Judging the New sourcebooks

[brain_dead_1st]

I think the new books are welcome.
The new warbands makes it feel like a new game but with the same base rules set n models. (unlike cowboys which was the same rules but different models etc)

Building my army lists takes twice as long at hte moment because I have to think.
Before I could go
Imrahil
saruman
Loads of dol amroth.

Now i have to go
"if I take imrahil I limit my model count to -- men. If I don't take him I lose my 12 inch banner but I can have -- more men"
"Do I take independent heroes such as cavedrake OR another captain n a warband of orcs?"

Much more intelligence is required and that I like.
I also like the updated stats for some models BUT I dont like the loss of super faramir or Gilgalad's horse.

[Tupinamba]

I don´t know if the warband rules as they are now are the best solution, but LOTR really suffered in bigger games with too few heroes and too many troops. It´s a skirmish game based on heroic actions and if played as a massive battle game turns into a slow and sluggish enterprise.

As to the comment about the heroes leading so few men, If we simply understand the terms "captain" as a leader, there wouldn´t be a problem with commanding just 12 guys. The comparison with average unit sizes in fantasy is something I totally disagree with anyway, as regiments in WHFB are abstractions and represent military units in the hundreds of men, like in WOTR, WAB and pretty much any historical mass battel game around. Otherwise it wouldn´t make any sense to speak of "mass battles" and even less to have the restrictive rank and file movement etc.

In that sense, as a skirmish game, LOTR has to be kept under a certain ammount of individual miniatures and also have enough might on the board to make it fluid and interesting.

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

I hadn't realized a goblin swarm led by 1 captain was a pervasive issue, I guess it just hadn't occurred to us to run that type of army since it's really a game about the heroes. So that's definitely something that the warbands system does well - the focus is shifted back to heroes.

It reminds me of the old army selection system from Warhammer Armies Chaos back in Fantasy's 5th edition. Players chose a hero then had to make up its points in troops as a retinue.

I really like the 5th ed. Chaos warband system too. Hmm, maybe I'll just house-rule it that way...

[The Marshel]

Building my army lists takes twice as long at hte moment because I have to think.
Before I could go
Imrahil
saruman
Loads of dol amroth.

Now i have to go
"if I take imrahil I limit my model count to -- men. If I don't take him I lose my 12 inch banner but I can have -- more men"
"Do I take independent heroes such as cavedrake OR another captain n a warband of orcs?"

Much more intelligence is required and that I like.

Complexity and restrictions doesn't = intelligence. You still have to think carefully about what you want the force to do and how you are going to achieve it in both army building systems, one just forces you to work around an annoying restriction. If anything making a good armylist without a ton of resrtrictions is more a sign of "intelligence" then making a good army list with lots of restrictions. the restrictions are like a guiding hand preventing you from doing certain things, which happens to include a lot of poor options. It also guides you towards a universal standard. Under warbands the total model count for most armies will be very similar, so you no longer have to heavily consider model count as much. you'll probably have more might due to more heroes, so you don't have to worry as much about having enough might. Nor do you really have to worry about your opponents taking a down right better list then you because they were more "intelligent"

In a way this does make warbands sound better, but right now with a blanket 12 models per hero and independent heroes being generally bad choices because of the warband rules it feels far more restrictive then helpful. It could work for me, but not in its current form.

As to the comment about the heroes leading so few men, If we simply understand the terms "captain" as a leader, there wouldn´t be a problem with commanding just 12 guys. The comparison with average unit sizes in fantasy is something I totally disagree with anyway, as regiments in WHFB are abstractions and represent military units in the hundreds of men, like in WOTR, WAB and pretty much any historical mass battel game around. Otherwise it wouldn´t make any sense to speak of "mass battles" and even less to have the restrictive rank and file movement etc.

fair point, but the captains are portrayed as captains in both name and function. jsut as chieftains, kings and so forth are. some factions have access to what i'd consider "mini" heroes such as eowyn, beregond and damrod. these guys are really jsut warriors with a might point and tend to cost around 20ish points. if every army had access to generic versions of this style of hero warbands becomes a lot less restrictive. these guys are the style of leader you describe without actually being "captains" and chiefs.

