Disappointment in Rohan from the Kingdoms of Men Book

[Spiney Norman]

Hi guys.

I´ve 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 can´t?

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 he´s just plain. Theoden is simply horrible. I mean, there are better Orc characters!

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

I don´t 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

*sigh* why do people try to play Rohan as an all cavalry army and declare them to be crap when it fails? It's nothing to do with the army, it's everything to do with the fact that you are using fail tactics. There is no force in the game that can successfully pull off all-cav because it just doesn't work in the current rules, yes it sucks, but thats the way it is. The new supplement made Rohan more competitive than it has ever been before, perhaps one of the most competitive good armies given the huge kick in the teeth that the warbands system was to elf armies.

Rohan are the only good-side army with access to cheap s4 infantry, they are one of the only armies with access to multiple cheap named heroes, which means more troops in your warbands.

A Rohan army in the current environment should be built along the following lines
- Erkenbrand & Grimbold as your first two warband leaders.
- no more than 1/3 riders (so you don't have to lose the bows) all upgraded to westfold red shields because F4 really is that good on cavalry
- The rest of the army split between warriors with shields and Royal Guard on foot, also consider Sons of Eorl in larger games, spread throwing spears around as you have the points to do so. All warriors should be upgraded to helmingas, no foot archers should be fielded (save these to represent dismounted riders)

As far as heroes go, Eomer is a solid third choice (either version is worth his points), alternatively Eowyn is a great cheap warband leader, Theodred is good value as well, then your looking at captains (though typically how often do you play a game with more than 5 warbands). I do use Theoden because I love the model and the character, but his profile is admittedly poor, it's costed at maybe 15-20pts more than it is worth so for a competitive list leave him at home.

Rohan can also field a pretty mean infantry horde, but I personally prefer the combined arms approach.

I kind of hear what your saying, and it seems to be "but I don't want to play it this way" which is fine, it just means you need to find yourself a new army if you don't like doing things the Rohan way. Unfortunately there isn't an army that will give you a strong all-mounted force, though warg riders will do better than most.

[Tupinamba]

This last post is IMO a good example of internet miscommunication. My disappointment has nothing to do with Rohan´s competitiveness, as I thought I had put pretty clearly in the other posts. It´s exactly about the gameplay, as I´ve chosen Rohan precisely because I wanted to field an all cavarly force. I´ll still do it, as I´m not going to switch my 100+ painted minis for wargs just because a full cavalry force for Rohan is more difficult to use. The whole notion is absurd to me and actually shows the precise point I am complaining about, as the "Rohan way" shouldn´t be about S4 infantry, but about mounted eored forces, and if a warg force can do it better, that says it all really.

Don´t care if the "new" Rohan is more competitive or not, but I was disappointed that I have to tweak it and houserule to make it play as I´d expect from the books.

I really wonder why it´s always assumed that posts refer to tournament environments and issues, even when the discussion explicitly says it´s about gameplay and fluff. It´s something that annoys me in whfb/40k threads and that surprises me in a LOTR thread, as it´s community generally is more focused on narrative/simulation play.

[yabbadabba]

if a warg force can do it better, that says it all really.

Not really. RoR are just men mounted on horses. They are warriors yes, but they are not as powerful as wargs and probably on a par with goblins, if a little better. So by all accounts an all mounted warg force should be better than all mounted rohirrim man for goblin.

[Peregrin]

Wow... I'm enjoying this discussion on a few levels.
First, Tupinamba makes a good point that this thread is more of "I'd wished it had met my expectations based on the original fluff" rather than "Here's how to play Rohan."
However, being a Rohan player, I really appreciate the tactical input! Thanks Spiney, et. al.

Sometimes I wonder just how accurate our impression of Rohirim military is, though. We get this snapshot of their tactics in the books and it sets certain expectations, but I think it's a bit situational. The Rohirim were not conquerers, so they never marched on enemy territory, unlike Gondor or the Enemy's forces. They had a lot of territory, particularly plains, to cover, so small bands of horsemen were obviously more effective in covering all of that ground. That's what we see when Aragorn and crew first meet them. Also, there were no footmen included in the battle to save Minas Tirith, simply because the would not have made it on time. However, whenever they are defending against more than a few marauding enemies, a good number of footmen are involved. That implies to me that how they are used and their composition is highly situational. Yes they are the horse lords and stats should reflect that.... not arguing with the OP there at all. However I do not exclude footmen simply because they weren't there at Pellenor.

