nearly identical to the above, minus Imrahil's company, which will pile on 6 extra attacks, giving us 13 hits to 6.22 hits.

However, the remaining 73% of the time, Khamul lives, and things go the other way. The MTW initially inflict 13 hits, but this becomes 8.67 hits after Khamul reflects 1/3, and adds 4.33 hits to the Haradrim. The Haradrim will inflict 6.5 hits, plus another 1.08 from poison, plus the 4.33 from the reflect, for a total of 11.92 hits.

Thus, we have:

.27 * 13 + .73 * 8.67 for the expected MTW hits on average, or 9.84

.27 * 6.22 + .73 * 11.92 for the Haradrim hits on average, or 10.38

Notice the magnitude of the swing from our initial 10.67 to 6.22; Khamul degrades the effectiveness of the opposing formation while greatly increasing his own.

Similarly, this effect is far greater if the other formation hits harder; if you have Khamul with Easterlings and the Knights of Dol Amroth bounce off them, you are extremely likely to wipe out the unit simply with rebound hits. Also, as these are reflected hits, they can snipe units that would normally be at least relatively secure facing low strength foes (dwarves, ents, etc).

Needless to say, this ability is pretty freaking good.

The Betrayer is a bit more simple, as he just re-rolls attacks. His modification would be that the MTW with Imrahil deliver the same 13 to 6.22 hit beating 27% of the time, but the other 27% of the time his guys take 13 hits but deliver 11.92 in return. They don't quite win, but that's still a pretty dramatic increase in the effectiveness of a formation. Notably, the Betrayer will do best in formations that have lots of dice to re-roll, but at least a decent chance of hitting with those dice (say, 5+), so that the re-rolls matter. He is somewhat weakened in impact with regard to Haradrim, as they lose a small portion of his benefit due to the 1/6 re-rolls they naturally come with.

As a comparison, if it was the Betrayer in MTW vs. Imrahil in MTW, you'd have this:

6.5 hits delivered by Imrahil's side vs. 11.92 hits delivered by the Betrayer's.

The Betrayer thrives, amusingly enough, in higher defense units that can survive to keep rolling dice, while the greatest impact for Khamul is often in units that hit hard but die easily, as he rebounds many more hits. Thus, the ironic situation is that the Easterling ringwraith should lead Haradrim and the Haradrim ringwraith should lead Easterlings, from a pure optimization standpoint.

Weird, but powerful.

Magic

I probably don't need to mention this, but Darkness has some pretty powerful spells. Strength from Corruption is one of the better ones in the game, and Wings of Terror may be the best. This is to say nothing of Black Breath, Black Dart, or Pall of Night, which all do some pretty ridiculous things themselves. Personally, I would strongly consider paying 125 points for a ringwraith with no special ability or might given how good this magic tree is... or, to put it differently, if you removed all 8 other wraiths from the game, I'd still field the Undying (my pick for the weakest ringwraith) in every evil list I'd play competitively for 125 points.

Conclusion

The TLDR version: Khamul and the Betrayer are really, really good. Probably better than any other 125 points you can spend in the game. If you figure out the right units for them to belong in, and how to protect them effectively and leverage their magic, they win you game after game. There's no way these guys are fairly costed at 125 points; I'd probably pay 200 for either of them, personally.

This. Reinholt comes through again and does the fancy real math that confirms my "this will kill alot" style of computational analysis.

HRM
13-05-2010, 20:17
This. Reinholt comes through again and does the fancy real math that confirms my "this will kill alot" style of computational analysis.

LAWL... This made me laugh after a hard day at work. Many thanks.

Xelee
13-05-2010, 20:23
I probably won't bring them to a game again any time soon as they just aren't very interesting tactically. I never liked the "sit still and roll" shooting units. More fun to get in a fight :)
Well, they should get in a fight. They pretty much force opponent to charge them headlong.

They do strip out companies at a very fast rate though. My rule of thumb (vs Def 5) is that three coys will be killing approx a coy a turn. So three formations kill a formation a turn. At close range, they can do that to def 6 troops. It's not until Def 7 that they start to slow down, three coys killing 1/2 a coy a turn.

I think the local crossbow player feels the same way about the 'fun' of the force midloo. Personally, I got into WOTR for the Cavalry charge - so find the parallels to Agincourt and the Light Brigade perversely amusing.

ForgottenLore
17-05-2010, 07:05
Just thought I should mention.

they have apparently revised the FAQ slightly since it first went up.

There is now SLIGHTLY more answer to the question about the witch king being behind a formation. Instead of just saying "No", they say "No, and use common sense"

I just skimmed over it, I don't know if any other changes were made.

