Disappointment in Rohan from the Kingdoms of Men Book

[Tupinamba]

Hi guys.

Iīve collected and played Rohan with enthusiasm, albeit the 33% bow rules made it difficult to field an eored, having to pay for the bows in the profile, while not being allowed to have them.

I had high hopes that the new supplement would address this and be a cool upgrade to the Rohirrim in general, but I found the book very underwhelming. Not only did they not address the bow issue, which would have been extremely easy to do, by simply having the Riders 1 point cheaper and giving the bow option as an upgrade, but the characters and rules are very lackluster, particularly if compared to other stuff in the book.

Why is it the grey company can field a full bow force, but a typical horse archer army canīt?

How come that obscure Fiefdom and Arnor characters are so much better than Theoden and Eomer? Come on, Rohan is a warrior race and Eomer is a major hero in the book. Everybody and their dog get cool special rules and heīs just plain. Theoden is simply horrible. I mean, there are better Orc characters!

And itīs yet again impossible to field a fully mounted Rohan Rider Eored without paying for the points while not having the bows. The game doesnīt already particularly favour cavalry as it is, and having weak heroes, no magic, no warmachines and paying extra for unallowed equipment doesnīt help. "Expert Riders" is a pretty situational rule and does in no way a compensate for these weaknesses.

I donīt care about tournament play and powerlevel very much, but I expected an upgrade that made Rohirrim the true horse lords they should be, instead of just letting everything as it was or worse.

Sad panda

[BTJ]

If you just play with friends why not house rule it so Riders can ignore the bow limit. Nearly every one I've ever played the game with, including in a GW, has done just that

[Tupinamba]

I know, thatīs what Iīll do too. But the update was a great opportunity to fix this issue and having to depend on peopleīs agreement on how to field your army is a little annoying. You have to explain why there should be the exception and it always feels like youīr receiving a favour. But my beef is not only with that, more with the general lack of love for Rohan in Kingdom of Men, particularly if compared with other factions and lots of characterful different rules. Theoden and Eomer being so weak just doesnīt make sense to me.

The supplement was very expensive, as itīs thinner than a normal magazine and repeats the mission part in each of the books, so I was expecting something more.

[fracas]

Hi guys.

Iīve collected and played Rohan with enthusiasm, albeit the 33% bow rules made it difficult to field an eored, having to pay for the bows in the profile, while not being allowed to have them.

...

Sad panda

Why are you paying for them without taking and using them?
Models holding bows have bows
Models with bows but not holding them don't
WYSIWYG


Erkenbeand's horn give all Rohan +2 courage
Grim old gives them S 4
Decent upgrades both
It make most Rohan armies similar though

[Tupinamba]

Why are you paying for them without taking and using them?
Models holding bows have bows
Models with bows but not holding them don't
WYSIWYG


Erkenbeand's horn give all Rohan +2 courage
Grim old gives them S 4
Decent upgrades both
It make most Rohan armies similar though

Well, the profile says they all have bows and the 13 points are for models with bows. If I just take the Rider models without bows (though all have them on their back, so itīd still be wysiwyg) and say they donīt have bows (which I know was kind of the solution for tournies etc., but a solution that wasnīt IMO particularly good or fair), Iīm still paying the full points cost. My complaint is exactly that they didnīt use de update as an opportunity to just price a Rider at 12 and give them bow options, like itīs done with basically every other unit.

Erkenbrand and Grimbold are interesting characters, I have to admit, but for me, it only proves my point about Theoden and Eomer, which I think should be a little more special.

Iīm still playing and collecting etc., just disappointed with the supplement. Iīve got Mordor too, and found it way better.

[Peregrin]

I have to agree with the horse/bow issues.
They're horse lords and I wish GW had treated them as such
It is a shame that GW didn't align them (especially with this last release) with the 'fluff', but at this point I work with what I have.
In other words, to stay competative I will only take up to 33% of my force on horse.

In my case that usually means fielding Erkenbrand leading horses, Grimblold leading Helmingas, and either Hama or Gamling (can never remember which I find more useful for points without the book in front of me) leading Royal Guards on foot.

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

Yeah, definitely feels like a missed opportunity for Rohan, although if you're playing games mostly at home I'd say just do away with the 33% bow limit, at least for Riders of Rohan.