Further to this a scaling system would have been nice. "leaders" having 12 models, captains with say 18, the big guys like aragorn, gothmog etc having 24.

you see the real problem with heroes was that the expensive powerhouse ones were often not worth it. The value of a hero is in how they improve your movement through heroic moves more so then their ability to bash up infantry. As the expensive powerhouse characters were easily shut down by magic and you still got as much might (or more) by using those same points on captains, the "lesser" heroes such as captains, named captains (best type of heroes imo) and those you could get for 80 points or less were a far more solid choice then most heroes over 100 points. Warbands really doesnt change this. If anything it makes high cost heroes worse because now they also limit your numbers severly if you take too many of them. Allowing them to add more warriors to your army suddenly makes the 100+ point heroes much more attractive compared to the 50 point captains. If that were the case, then warbands would be making heroes better, rather then just making you take more.

In that sense, as a skirmish game, LOTR has to be kept under a certain ammount of individual miniatures and also have enough might on the board to make it fluid and interesting.

Legions of middle earth already achieved this quite well though. 800 points or less played nicely. sure you could build huge armies with less heroic support, but you could also build smaller armies with plenty of heroic support. both worked reasonably well. the need for a good balance of might and warriors combined with the model limits set by LOME kept most things in check. Warbands basically makes one impossible without really making the other better.

I hadn't realized a goblin swarm led by 1 captain was a pervasive issue, I guess it just hadn't occurred to us to run that type of army since it's really a game about the heroes. So that's definitely something that the warbands system does well - the focus is shifted back to heroes.

Not as bad as you'd think. for starters LOME model limit meant even goblins could only have so many warriors. on top of that a single goblin captain is hardly intimating and more to the point, just 2 might, so a more reasonable balance of heroes and warriors would easily dictate the movement phase with heroic actions, which is the key to winning.





Warbands isn't terrible in concept, but the system as is, is clunky and doesnt really solve many of the issues people are bringing up anyway. A lot of armies that saw the mid ground between horde and small count elites are still about the same size. the difference is getting there is now harder because of the more complex list writing process. To get to the devastatingly large model count armies you had to make do with less might and little to no elites. these factors do balance things back out especialyl when playing under LOME's model count restrictions. While it can be argued that warbands favours skirmishly play, if you want skirmishy play then why are you playing over 500 points anyway? Even under warbands once you add a 4th warband the game gets to that same clunky place it did before. the simple solution to wanting a more skirmish focused game was to stop playing large games. personally i think the sbg rules can handle up too 1000 points, even with the large armies you could make at 1000 points under of LOME. These games were deff less skirmish focused, but they had their own appeal despite this. playing smaller games was still entirely possible and still very skirmish focused. seriously though, if you want a skirmish game, then don't play high point levels. under any army composition system, 500 points and less will always have a strong skirmish element.

As for warbands favouring heroes more, it really doesn't. all it does is make you take more of them. most heroes aren't that bad at all. the problems start when you take a 100 point + guy who immediately becomes the focus of all missile fire/targeted by a ringwraith/bogged down by warriors/fed a single warrior a turn to control the damage they put out. Warbands doesn't change any of this. Archery still exist and if your willing to commit to it, can do enough damage under either system. ringwraiths still exist and will happily nuke any hero and because you can usually have 2 captains for the price of 1 of these uber heroes, you're still going to find yourself outnumbered because you're basically warband down.

My problem isnt so much with the concept of warbands, its with the current execution of warbands and the potential future of warbands. It could work, but what gw has given us so far really doesnt solve any issues and makes army building far more restrictive. It's the same story with most everything gw does to try and make the base sbg product "better". LOME, the army/foe books they were releasing before wotr, wotr it's self, they all could have worked fantastically, and had signs of working fantastically, but for whatever reason gw underdeveloped them and bugged it all up.

Warbands could work, if it weren't just 12 warriros to every hero, if independent heroes were priced appropriately and if more factions had cheapish non independent heroes to keep army list writing from feeling too restrictive. As it is, it's too simple to solve any of the old issues adequately enough to justify the change

[Getifa Ubazza]

Hope someone can help here.