Hellfury
17-05-2010, 07:12
Hmm thats odd because I downloaded the FAQ about two hours after it was released and mine says:


Q. In the Witch-king’s ‘Shadow of Terror’ special rule does
‘somewhere behind it’ mean somewhere in the model’s
rear arc?
A. No. It's usually obvious if the Witch-king is ‘behind’
another formation. In case of doubt, the players should
use common sense

So it either was never changed or they did it so quickly that basically everybody already has the revised FAQ anyway.

HRM
17-05-2010, 09:40
There is now SLIGHTLY more answer to the question about the witch king being behind a formation. Instead of just saying "No", they say "No, and use common sense"

I mean, seriously. Is that the best they can come up with? Unacceptable. These guys are being paid to lay out rules; we're not being paid to interpret them.

Midloo
17-05-2010, 13:49
I mean, seriously. Is that the best they can come up with? Unacceptable. These guys are being paid to lay out rules; we're not being paid to interpret them.

Well... part of me agrees with your frustration. They could be a little more clear in this case, but I think the damage was done by creating that rule in the first place. It's supposed to be characterful and follow the lore of the witch king, but in practice on the tabletop, it's pretty odd to implement. Sometimes it's nice to hear, "use common sense" in a FAQ. Folks can get a little 'Clarence Thomas' regarding some of the rules.

I feel that the further GW drilled down into the details of the witch king rule, the more middling questions would be raised. It's a sticky ability and trying to clarify something so inherently flawed would just dig a deeper hole IMO. I think GW put that in the FAQ to have something.

Best thing you can do is discuss it with your opponent beforehand and "use common sense" during the game :) To me, that's synonymous with "don't be abusive of the ability", but I also tend to avoid gaming with models that have the potential to create an issue.

Too bad... there are some cool models for him.

ForgottenLore
17-05-2010, 16:37
Hmm thats odd because I downloaded the FAQ about two hours after it was released and mine says:

Really? Hmmm. I did check before I posted anything and the FAQ I DLed just says "No"

Midloo
17-05-2010, 18:32
Well I guess it's encouraging that they are 'updating' the FAQ regularly like they said they would. Not much of an update though :)

Hellfury
17-05-2010, 21:31
Really? Hmmm. I did check before I posted anything and the FAQ I DLed just says "No"

could I have a copy of this FAQ?

My handy dandy Adobe Pro-suite can tell as any differences with the click of a button.

ForgottenLore
17-05-2010, 23:20
Sure, here you go.

malisteen
18-05-2010, 01:41
I mean, seriously. Is that the best they can come up with? Unacceptable. These guys are being paid to lay out rules; we're not being paid to interpret them.

agreed. The answer is terrible. There is no common sense interpretation of 'behind' other then 'rear arc'. 'Closer to player's board edge' kind of works, but not every mission or scenario has distinct player board edges, and leads to some examples of 'behind' that don't exactly match a criteria of 'common sense'.

The rule is a mess - anything that's too nebulous to actually make use of can't be fluffy in the game, because it can't work in the game to begin with.

I really to like WotR, but this FAQ doesn't make me want to run out and play a game, it makes me want to sit back and wait for a new edition of the rules that make more sense.

Midloo
18-05-2010, 13:46
The rule is a mess - anything that's too nebulous to actually make use of can't be fluffy in the game, because it can't work in the game to begin with.


Here here! well said. Fortunately, it's only one of many models to choose from. Not a big loss in the scope of the entire game




I really to like WotR, but this FAQ doesn't make me want to run out and play a game, it makes me want to sit back and wait for a new edition of the rules that make more sense.

Oh that's kind of a shame. Don't throw the witch king baby out with the bathwater! WotR can be a ton of fun in Middle Earth and has many many MANY MANY fewer rules issues than WHF or 40k.

(on an aside - WHF was my first love from many years ago and if even half of the "very likely" rumors of its new edition are true, many mechanics from WotR will be applied to Fantasy.)

malisteen
18-05-2010, 17:01
Just makes me grumpy is all. Being punished for taking unit fluffy orc captains and shamen because enemy heroes can use them to murder my units, as if their points cost weren't disincentive enough; having the fluffy ability of my favorite model (and the leader of my Minas Morgul-themed force) not work because it doesn't make sense; having the FAQ roll in and out and still not lay to rest the argument I have every game with my Fallen Realms playing friend about whether the rules mean 'attacks' when they say 'hits' in describing how the Mumak's melee abilities work....

I like WotR. I really do. But the game has some issues. The biggest annoyance to me is command. I like unit command models - they look cool, make squads more characterful, etc. But their points cost is overinflated and they open up the squad to getting wailed on by an enemy hero. In cavalry formations, including unit command makes attaching epic heros extremely annoying. Even one unit upgrade pushes attached heroes into the second company, and the captain, banner, hornblower set pushes a hero all the way back to the third company. Since my own Morgul Knights max out at 4 companies, this leaves me with either not running command, or not attaching a fluffy hero, like the dark marshall or knight of Umbar or Mouth of Sauron, that I would otherwise like to include for aesthetic reasons.

