Disappointment in Rohan from the Kingdoms of Men Book

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Freman, I said 'obscurely' themed because you seem to be the only person here that thinks Rohan never fields men on foot.

Ask anyone, anywhere (who knows anything about Lord of the Rings) what type of army they think of when they hear the name of Rohan, and I'm almost certain that they'll say cavalry. By that criteria, fielding Rohan as cavalry is the normal option, and fielding them as infantry is the "obscure theme". From the LotR Wiki which admittedly is fan made, the armies of Rohan were all mounted, while their infantry was more a well-trained militia called upon in time of war. What heroes will they name? Theoden? Eomer? Eowyn? Maybe Hama, Gamling, Grimbold, and Erkenbrand, but they were definitely secondary characters. You might get Eorl the Young and Helm Hammerhand just as readily. Playing a predominantly infantry Rohan army led by two second string characters isn't a theme, it's simply playing for rules advantage. It's the equivalent of flier spam in 40k. While technically it could happen (Necrons surely have a lot of aircraft) you don't pick it for the theme, but because it's the stronger list.

Now I'll grant that I've become more of a theme player over the years, I play bike marines generally just because I like bikes. I'll continue to work on my mounted Rohan army (with Theoden and Eomer) because I like the imagery that attaches itself to them. I might even paint up some warriors of Rohan on foot to fight alongside them (along with the three hunters). I accept that themed lists are sometimes more difficult to play with. However I do wonder why playing the predominant theme of Rohan is actively discouraged by the way the rules work.

Still, with the changes to throwing weapons, and the ability of all Riders to carry a bow now, I'm confident my éored will be interesting to play.

[Zogash]

You do understand that the primary purpose of the expert rider rule is to allow a mounted warrior to use a shield and bow at the same time? My riders of rohan use it ALL the time, there is a big difference between D4 and D5, esp when it seems like every evil warrior in the game is S4 now.

The crux is once again the imbalance between what should be the best light/medium cavalry in the game (Riders of Rohan) and Serpent Riders. Both cost exactly the same, yet the latter are simply much better: F4 and a lance are way better than D5 and a bow - especially after the archery nerf!

a points match game is very different and you have to get the most out of the points you are spending because your opponent isn't going to go easy on you just because you are fielding a weak "themed" force.

Ah. And that's precisely where I blame the game designers: for their failure to write the rules in a way that does not make themed forces 'weak'! In a universe of their own, such as 40k or WHFB, they can freely tweak and ret-con the fluff to fit their agenda for all I care, but that just doesn't work for LotR.

Freman, I said 'obscurely' themed because you seem to be the only person here that thinks rohan never fields men on foot.

Erm, he never said anything of the kind. What are you on about? :P

No, that's a misconception you made up. In addition you are ignoring something really key here - GW are not going to make a load of models, then have a rule set that makes them redundant before release.

What kind of an argument is this? Who is talking about making anything redundant? I'm not saying that GW should make Rohan infantry useless - far from it! Depending on scenario and preferred play style they do (and should) have their uses, they just shouldn't be essential for Rohan to field a halfway competitive army. And, funnily enough, GW actually did exactly what you said they wouldn't with Warriors of Rohan: bow-armed WoR are utterly redundant and have been for quite some time.

Finally, in SBG, all Mounted Rohirrim are competitive as Vesa Neye, LOTR Tournament champion 3 times, demonstrated. And it wasn't loaded with named characters either.
If you feel that a mounted Rohirrim force is not very competitive, then fair enough, but that's as far as it goes.

I'm not saying it can't be done with skill and a lot of luck - I have won my share of games playing all-mounted Rohan. That doesn't change the fact that it's always an uphill battle where mistakes and/or bad luck are punished far more severely than with cookie-cutter lists.

Any reference to the books is pointless and unnecessary.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. In a universe of their own creation, fine, but not in something as well laid-out and profound as Tolkien's.

[trigger happy 24]

just saying Freeman but here is a necron tombworld witch utilises all flyers

[Zogash]

just saying Freeman but here is a necron tombworld witch utilises all flyers

The fluff for which was conveniently created to cater to people with the desire (and monetary funds) to play an all-flyer army, no doubt. I don't believe there was any such tombworld before they introduced flyers, was there? What does this have to do with LotR, anyways?

[wilsongrahams]

You do understand that the primary purpose of the expert rider rule is to allow a mounted warrior to use a shield and bow at the same time? My riders of rohan use it ALL the time, there is a big difference between D4 and D5, esp when it seems like every evil warrior in the game is S4 now.

...a points match game is very different and you have to get the most out of the points you are spending because your opponent isn't going to go easy on you just because you are fielding a weak "themed" force...

The problem is, that only Rohan benefit from having a shield and bow whilst mounted. The majority of elves which also have the rule, do not have both, and so it cannot be the primary intent. It may well have been back in 2003 or so, but with the revisions of points and rules since then, there has been plenty of chance to balance and fix things.

My second point is that, the whole reason a unit has a points value, is so that you should be able to take anything you want to a set value, and have neither a strong, nor weak force, else the points value is not set correctly. If a player can take 500 pts of hardhrim raiders against 500pts of riders of rohan and have an advantage from the start then something is amiss. You cannot even use the excuse of balance within a list, as there is so little to choose from to begin with. If riders of rohan are not en par with other armies 13pts worth of models, then 13pts is too much for them is it not? If they cannot make any reductions then they should make raiders more expensive etc.