My son wants a Wild Wargs army, But I'm not sure which of the new Sourcebooks to get for it.

My problem is; I had a look on the GW website store in order to find out and they have the Wild Wargs only in the Mordor section and the Warg Chieftain only in the Moria section.

Is the site wrong or can I no longer have a Warg Chieftain leading my Wild Wargs?

If it is wrong, which book do I get to do my sons Wild Warg army?

Thanks

[Dr Grant]

Hya

Your son will want the Moria and Angmar book. This has the Wild Warg Chieftain as a hero and Wild Wargs as a warrior choice. It also includes other fluffy options like Bat swarms, Giant spiders, Druzhag the Beastcaller and Warg Marauders if your son wants to expand his force.

Enjoy!

[Etienne de Beaugard]

I can't help but feel this relaunch is actually an interim measure. While GW has created compilation lists in the past for all of their core systems, those have always been overturned in short order. That said, it is nice to have a clean-up of the profiles.

[Getifa Ubazza]

Hya

Your son will want the Moria and Angmar book. This has the Wild Warg Chieftain as a hero and Wild Wargs as a warrior choice. It also includes other fluffy options like Bat swarms, Giant spiders, Druzhag the Beastcaller and Warg Marauders if your son wants to expand his force.

Enjoy!

Thanks. I want to include spiders and stuff in his army. Both armies (his and mine) will be set after The Return of the King, so will be mostly cleaning up of what's left after The One Ring is destroyed.

[Peregrin]

Misty Mountains and/or Mirkwood monsters are a great theme for an after the RotK evil army. Many of those forces were used to working independant of Sauron and the Nazgul.

[Tupinamba]

My problem isnt so much with the concept of warbands, its with the current execution of warbands and the potential future of warbands. It could work, but what gw has given us so far really doesnt solve any issues and makes army building far more restrictive. It's the same story with most everything gw does to try and make the base sbg product "better". LOME, the army/foe books they were releasing before wotr, wotr it's self, they all could have worked fantastically, and had signs of working fantastically, but for whatever reason gw underdeveloped them and bugged it all up.

Warbands could work, if it weren't just 12 warriros to every hero, if independent heroes were priced appropriately and if more factions had cheapish non independent heroes to keep army list writing from feeling too restrictive. As it is, it's too simple to solve any of the old issues adequately enough to justify the change

I can perfectly accept this well argued position, specially as I haven´t played with the warband system yet. I only commented on the principle really, as before WOTR came out, my gaming group tended to ever bigger SBG games, which, though fun, became far too slow because of excessive miniatures on the table.

[Getifa Ubazza]

Misty Mountains and/or Mirkwood monsters are a great theme for an after the RotK evil army. Many of those forces were used to working independant of Sauron and the Nazgul.

My army is Wood Elves and Dwarf Rangers, so that would be the perfect opponent.

[Vishok]

At $125 or so retail for the U.S. version of all five books, they had better not overturn anything in the near future.

[Peregrin]

Companies have done stranger things, but I only really expect the hardcover core book to be suplanted. Hopefully they have the forsight to have designed these books with any soon to be updated rules in mind.

[Odin]

Apart from the warbands system, is there anything new in the new sourcebooks, rules-wise?

I just bought the Kindoms of Men book, and there's a nice rule for upgrading rangers of Gondor into rangers of Ithilien, so they can travel through woods at full speed. I don't remember seeing that before (though I'm not a regular player).

Stupidly though, Faramir, Damrod and Madril don't have that skill, and so can't keep up. Surely that's an obvious thing that needs fixing, but apparently not.

[Dr Grant]

There's a fair few of these upgrade options throughout the books. Have a look in the Rohan section, both Grimbold and Erkenbrand offer some tasty upgrades for Rohan forces.

The standardised War-horn rules on page 5 are also new and there's a few brand new troop types, Moria got loads of stuff and there's at least Gondor's Knight of the White Tower and Rohan's King's Huntsman in your book.