I mean, these aren't all serious complaints, but they do impact my fun. And they aren't all within the scope of an FAQ to fix - all the more reason for me to hope for a second edition of the game to clean it up some.

ForgottenLore
18-05-2010, 17:23
(on an aside - WHF was my first love from many years ago and if even half of the "very likely" rumors of its new edition are true, many mechanics from WotR will be applied to Fantasy.)

I've been noticing that too. It makes me VERY interested in at least reading the new rules when they come out.

Midloo
18-05-2010, 18:22
I mean, these aren't all serious complaints, but they do impact my fun. And they aren't all within the scope of an FAQ to fix - all the more reason for me to hope for a second edition of the game to clean it up some.

Yeah I hear you... and agree on your points. A second edition would be great eventually, I just hope that the game never gets as technical or bloated as WHF or 40k. Don't get me wrong, I like those games as well, but I do like how less.... erm.... rules-lawerish WotR is? I would hate to have it lose that feel in favor of making it more "tournament ready" for the Ard Boys crowd.

Occasionally we'll setup some games where you are limited to one Epic Hero and those are often a good time. Some more thought could certainly be given to the role of epics and regular heroes.

Xelee
18-05-2010, 22:56
Re: the Witch-king. Firstly, it will be a pleasure the first time I ever face one on the table lol. Secondly, the way I had read the 'clarification', it looks workable.

For the rule to work, models obviously have a direction of travel and I'm personally pretty happy to treat the Witch-king as 'behind' as long as the formation's direction of travel takes them further away. I know this leads to very oblique directions still counting, but this kind of thing is a feature of rules-sets everywhere (you have to see the definition of 'rear support' in FOG) and frankly I don't see this as any kind of issue balance wise.

Still, as always, YMMV.

I don't want a second edition of this game. I don't trust GW to avoid bloating it up unnecessarily. The fact that the rules are simple and produce similar outcomes as much more complicated rules-sets is the reason why I enjoy playing it so much in the first-place. But then, 'gamey' oddities have never bothered me too much, they IMO just come with the territory when you have a dice based game using miniatures. I just wish they'd fix some of the most egregious cost-issues and FAQ a couple of other common questions (eg legendary costs), frankly.

fracas
18-05-2010, 23:19
SBG works because it is simple. WotR built on top of that with epic abilities and muddled it up some.

Midloo
19-05-2010, 17:46
SBG works because it is simple. WotR built on top of that with epic abilities and muddled it up some.

Agreed.

There seems to be a very natural inclination to get excited about all the "special abilities" of a character or unit, but it often works against game balance.

I guess that's why I enjoy playing chess or a mathematically oriented board game - there's just less BS than your average miniatures game :) But simplicity and a more level playing field are the things I like about SBG as well. You're more inclined to think tactically when you don't have some special ability crutch helping you out.

Variety is nice and I'm happy to trade balance for ranks of troops in WotR every now and again too.

fracas
19-05-2010, 20:04
I am a bit surprise they took wotr more toward FB rules wise with movement trays rather than large scale fantasy battle with free models more like 40k. in doing so it became more about troops rather than heroes. to rectify that they made epic heroes (and to a lesser degree lengendary one) and made duels and epic powers. that imo decreased the elegance of the system.
should have just figured out to do mass combat with sbg

Xelee
19-05-2010, 21:32
I am a bit surprise they took wotr more toward FB rules wise with movement trays rather than large scale fantasy battle with free models more like 40k. in doing so it became more about troops rather than heroes. to rectify that they made epic heroes (and to a lesser degree lengendary one) and made duels and epic powers. that imo decreased the elegance of the system.

Overall, the Epics work well. I think they made the right choice in having a limited number of complicating things (the Heroes), which almost always have limited resources (can only be in one place and might points) and then a large number of very simple things (models on trays, few abilities, just measure movement from corners, simple table for all lethality).

The problems that exist in the system are really just 'fine tuning' ones - realising that ES in duels creates inequality between lists; resisting the urge to give some models free big powers that cost no might; and reexamining their costing formula re: missile weapons and increases to fight/str/courage etc, and actually making more of the legendary formations/unit upgrades worthwhile compared to basic troops.

- V -
19-05-2010, 22:19
Yeah, agree with Xelee here, the movement trays allows for more troops... No one would want to move a ~90 model unit, that would be a pain in the ass.

The game it self really have some good ways of dealing with stuff, and all it needs is a 1.5 version to edit point cost and balance a few units.

And fixing a few of the flaws, like ES in duals and counselling counsellors.

fracas
20-05-2010, 01:03
continued here:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4671155#post4671155

vaga
27-05-2010, 11:38
Thanks...
Better to know the FAQ of the game before play it...

Looking for a good and comportable Condo's at chicago real estate for sale (http://www.dwellonerealty.com/) may be the answer