Most of their heroes are pretty lackluster or bland. Theoden is pretty disappointing, but I've never liked GW's tendency to give heroes low Fate scores just because they die at some point in the storyline. IMO that should be a scenario-specific thing. We house-ruled a long time ago that we were just going to give certain heroes more Fate and charge them for it. On the flipside, the "Eomer, Marshall of the Mark" gives Rohan a bit of punch which they were really lacking before.

either Hama or Gamling (can never remember which I find more useful for points without the book in front of me) leading Royal Guards on foot.

I haven't purchased any of the new books, but unless they changed Gamling isn't he the exact same stats as a normal captain with similar equipment (heavy armor, no shield) but 5 points more or something? I seem to remember that there was a bizarre points bump on him, which was generally rationalized as the fact that he's the only one who could take the royal banner (but then, why not just charge more for the royal banner and leave him as a captain?).

Anyways, that's a roundabout way of saying I'm guessing Hama was the more cost-effective of the two, since Gamling was not such a great buy unless you were taking the banner.

[Dr Grant]

Whilst I agree in part with the general 'Rohan are uncompetitive' feeling, I've never really thought the Riders' points cost was the issue. A warrior of Rohan with a shield is 7 points. Kingdoms of Men warriors pay 6 points for a horse (see Outriders, Royal Guard, Citadel Guard) giving you the 13 points that a Rider costs. The bow and the Expert Rider rule are free. Therefore, any riders of Rohan you take with bows get their bows for free and any riders you choose to not have bows have not paid the points for them. I also feel the +1D part of the Expert Rider rule is a very nice boost for horse archers, particularly for free.

If you want to complain about cavalry points costs I'd look at why Haradrim warriors only pay 5 points for a horse and why Easterlings only pay 6 points for an armoured horse!!!

As for the Rohan army in general, yes Theoden is weak and the entire absence of F6 heroes is deeply depressing but Eomer Knight of the Pelennor is a good leader and the stat boosts that Grimbold and Erkenbrand now give are really great. Erkenbrand's +2 courage is fantastic and actually makes a huge difference to the competitiveness of the army: at the recent doubles tournament our Rohan army (which incidentally won 2 out of its 3 games) came up against an army with a Cave Drake, Dragon, Spectres, Black Numenoreans, Spider Queen etc. I think almost every model in their army caused terror and they were counting on a lot of failed terror tests. Having an army of C5 men really helped us out and certainly contributed to our victory as well as being a complete lifesaver when the armies get broken. I really can't recommend Erkenbrand enough in this edition, points wise he's also an absolute bargain.

I love the Rohan figures and fluff and so have stuck with them and we've started seeing a lot of success. To my mind they suffer from a lack of F6, a lack of normal spears and a lack of magic but you just learn to play around these issues. Our Rohan lists are now often heavily infantry based with only one warband of cavalry. Yes it is a shame that a entirely cavalry army isn't competitive but I think that's a problem with cavalry in general in the game rather than with Rohan cavalry. That said, our pretty successful tournament army was 1000 points and had about 18 riders, 6 mounted Royal Guard and about 24 warriors so 50/50 can work well.

I think the key to winning with Rohan is learning to embrace Throwing Spears, not having 1 or 2 here and there but giving them to every model possible. Being able to shoot with every army in your force even if it's moved full is quite a terrifying and game changing thing to face before you even consider the effect of them shooting as they charge.

I was soundly defeated recently by a 700 point Rohan army that had (roughly) 12 Helmingas led by Grimbold, 12 Helmingas led by Eomer, 12 Helmingas led by a captain and 6 Redshields led by Erkenbrand. 36 S4 C5 warriors on foot, most of whom had throwing spears. Ouch.

I also think there's an argument that the lack of expensive wizards, war machines, monsters etc. actually works in your favour as you have to put your faith in good old warriors and can't get distracted by shiny toys! As for fixing Theoden, someone on here a while back suggested just paying for the altogether superior Eorl the Young and using your Theoden model which the vast majority of players wouldn't mind at all (not to mention the fact that if you have the Eorl model in reserve it's actually perfectly legal for tournaments, if rather un-fluffy).

As for Gamling he's the same cost as a similarly armed Captain but has the option of buying the banner. The choice between Hama and a captain/Gamling is whether you want a Fate point or Hama's bodyguard rule.