Looking at it another way, the points values used to balance a force are completely contrived and are one of the least real world compatible elements of any of these games. If you took a mixed group of Uruk and Orcs on foot without pikes and an equal number of Rohirim horsemen on horseback with bows, especially the elite ones who were traveling with Eomer's band, I think even in this game the horses would be overpowered, not providing a 'fair' fight. Of course, that's the point. They only lost three riders while the orc band was destroyed. Thus the point value of cavalry. I guess what I'm saying is that trying to balance forces to make a game 'fair' requires a departure from fluff at the best of times. The only other option is to play the game, switch teams, play again, and see who did better.

[Zogash]

Not really. RoR are just men mounted on horses. They are warriors yes, but they are not as powerful as wargs and probably on a par with goblins, if a little better. So by all accounts an all mounted warg force should be better than all mounted rohirrim man for goblin.

The Rohirrim are repeatedly described as being the best horsemen in the world, valueing their horses just as much as their own kin. Even when they are greatly outnumbered they still blow through their enemies like, in Tolkien's words, 'a fire-bolt in a forest'. Just to give you an idea on the RoR-Orc-competetiveness: at the eaves of Fangorn, 120 Rohirrim led by Éomer charge over 200 (!) Orcs, of whom around 80 are Uruk-hai, slaughter them to the last one, and only lose 15 men. I don't have the book on me right now, so the precise numbers of RoR casualties may be off by +-5, but the gist of it is that Orcs stand no chance against RoR unless they extremely outnumber them. Likewise, at the Pelennor, Théoden and just his few household knights charge and rout a vastly numerically superior force of Southron cavalry, killing their chieftain (Suladan in game terms), without even breaking a sweat!

Here's the quote (google be praised ):

Great was the clash of their meeting. But the white fury of the Northmen burned the hotter, and more skilled was their knighthood with long spears and bitter. Fewer were they but they clove through the Southrons like a fire-bolt in a forest. Right through the press drove Théoden Thengel's son, and his spear was shivered as he threw down their chieftain. Out swept his sword, and he spurred to the standard, hewed staff and bearer; and the black serpent foundered. Then all that was left unslain of their cavalry turned and fled far away.

This quote alone is testament as to what Rohan should be like. First of all, they should have lances (=long spears), as that is their preferred close combat weapon in the books (even though, PJ may know why, it isn't in the films). Secondly, both Éomer and Théoden should get significant boosts to match their fluff prowess - as I (yep, that was me ) said before, Eorl's rules are pretty much what Théoden's should be like (plus the lance), and I usually field him as such. I'd even suggest a second Pelennor version that is extremely powerful but made hard to control in some way. He is compared to Orome (pretty much the god of war in the LotR pantheon) himself! His stats don't reflect that in the least...
I agree with what a previous poster said regarding fate for characters that die at some point. It's not only rather inadequate, the entire system is just flawed: Théoden dies so gets 0 Fate. Gothmog dies just a little bit later, yet gets 3 Fate. Where's the constistency in that...?

Éomer should also be F6 to match Imrahil and Aragorn, since it is said that those three were so powerful that people were afraid to look them in the face 'in the hour of their wrath' and they alone were skilled enough to remain unscathed until the end of the battle.

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.

I think, as can be seen from the above quote, that it should be exactly the other way 'round! To be true to the fluff, Rohan should be the only (!) army that can be viably fielded all on horseback (or at the least, centered on a majority of cavalry), while to all others, cavalry should be strictly complementary to infantry, except for maybe Khand - though their riders are a purely GW invention and shouldn't ever match Rohan in cavalry power!

As Peregrin said, yes, the Rohirrim do occasionaly fight on foot, though, as Théoden says at Helm's Deep, they prefer charging their enemies on the open field - only when they are too severely outnumbered do they retreat to defensive positions. Interestingly, they tend to fare far worse when on foot, as during the Battle at the Fords of Isen or at Helm's Deep, where (guess what...) a cavalry charge by the keep's survivors helps to turn the tide. They are trained to fight from horseback, in contrast to, for example, the Men of Gondor. Accordingly, in game terms, having Rohirrim fight on foot should be the exception, not the rule - but that is just not doable right now.

[yabbadabba]

The Rohirrim are repeatedly described as being the best horsemen in the world, valueing their horses just as much as their own kin.

That's why they get expert rider, not the equivalent of a medieval warhorse.

