PDA

View Full Version : Where are my armies now?



Vishok
04-02-2012, 17:22
I'm a member of a competitive wargame club, and LotR SBG has been one of our games for about three years now. We've been using Legions of Middle-Earth, and I'm just wanting some clarifications, if anyone can give them.

The new sourcebooks - do they add anything new? We've got tons of the old material - is there anything actually new in it?

The most important thing for us is how armies are decided.

Where's my Dol Guldur list with 2x Castellans, 8x Giant Spiders, 3x Mordor Troll and 18x Wild Wargs??

Can I even field an army like that now?? :wtf:

decker_cky
04-02-2012, 18:10
You need 1 hero per 12 troops now. That's the biggest difference. Also, any good can ally with any good and any evil can ally with any evil.

The Marshel
04-02-2012, 19:47
there are numerous minor changes to various profiles which for the most part do seem to improve balance and make armies more competitive. the changes arent that huge though. a point here and there, an upgrade option or two.

lome army list are gone, replaced by a set of more broader list. where you once had baradur, minas morgul, cirith ungol etc, there is now simply mordor. this has various pros and cons but overall i actually like this simplified version as it allows more freedom in list writing while still allowing the heavily themed list lome accommodated. (your army will prob be represented in the mordor book)

the warbands junk is probably the biggest change. its a poorly thought out change imo, as it is simply 12 warriors per hero for everything and anything. there are no variations to this at all. cav aren't counted as 2 warriors. hoardy armies dont get extra warriors per hero. monsters just count as 1 warrior. its all just 12 per hero. It doesn't add balance imo, just changes the general dynamics of the list you write. Personally i'll try to avoid it where ever possible and fortunately my group of players seem to agree that its an annoying rule rather then a productive one. I reckon it'll favour high killing power heroes more then the old system though, so if that appeals to you then give it a go

If you have all the rules you need to play and the people you play with are happy with that, by all means, ignore the update, though at the very least i strongly recommend getting access to the updated profiles, as some of the changes really open up some new options and rebalance some obvious flaws. haradrim warriors are more fairly priced for example, and changes to easterlings makes mono easterlings much more appealing. there is no reason why you can't play by LOME rules using the new profiles after all. talk to your friends and see what you can arrange

Shrapnelsmile
05-02-2012, 19:48
there are numerous minor changes to various profiles which for the most part do seem to improve balance and make armies more competitive. the changes arent that huge though. a point here and there, an upgrade option or two.

lome army list are gone, replaced by a set of more broader list. where you once had baradur, minas morgul, cirith ungol etc, there is now simply mordor. this has various pros and cons but overall i actually like this simplified version as it allows more freedom in list writing while still allowing the heavily themed list lome accommodated. (your army will prob be represented in the mordor book)

the warbands junk is probably the biggest change. its a poorly thought out change imo, as it is simply 12 warriors per hero for everything and anything. there are no variations to this at all. cav aren't counted as 2 warriors. hoardy armies dont get extra warriors per hero. monsters just count as 1 warrior. its all just 12 per hero. It doesn't add balance imo, just
changes the general dynamics of the list you write. Personally i'll try to avoid it where ever possible and fortunately my group of players seem to agree that its an annoying rule rather then a productive one. I reckon it'll favour high killing power heroes more then the old system though, so if that appeals to you then give it a go

If you have all the rules you need to play and the people you play with are happy with that, by all means, ignore the update, though at the very least i strongly recommend getting access to the updated profiles, as some of the changes really open up some new options and rebalance some obvious flaws. haradrim warriors are more fairly priced for example, and changes to easterlings makes mono easterlings much more appealing. there is no reason why you can't play by LOME rules using the new profiles after all. talk to your friends and see what you can arrange

Greetings guys,
at work so i must be brief.
one of my game clubs plays WoTR; we are considering sbg but disheartened to hear of
the necessary self-balancing and partial rule adherence we will have to likely do.
Such tweaks are common for experienced groups, but stll, gw really had a chance to sharpen the sword here and it seems like they missed the mark.
We will decide in due time. At least these forums are immensely supportive.

decker_cky
05-02-2012, 21:22
Greetings guys,
at work so i must be brief.
one of my game clubs plays WoTR; we are considering sbg but disheartened to hear of
the necessary self-balancing and partial rule adherence we will have to likely do.
Such tweaks are common for experienced groups, but stll, gw really had a chance to sharpen the sword here and it seems like they missed the mark.
We will decide in due time. At least these forums are immensely supportive.

IMO most of the changes are more beer and pretzel focused than they are competitive focused. They've made allying simpler, and focused the game more on heroes (my impression is that the minimal heroes, maximum swarm was more of a competitive view, whereas newer players tended towards 'cooler' heroes).

The Marshel
06-02-2012, 05:49
(my impression is that the minimal heroes, maximum swarm was more of a competitive view, whereas newer players tended towards 'cooler' heroes).

Close. hero's main value was their might points so taking minimum was a bad idea as it'd leave you way to vunrable to heroic actions. 6-8 might was normally enough for me between 500-800 points and that normally required about 3-5 heroes in order to assure i had both enough and had might covering enough of the board. the heroes themselves weren't bad by any means, you just couldn't expect them to fight entire armies on their own. It wasn't so much a case of min heroes as it was "boyz before toyz" Having 50 uruk hai warriors and 25 orcs was better then 50 uruk hai warriors and 5 berserker.

Basically, it's not the fact that warbands makes you take heroes so much as it heavily restricts your numbers. This does look likely to make heroes more effective as a handful of the more powerful ones may well be able to fight an army now. It's annoying though because though it is a skirmish game i've always thought at the 750 point mark SBG was a great simulator for small armies. the free movement and real benefit from the formations that came with it meant that you could make a large army that really felt like a proper army in how it played while at the same time you could still do the smaller scale hero focused skirmish if you pleased