So there you go, I understand a lot of the complaints but I actually think with a bit of thought there's still hope for Rohan!

[Jobu]

I think a lot of what people complain about is the lack of variety in a Rohan that is competitive. You have to take grimbold and you have to take erkenbrand if you want to be competitive. Lacking magic is solved by allying in saruman the white. But once again the army is pretty stale with few options.

[fracas]

I agree with Jobu

The solution maybe customizable hero character
Say a generic king with a single faction specific rule as well as selection of a second options from a generic list of upgrades

[Tupinamba]

I love the Rohan figures and fluff and so have stuck with them and we've started seeing a lot of success. To my mind they suffer from a lack of F6, a lack of normal spears and a lack of magic but you just learn to play around these issues. Our Rohan lists are now often heavily infantry based with only one warband of cavalry. Yes it is a shame that a entirely cavalry army isn't competitive but I think that's a problem with cavalry in general in the game rather than with Rohan cavalry. That said, our pretty successful tournament army was 1000 points and had about 18 riders, 6 mounted Royal Guard and about 24 warriors so 50/50 can work well.


I was soundly defeated recently by a 700 point Rohan army that had (roughly) 12 Helmingas led by Grimbold, 12 Helmingas led by Eomer, 12 Helmingas led by a captain and 6 Redshields led by Erkenbrand. 36 S4 C5 warriors on foot, most of whom had throwing spears. Ouch.

I also think there's an argument that the lack of expensive wizards, war machines, monsters etc. actually works in your favour as you have to put your faith in good old warriors and can't get distracted by shiny toys! As for fixing Theoden, someone on here a while back suggested just paying for the altogether superior Eorl the Young and using your Theoden model which the vast majority of players wouldn't mind at all (not to mention the fact that if you have the Eorl model in reserve it's actually perfectly legal for tournaments, if rather un-fluffy).

Well, Iīm not really concerned about tournament effectiveness, but the examples you brought up are exactly what I do NOT want of a Rohirrim force. Infantry based, only Helmingas, mixing Theoden with Eorl etc. Infantry Rohan are for me basically only for siege scenarios, as dismounted cavalry. And while Grimbold and Erkenbrand are interesting in their own right, they should never be more relevant than a Theoden and Eomer.

Iīd be ok with the lack of magic, monsters and superheroes, but Iīd like to have Rohan with a feel of a warrior people on horse back, being the best at it, possibly equaled by Khandish Riders, but with better leadership and some great leaders. Not on the same level as an Aragorn, Boromir or Gil Galad, but certainly with Eomer and Theoden being more important/powerful/interesting ruleswise than some orc lieutnant, like Gothmog, or minor Gondor characters.

My disappointment is with the fact that, knowing about all these issues, the new supplements did absolutely nothing to make Rohan feel more like the Rohan from the books and as a strong army with interesting and unique gameplay.

I mean, whatīs the point in an update if you basically let everything as it is?

[The Marshel]

I mean, whatīs the point in an update if you basically let everything as it is?

well thats the thing though, its wasn't really an update so much as a patch up. LOTR sbg was all over the place rules wise. you needed a book here for one thing, the rulebook here for another, a whitedwarf there for the next rule. Made the game very unapproachable for a new collector which is bad running into the hobbit, so that's what this wave of books was. Reorganising the rules into a more accessible medium, and in that regards they did pretty well.

They did fix and change a fair few things, and Rohan certainly saw some improvement, but missing out the opportunity to fix the bow option was simply terrible. At the end of the day though this "clean up" wasnt ever going to do wonders for rohan and the army suffers from much deeper core problems.

They're the cavalry nation, yet they're cavalry is pretty poor. Riders were one of the first cavalry in the game, and while they have changed little cavalry has evolved a lot around them. being the "masters" of cavalry was once defined by them simply having cavalry, but now there is lots of cav. Rohan needs a new definition of "mastery" but gw never decided what to make that definition.

Personally, i see a 2 part fix to the problem. Riders need to be priced more appropriately in comparison primarily to harad, which has two similar cav units to the main rohan cav and can field similar styles of armies. The haradrim raider packs more killing power and/or ranged firepower per point for the same fight value and negligible defensive nerfs. It helps that they are now only one point cheaper, but access to lances compared to the expensive throwing weapons hurts the comparison somewhat. Serpent raiders are another nail in the rohirim coffin, at 13 points, with a lance and f4 they're just flat out better. Rohan royal guard may be far sturdier, but they dont kill as well, and that's a big deal given harad has the numbers to back up those lances. This kinda internal balance stuff is ignored by the usually very solid points system, but this is a case where it ought to be considered heavily.