Even when they are greatly outnumbered they still blow through their enemies like, in Tolkien's words, 'a fire-bolt in a forest'. Just to give you an idea on the RoR-Orc-competetiveness: at the eaves of Fangorn, 120 Rohirrim led by Éomer charge over 200 (!) Orcs, of whom around 80 are Uruk-hai, slaughter them to the last one, and only lose 15 men. I don't have the book on me right now, so the precise numbers of RoR casualties may be off by +-5, but the gist of it is that Orcs stand no chance against RoR unless they extremely outnumber them. Likewise, at the Pelennor, Théoden and just his few household knights charge and rout a vastly numerically superior force of Southron cavalry, killing their chieftain (Suladan in game terms), without even breaking a sweat!

There are so many problems with this, its almost painful. I think its suffice to say that what we have here is Tolkein setting the scene for important dramatic parts of his book. And very good they are too! But if we followed these examples, then in gaming terms Rohirrim would be an army of Eomers and Aragorns.

This quote alone is testament as to what Rohan should be like.

Unfortunately the book is full of examples of "what should be" and this does not make a good game. The Silmarillion is a much better example of how "balanced" the Tolkein world should be.

First of all, they should have lances (=long spears), as that is their preferred close combat weapon in the books (even though, PJ may know why, it isn't in the films).

Depends what you mean. If you mean a couched Lance, then no, this was something that riders of that type would not have had. If you mean that their spears should have a dual purpose (shooting and combat) with a bonus for combat then I can accept that. In Ancients games there is a clear line between Throwing Spears, Thrusting Spears and Lances, however I have seen more than a few people (including historians) use "lance" when actually they meant the rider had a spear which he used to thrust with. For the RoR, the impact of the charge is not with the spear, but the horse knocking its victims over.

Secondly, both Éomer and Théoden should get significant boosts to match their fluff prowess - as I (yep, that was me ) said before, Eorl's rules are pretty much what Théoden's should be like (plus the lance), and I usually field him as such. I'd even suggest a second Pelennor version that is extremely powerful but made hard to control in some way. He is compared to Orome (pretty much the god of war in the LotR pantheon) himself! His stats don't reflect that in the least...

Again we are falling for Tolkeins writing, and the style he chose to write, that of the Epic Saga. In Sagas if you are not compared to a god or a force of nature then you are a nobody. Tolkein's writing often slips into this style especially during combats. The reality is this would not only be misrepresenting the characters, but would make the game for more imbalanced than it already is.

I agree with what a previous poster said regarding fate for characters that die at some point. It's not only rather inadequate, the entire system is just flawed: Théoden dies so gets 0 Fate. Gothmog dies just a little bit later, yet gets 3 Fate. Where's the constistency in that...?

Orc characters, as a whole, are not as powerful as their human counterparts in the game and these rules are for more than just the Battle for Pelennor Fields. Gothmog is all manked up, born as a runt, yet rises to the top of the heap. How that doesn't justify 3 Fate I don't know. Now a pre-Pelennor Fields Theoden with 2-3 Fate would be ideal.

Éomer should also be F6 to match Imrahil and Aragorn, since it is said that those three were so powerful that people were afraid to look them in the face 'in the hour of their wrath' and they alone were skilled enough to remain unscathed until the end of the battle.

Both Aragorn and Imrahil are superior warriors, both having Elven and Numenorean blood in their veins. Eomer is good, but is not that good.

[Zogash]

That's why they get expert rider, not the equivalent of a medieval warhorse.

I disagree. The Rohirrim's horses are the best there are, even Sauron covets them. Yet in-game Woodelves have better horses (and expert rider to boot), which doesn't make sense at all.

There are so many problems with this, its almost painful. I think its suffice to say that what we have here is Tolkein setting the scene for important dramatic parts of his book. And very good they are too! But if we followed these examples, then in gaming terms Rohirrim would be an army of Eomers and Aragorns.

Again, I disagree. 12 RoR should be able to take out 20 Orcs - that is why they are more expensive points-wise. The way it is now, Rohan has to prioritize quantity (WoR) over quality (RoR) to stand a good chance against the likes of Morannon-Orcs or Uruk-hai, while it should be the other way around: they should be outnumbered but stand a chance due to higher power. Not vice versa.

Unfortunately the book is full of examples of "what should be" and this does not make a good game. The Silmarillion is a much better example of how "balanced" the Tolkein world should be.

Whoa, I won't touch the Silmarillion in this context - its scale simply can't be represented within the LotR game system. That was a completely different time, with power levels way beyond 9000.