There's also a few smaller rules changes dotted around the books (Erkenbrand's horn rules have changed to better reflect the new effect of Warhorns), if you hunt through the books you'll find a few changes here and there that are largely positive in my opinion.

There are some omissions/frustrations though, the ranger example you mention, the lack of an Uruk-Hai drum (despite the figure being included in their commanders pack) and Theoden's as woefully underpowered/overpriced as ever for example.

The warband system and new scenarios are def the biggest changes to how the game plays though, the books have primarily done a good job of bringing together all the disparate info into logical army books.

Enjoy!

[Peregrin]

I've been satisfied with the upgrades I've seen, but the omissions are irritating. A little house ruling can help. The Faramir, Damrod, Madril is one example. The other is Gildor's upgrades for forces that he can't even lead.

[bufordbugman]

@OP
The new books are a blessing and very well done on the whole. First, the obvious: having everything organized into one book set, model rules and model points together at last and not scattered about different kinds of books (and White Dwarf magazines, ugh) is a massive improvement. Furthermore, they strike a good balance between leaving well enough alone on an already well balanced game (compared to WHF or 40K) and fiddling here and there. Adding a point to Haradrim, bumping the cost of the Spider Queen, new Wormtongue rules, etc., were well done. Of course, we all have pet peeves and have ideas of other rules or point costs that should be corrected, but that's what house rules are for. The new scenarios are as good as the Legions ones (improved in some cases), and that's saying something. The books are attractively done and I don't grudge the repeat of 8 pages at the start of each -- it means that players only buying one of the books won't be missing out.

Let's not confuse price issues with quality. On quality, they rate a 9 out of 10. On price, well, of course GW charges too much per book! Is anyone really surprised? (And if you are, have you been living in a cave?) True, they could have put everything in one book and charged $80 or something, and a few players like me would have benefited because I'm going to get them all anyway and one book is cheaper and easier to use. But many (most?) SBG players/collectors will only want a book or two: for them this is the perfect solution, and even cost effective.

@Marshel
I enjoy the Warbands rules, even set at 12 warriors. True, as you document in your opening post, various list-building moves one used to do are made awkward or more difficult to pull off. Hooray! I like new challenges. Rethinking strategies and coming up with new ones is fun (tip of the hat to brain_dead_1st here). Moreover, some of the old moves needed to be made more difficult, IMO. Lots of warriors and few heroes was effective but boring and inevitably led to longer games -- and the Legions restrictions in this regard were too lax. As I see it this game is at its best when players bring more heroes into the mix. Also, the warbands rules in combination with deployment methods in some of the scenarios makes it harder for games to come down to two long lines of internationally mixed hardy dudes backed by spear dudes clashing together. Your warbands sometimes need to be able to fight on their own, which is exciting to me. Of course, much of the time your warbands will be able to mix and rearrange themselves, but not always.

Anyway, so far so good. I've played about 5 games against various opponents with the new books and every one has been exciting. Sure, house rules are still needed for this or that (Faramir/Damrod/Madril movement as folks have noted; I have long had a peeve about the silly good Undying), but that's no different from before, and fewer are needed, seems to me.

[RunepriestRidcully]

Am thinking of getting back into the LOTR game with my Numenorians, how are they affected by this "update" and which book are they in? Must admit, I did not even know this had happened, just thought GW had abandoned lotr.

[bufordbugman]

Am thinking of getting back into the LOTR game with my Numenorians, how are they affected by this "update" and which book are they in? Must admit, I did not even know this had happened, just thought GW had abandoned lotr.

Numenorans aren't much changed, I don't think. Basic warrior stats are the same, anyway. They are in the Kingdoms of Men book.

You should just get that one book and see what you think. The front section has all the (very few) rules changes -- warbands and allying in and horns and such. The old rulebook still applies in all other respects.

Thank goodness GW didn't abandon the game completely. Now that the Hobbit movies are coming, I think we are going to enjoy at least 2-3 years of top-flight treatment as one of the "big 3" GW games. After that, all bets are off.

[Peregrin]

After that I should have what I need to play many many friendly games for many many years regardless of GW's 'support'. We don't have a GW store in this province, so we don't have tournaments or other forms of support anyway.