To fix this you need to first decide what makes rohan the "horse lords". to me this isn't necessarily a matter of expertise. I'd expect the average rohirim to be pretty good on a horse, but i don't believe each one is born with the skills of a knight or steepe raider. I think the strength lies more in the sheer numbers. Rohan's strength ought to lie in its ability to field many cavalry rather then the "best" cavalry. the stat line of a rider doesn't need to change, the points do. Start by taking away the bow from the standard gear and making throwing weapons 1 point rather then 2. drag the points back further to account for the armies lack of lance armed heavy cavalry. If riders are starting at 9 or 10 points then you should be able to field enough more then usual to start matching the more killy or elite cavalry other armies can field and stand a better chance of beating out infantry.

The next step is pretty crucial to this plan. Plastic rohan royal guard. seriously, where are they, why is no-one talking about them, or the need for them? making a unit more financially accessible can and does help. Sure, the competitive players are going to have 20 anyway, but that doesn't help the average friendly gamer on a budget, and lets face it, most lotr players aren't out there for the tourney edge. Morranon orcs are a great unit, but back when they were a 3 orc blister there is only so far that stat line can get them. make them a plastic kit and now everyone can take armies of them. Rohan don't necessarily lack f4 because they lack f4, they lack it because they're main user of it cost a small fortune to field. Fielding more RRG would give players f4 cav to charge enemies with and hopefully overwhelm basic infantry with. add the body guard rule to keep them around after breaking and d6 so they actually stay alive in cc and Rohan already has a reasonable cc unit ready to go. The problem is they aren't good enough to go at it in groups of 3s or 4s, and when 2 RRG cost the same as 6 riders, money will get tight during army building.

Reduce the cost of riders to better match standards set by more recent cavalry and give people plastic RRG so that they can actually field a decent number without breaking the bank and rohan would work a lot better

[fracas]

Largely agree but there is only so much boost you can get by reducing point cost as the SBG rules favor infantry rather than cavalry. An army of cavalry regardless of faction just won't fare well.

[Dr Grant]

Interesting points all.

I'm with Fracas on this though, even if Riders of Rohan were a little cheaper an all cavalry army still wouldn't be competitive. The base sizes simply give cavalry a disadvantage that the charge bonus does not rectify (we've all had situations where you charge a battle line and each of your cavalry is mobbed by 2 infantry with 2 spear/pike supports and banners hiding behind). Cavalry work best in a supporting role harrying the enemy flanks whilst your infantry advance down the centre and in this role I think Rohan with their bows, throwing spears and Defence bonus actually excel.

One way you can get around this is by not playing standard scenarios, if you want too field an all mounted army then write/adapt a scenario where the cavalry aren't at a big disadvantage. There's good examples of this in the Journey books (Wrath of Rohan, Ride of the Rohirrim, Theoden Rides out) where having a mounted force is an advantage or balanced by the victory conditions/points per side/deployment.

If that's not for you then the question then becomes how 'could' you make them more effective in a standard points match game? As I've mentioned above I think they're reasonable for their points and so a points drop is not the answer. SBG's points balance/transparency is one of its greatest strengths and reducing the Riders cost would only reduce this, in the examples I gave above it is the Easterlings/Haradrim who should be more expensive (becoming 6 points for a horse, 9 for an armoured horse) rather than the Rohan who should be less.

I agree with The Marshall that plastic Rohan Royal Guard would be a great help but I don't think that would sway things dramatically, I normally field a fair few RRG and whilst they're more resilient (against S3 or less), they're still very susceptible to being swamped by infantry. The advantage of plastic sculpts for me would be a greater range of poses and being cheaper, although thanks to BGIME they're actually available on ebay for cheap (I didn't pay more than Ģ2.50 for any of mine).

I think the best solution is to add an extra rule or two to Expert Rider that would make them genuinely better than other cavalry, we've tried this at home and had good success with some of the following rules:

Riders of Rohan can shoot even when moving full distance.
ROR can shoot a bow as they charge like it was a throwing weapon.
ROR ignore the 33% bow limit if the ENTIRE army is mounted.
ROR can re-roll the dice to win the fight is they are with 6" of a banner.