Depends what you mean. If you mean a couched Lance, then no, this was something that riders of that type would not have had. If you mean that their spears should have a dual purpose (shooting and combat) with a bonus for combat then I can accept that. In Ancients games there is a clear line between Throwing Spears, Thrusting Spears and Lances, however I have seen more than a few people (including historians) use "lance" when actually they meant the rider had a spear which he used to thrust with. For the RoR, the impact of the charge is not with the spear, but the horse knocking its victims over.

In the films, yes. In the book, however, the Rohirrim use their spears exclusively like one would use a lance: they 'set their spears in rest'. You don't do that with thrusting spears. Regardless, in gaming terms, they should have lances (since they seem to work as such when used against other cavalry), or, maybe more adequately, war spears, since there is no reason a long spear shouldn't function as such while on foot. They not once use their spears as throwing weapons - long spears are way too cumbersome for that.

Again we are falling for Tolkeins writing, and the style he chose to write, that of the Epic Saga. In Sagas if you are not compared to a god or a force of nature then you are a nobody. Tolkein's writing often slips into this style especially during combats. The reality is this would not only be misrepresenting the characters, but would make the game for more imbalanced than it already is.
Orc characters, as a whole, are not as powerful as their human counterparts in the game and these rules are for more than just the Battle for Pelennor Fields. Gothmog is all manked up, born as a runt, yet rises to the top of the heap. How that doesn't justify 3 Fate I don't know. Now a pre-Pelennor Fields Theoden with 2-3 Fate would be ideal.

Théoden leads the charge against the entire Morgul army, kills the Southron chieftain plus banner bearer while severely outnumbered and only dies when his horse falls on top of him - how that justifies less than 3 Fate is beyond me. And yes, I can see the need for a strong Evil hero, but in the end he is just an Orc! The average Orc is far weaker than the average human, and even a strong Orc shouldn't be more powerful than Théoden in his glory - yes, it is written in epic saga style, but it is the canon, and as such shouldn't be turned on its head in-game.

Both Aragorn and Imrahil are superior warriors, both having Elven and Numenorean blood in their veins. Eomer is good, but is not that good.

I admit, Éomer being F5 is a minor gripe, but even with F6 he would still be slightly weaker than Imrahil (and very much more so than Aragorn) simply because his special rules are less powerful. I'm even ok with 'normal' Éomer staying at F5, but Pelennor-Éomer is specifically put on par with the other two, so IMO F6 is warranted.

[fracas]

Why is falling on tolkien's writing, even when it is embellished, when they are the words the lotr universe is built on. Yes I understand the perceived need for game balance but no one is saying Rohan is too powerful.

[Peregrin]

I have to concede that Zogash makes a lot of good points from the literature.
Unfortunately this isn't really a Tolkien Estates game, not at it's core.
This is a New Line Cinema licensed property, and in the movies the Rohirim are played down quite a bit.

Now the rest of this is pretty much all subjective, of course, but in my opinion JP and Fran just didn't feel they could characterise the Rohirim as powerfully as Tolkien does. They changed Faramir's response to Frodo and the ring because they felt it made the Ring's seductive power seem less, whereas in my own opinion it made Faramir's character seem less. In the same way, I feel they downplayed the effectiveness and power of the Rohirim especially in comparison to the elves. As a result, GW has done the same thing. Gothmog is another example. I don't feel a non-canonical character should get the power that he has, but JP loved him so GW loves him. GW obviously felt they needed a leader for Mordor other than the Nazgul, but I think they overdid it with Gothmog, personally.

Now, as far as Rohan goes, there are several problems with the Rohirim as they are right now. There are inherant issues with Cavalry making them less effective than they could be, but some of those shortcomings can be overcome through strategy and situation. However, regarding the Rohan army specifically:

I agree that they should have a way to legally field an all horse army, either by paying less for those without bows, or by giving them an option to circumvent the bow limit on their horses. Other units, such as the Dunedain, have those kind of options. Since this is a skirmish game and most of the skirmishes were all horse forces, this only makes sense.

I agree that Gondor should have heavier armour and lances. The Swan Knights should be particularly well armoured but more rare. I would love to see Rohan with lances, because of how their long spears are used in the books, but I understand that this is more about what we see in the movies.

Elvish Cavalry is another case. This is the area where I don't mind them being 'better' than the Rohirim, but they should much rarer and Rohan should be able to field a lot more of them. After all, you just don't see masses of elves fighting from horseback.