[Spiney Norman]

The crux is once again the imbalance between what should be the best light/medium cavalry in the game (Riders of Rohan) and Serpent Riders. Both cost exactly the same, yet the latter are simply much better: F4 and a lance are way better than D5 and a bow - especially after the archery nerf!

In terms of gameplay, you might be right, but in terms of how points values are calculated the stat increase of +1F vs +1D is pretty equal and so is how gw currently values bows and lances, 1pt for each, so the points values are on fact balanced (I'd argue that serpent riders could stand a 1pt increase to account for the poisoned rule).

Now consider that there are major differences in the two armies, Serpent riders are the elites of the Haradrim cavalry while riders are the bread and butter of the rohan cavalry machine, sons of Eorl and royal guard both significantly outclass anything the Haradrim can field on horseback.

Ah. And that's precisely where I blame the game designers: for their failure to write the rules in a way that does not make themed forces 'weak'! In a universe of their own, such as 40k or WHFB, they can freely tweak and ret-con the fluff to fit their agenda for all I care, but that just doesn't work for LotR.

I'm sorry you can't see this, but it is impossible to make every army work well for every 'themed list' that every different person who plays the game can possibly think up, your own personal preference is no different. Personally I'd love to field a Faramir's rangers army (which is actually illegal since a force composed entirely of rangers of gondor would breach the bow limit restriction). All armies have to have strengths and weaknesses to keep the game balanced, which means that, in a points match game some configurations and builds will be more effective than others.

If you want to field a Rohan force using cavalry only, in much the same way as it was (somewhat erroneously) portrayed in the movie there are a number of narrative scenarios available from games workshop (see the two towers journey book, and other publications) which are specifically balanced for this kind of themed play. I would also point out that lotr was originally designed around narrative scenarios and that points values is a somewhat artificial way of playing the game designed mainly for tournements, where competitive building is the whole point.

What kind of an argument is this? Who is talking about making anything redundant? I'm not saying that GW should make Rohan infantry useless - far from it! Depending on scenario and preferred play style they do (and should) have their uses, they just shouldn't be essential for Rohan to field a halfway competitive army. And, funnily enough, GW actually did exactly what you said they wouldn't with Warriors of Rohan: bow-armed WoR are utterly redundant and have been for quite some time.

Have you ever read the recent FaQ? The way the bow limit for Rohan now works I am fielding bow armed Rohan warriors from the start of the game in significant numbers. Now that riders of rohan don't count towards the bow limit I can field 1/3 of my infantry armed with bows AND all of my cavalry armed with them as well, that is potentially more shots than many other armies can hope to field.

And for the record bow armed warriors have always had a 'use', its just that with the latest FAQ I am now fielding them as more than just dismounted riders.

The problem is, that only Rohan benefit from having a shield and bow whilst mounted. The majority of elves which also have the rule, do not have both, and so it cannot be the primary intent. It may well have been back in 2003 or so, but with the revisions of points and rules since then, there has been plenty of chance to balance and fix things.

I'm not sure what point you are making here, both Galadhrim Knights and Rivendell Knights have the option to take shields as well as bows for additional points (Rivendell Knights come with bows as standard but have to buy shields, Galadhrim Knights can choose to buy both). As far as I know the only expert riders that cannot have both a bow and a shield are Sons of Eorl (who cannot have either), Outriders (who cannot have shields) and Royal Guard (who cannot have bows) and that is because expert rider is the "Rohan rule".

You might be right that when the rule was first introduced it was intended that the reroll was the main thing, (in fact I seem to recall when ER was introduced it wasn't a reroll, it was an automatic pass), but speaking from experience the ability to use shields and bows together is the most valuable part of the expert rider rule in its current incarnation.

In terms of "fixing and balancing", GW has never been particularly good at that, wfb is in its 8th edition, and 40k its 6th and neither are particularly well balanced. As some have attested, it is possible to use all-cavalry armies and use the well, even in tournement environments, its just very difficult to do it right. Overall Id say that LotR is the most well balanced of all 3 of GWs core games, and the longevity of its 4th edition was down to a very strong rules set, which is probably another reason why so little has changed for its 5th edition (the Hobbit).

Part of the problem is that balanced games give people much less incentive to buy the new things because they wouldn't be any better than the old things that are already on sale and that most people have already. At some level you just have to accept that Gw is a company that needs to make money and live with it.

[Kerrahn]

Have you ever read the recent FaQ? The way the bow limit for Rohan now works I am fielding bow armed Rohan warriors from the start of the game in significant numbers. Now that riders of rohan don't count towards the bow limit I can field 1/3 of my infantry armed with bows AND all of my cavalry armed with them as well, that is potentially more shots than many other armies can hope to field.

How was this not brought up until now? I checked the FAQ to see if that was right (I don't own Kingdoms of Men so while I downloaded the FAQ I didn't read it), and confirmed that Riders of Rohan are ignored for bow limits. This makes most of the page 1 arguments invalid.

[Spiney Norman]

How was this not brought up until now? I checked the FAQ to see if that was right (I don't own Kingdoms of Men so while I downloaded the FAQ I didn't read it), and confirmed that Riders of Rohan are ignored for bow limits. This makes most of the page 1 arguments invalid.

That FAQ only came out in December, and wasn't in force when this thread began, exempting Riders from the bow limit was a new addition.

[trigger happy 24]

it's to do with lotr because someone mentioned that foot Rohan isn't in the fluff as the primary use and they compared it to air crons witch could happen but rarly does.I was saying that actually there is a tomb world witch has all night and doom scythes in fact all tomb worlds use them as the first attack wave so it was a bad comparison.a better example would be jokero weaponsmith spam as that has never happened.