(we only give them one or two of these per game but we've tried them all)

All of these rules give Rohan cavalry genuine tactical advantages and maintain the background nature that you (OP and others) seem to be after. My favourite is being able to shoot their bows as they charge like throwing weapons, if you combine this with ignoring the bow limit for a mounted warrior then they suddenly become incredibly effective (we actually thought a little too effective) as every model can shoot as it charges. You also get a very fluffy look to the army as it charges, shoots, kills and rides over the bodies into the next rank.

Obviously none of these are official and you'd have to agree them with your opponent but if you're not interested in competitive tournament play then this should be fine. I'm also far more about having fun and enjoyable games, my original point was that IF you are going to tournaments and really want a competitive list, there are competitive builds in the Rohan list. I was also certainly at no point suggesting combining Theoden with Eorl!

I think if there's a problem with the game then house-rule it to fix it, it's not official and it would obviously be nice if GW fixed these things but for 95% of your games this'll get you by absolutely fine. The great thing about the LOTR community is that there seems to be a shared feeling about this; I've met people at tournaments who I have since become gaming buddies with who are happy to embrace these changes to Rohan lists because it makes the games more fun.

[fracas]

Riders of Rohan can shoot even when moving full distance.
ROR can shoot a bow as they charge like it was a throwing weapon.
ROR ignore the 33% bow limit if the ENTIRE army is mounted.
ROR can re-roll the dice to win the fight is they are with 6" of a banner.

I like these 2
One gives them a bost in shooting
The other help them in fights

[fracas]

Riders of Rohan can shoot even when moving full distance.
ROR can shoot a bow as they charge like it was a throwing weapon.
ROR ignore the 33% bow limit if the ENTIRE army is mounted.
ROR can re-roll the dice to win the fight is they are with 6" of a banner.

I like these 2
One gives them a bost in shooting
The other help them in fights

[Odin]

I do think Rohan really need a bit of work. What I don't understand is how they can't have lances - they certainly appeared to have some pretty big pointy spears in the films.

[Tupinamba]

Very interesting points made by The Marshal and Dr. Grant. As is often the case in the LOTR threads, I donīt really disagree with the points made. Iīll give the house rules ideas a try, as they seem quite characterful. I also agree that more plastic options for "mass" unit types, like Royal Guard, would go a long way helping to build more balanced and interesting lists. And I also totally agree that scenarios are a great way of playing to the inherent strenghts of a cavalry force. Even the "official" ones, like reconnoitre. My next games will be a small introductory campaign with my Rohirrim versus a new Mordor force Iīm building, having my GF commanding the horse lords, so Iīll tweak it in her favour a lot anyway.

It was more of a venting, after I bought the rather expensive supplement and compared what Rohan got with Gondor and Mordor and saw that nothing was done to make them more playable and interesting. All the house rules proposed, for example, could have been stuff thought out by GW and could have been put in the book.

[yabbadabba]

I do think Rohan really need a bit of work. What I don't understand is how they can't have lances - they certainly appeared to have some pretty big pointy spears in the films.

Because they are not lances, and are not used in a lance fashion with a lance effectiveness.

I don't think that GW saw the bow thing as an issue to fix - and as someone has pointed out you are not paying for the bow anyway. The second thing to point out is that while the RoR are a warrior race, so are pretty much everyuone else bar hobbits. Orcs are far superior warriors as they are (watered down) corrupted elves. The warriors of Gondor are again watered down, but from a far more powerful heritage than the Rohirrim. In terms of background RoR should not be an all conquering force.

However there has always been an issue with all mounted armies especially when facing high defence enemies. Its why I enjoy taking my Dwarves against mounted armies - after watching them bounce on the charge a couple of times they are forced to rethink their tactics. Of course once they work out I am not going to catch them or shoot them down then the game can get a little slow. It will be interesting to see if the Hobbit rules can address this a bit.

[Adyger]

Man, there are some great points made here. I hadn't thought about how being on a larger base is a penalty for banners. Making mounted models affect within 6" would be a great idea. I would absolutely love if they did plastic royal guard too. You could put me down for 3 boxes easily.