Expert Rider should be changed. It is much better in WotR than in SBG. It is very situational in SBG, whereas it allows full movement and shooting in WotR. That might not be the solution here, but do something with it that makes it matter. I almost never use the Expert Rider perk in SBG.

As for the heroes, I agree that Theoden needs some Fate. That alone would make him more attractive. However, he did a lot less in the movies than in the books. He was more of a glorified cheerleader in the movies, rallying and comanding, but not the warrior we see in the literature. Eomer's 'special' abilities should be reviewed. I'm more or less satisfied with his stats. He shouldn't need to be an Aragorn to effectively lead his Eored. After all, if most people prefer to use Erkenbrand and Grimbold, then its not as cut and dried as simply increasing his Fight value.

[Zogash]

I have to concede that Zogash makes a lot of good points from the literature.
Unfortunately this isn't really a Tolkien Estates game, not at it's core.
This is a New Line Cinema licensed property, and in the movies the Rohirim are played down quite a bit.

I see your point, though GW expanded the Bejesus out of Harad - way beyond what they field in the movies. I see no reason not to expand the Rohirrim to make them both more competetive and more (book-) fluffy without totally negating their portrayal in the films.

Now the rest of this is pretty much all subjective, of course, but in my opinion JP and Fran just didn't feel they could characterise the Rohirim as powerfully as Tolkien does. They changed Faramir's response to Frodo and the ring because they felt it made the Ring's seductive power seem less, whereas in my own opinion it made Faramir's character seem less. In the same way, I feel they downplayed the effectiveness and power of the Rohirim especially in comparison to the elves. As a result, GW has done the same thing. Gothmog is another example. I don't feel a non-canonical character should get the power that he has, but JP loved him so GW loves him. GW obviously felt they needed a leader for Mordor other than the Nazgul, but I think they overdid it with Gothmog, personally.

Sign.

Now, as far as Rohan goes, there are several problems with the Rohirim as they are right now. There are inherant issues with Cavalry making them less effective than they could be, but some of those shortcomings can be overcome through strategy and situation. However, regarding the Rohan army specifically:

I agree that they should have a way to legally field an all horse army, either by paying less for those without bows, or by giving them an option to circumvent the bow limit on their horses. Other units, such as the Dunedain, have those kind of options. Since this is a skirmish game and most of the skirmishes were all horse forces, this only makes sense.

I agree that Gondor should have heavier armour and lances. The Swan Knights should be particularly well armoured but more rare. I would love to see Rohan with lances, because of how their long spears are used in the books, but I understand that this is more about what we see in the movies.

As I said, GW has added loads to other forces portrayed in the films - e.g. you never see the Easterlings having Cataphracts - why not give lances (or a lance-war spear-hybrid) and generally more viable cavalry options to the Rohirrim? It stopped being "the absolute focus is the movies" with Shadow and Flame. I agree about the KoDA - they may be more powerful individually (especially due to their heavier armour), but there were only a few hundred of them at the most, while there were thousands of Rohirrim. So yes, they should be rare indeed.

Elvish Cavalry is another case. This is the area where I don't mind them being 'better' than the Rohirim, but they should much rarer and Rohan should be able to field a lot more of them. After all, you just don't see masses of elves fighting from horseback.

I kinda agree, but having secretive Wood Elves thunder around on horses just seems weird to me. And 12" move is just wrong - they are as fast as Shadowfax! I think they would have been great enough with just 10", considering their ability to move through forests unconstrained gives them a huge bonus already.
And while I'm on the topic of speed, Pelennor-Théoden should move 12", since he outruns all other RoR both in the books and the film.

Expert Rider should be changed. It is much better in WotR than in SBG. It is very situational in SBG, whereas it allows full movement and shooting in WotR. That might not be the solution here, but do something with it that makes it matter. I almost never use the Expert Rider perk in SBG.

Agreed. Way too situational to be a trademark sign for superior horsemanship.

As for the heroes, I agree that Theoden needs some Fate. That alone would make him more attractive. However, he did a lot less in the movies than in the books. He was more of a glorified cheerleader in the movies, rallying and comanding, but not the warrior we see in the literature. Eomer's 'special' abilities should be reviewed. I'm more or less satisfied with his stats. He shouldn't need to be an Aragorn to effectively lead his Eored. After all, if most people prefer to use Erkenbrand and Grimbold, then its not as cut and dried as simply increasing his Fight value.

Yes, Pelennor-Éomer is ok (even with F5), but normal Éomer is just too lackluster to be viable when compared to Erkenbrand in particular: he gives no army-wide bonuses, unlocks no upgrades and +1 each of M/W/F just doesn't compare to what an army-wide +2C and +1F for RoR can do for you. Lookin at his stats it's hard to believe he's Rohan's second-in-command and future king...

EDIT: I must confess that I mixed up Théoden's stats in my memory - it's been a while since I played my Rohan army: he does have 2 Fate (which, I guess, is more or less reasonable) but has 0 Will, which is just as bad if not worse, considering the abundance of Ringwraiths paralyzing the juice out of him turn after turn without chance of resisting... Come to think of it, I did use to wonder (still do, for that matter) why he doesn't have any Will even though Gandalf restored his willpower before he ever donned his armour... but of course, that was in the book... forgot that Mr. T was a whiney dwerp for most of his screentime. ^^

[Tupinamba]

Zogash said it all, really, but I´ll add just some extras too. First, about how I perceive Rohan from the books (which is what forms the universe and, hence, should be the basis for the expected gameplay of each faction) and second about rules and balance issues.

Concerning the fluff, I´d also add that Rohan, contrary to some posts here, were a conquering people. Eorl and the Rohirrim came from the north and conquered the region now called Rohan from the Dunlandings and also against opposition of orcs, repeatedly beating them. They "received" the land from Gondor for their help in defeating orcs and more as a formality in accepting Gondor suzerainty, as de facto they had conquered it by themselves. They are pretty much the equivalent to other invading horse peoples in the real world, like ostrogoths, sarmathians, magyars etc. Nomad horse people have a tendency to be more warlike than settled/agrarian societies, often conquering even more developed and civilized nations and/or being employed by this sort of empires as fighting vassals (see Byzantium). Certainly not invincible, but a power to be reckoned with and certainly stronger than armies composed of slaves and mercenaries.

Also, although orcs were based on corrupted elves in the far past, they are not corrupted elves in the sense of Dark Elves, but really in the sense of degenerated aberrations. In the Silmarillion, orc forces are very often beaten by smaller armies of elves and also of men. One on one, orcs are worse than human warriors.

It seems to me that some of the disagreement comes from the difference between how Rohan is described in the books and how it is portrayed in the movies (they are not the only ones, as the already posted example of Faramir shows). For some reason, PJ made them quite whimpey. For example, the siege of Helms Deep is depressing. They need help from the elves and are a bunch of peasants, old men and children. In the books, while there are old men and younglings defending the fortress, the Rohirrim hold their own without help and break the Isengard forces with the counterattack of their cavalry. Boromir, the greatest hero of Gondor, has only good words to spare about their bravery and fighting prowess.

I, for one, but I´d say a majority of LOTR players too, have the books as main reference, not the movies.

As to these fluff questions affecting the balance of the game, I really think its a question of having the right points costs and rules. Fluff is always the basis of the rules, and more so in a game like LOTR, with a clear narrative focus. Aragorn´s and Boromir´s rules kick ass because they were the greatest human heroes of their time. Elves and dwarves have superior troops ruleswise to represent their superiority fluffwise. This is balanced by their high points costs. There is absolutely no balance reason for having Eomer and Theoden, two other very badass characters in the books (not at the same level, but not that far from it either), having powerful stats/rules and higher prices, not being weaker and cheaper than orc lieutnants like Gothmog or even internally, in comparison to Erkenbrand or Helm.

In this sense, concerning the rules that would make the Rohirrim be the horse lords while not breaking the game, there have been some very good suggestions in this thread. Myself, I´d be happy to have rules that make them fight as light/medium cavalry that they are. No lances and heavy warhorses, but instead, no limit on bows, warspears and maybe stuff like evasive reaction, hit and run etc. or some special deployment rules to reflect their advantage in strategic movement. There are tons of possibilities. Sadly, Expert Rider does not work in that regard. The way it is, it´s the contrary, with Rohan not having access to magic, monsters and warmachines, not being able to field an effective cavalry force and instead having to rely on completely unfluffy gimicky stuff, like S4 infantry.

Yes, they do fight dismounted. In sieges or as mounted infantry. However, being defined by strong infantry, while it´s more viable in game terms for a goblinoid force to be pure warg cavalry (which is only a support element in Mordor/Moria/Isengard forces) simply does not make sense, either in terms of background or in terms of game balance.
I´m not whining or quitting the game because of it. But the new supplements were a great wasted opportunity to address the issue.

[Zogash]

I can honestly say I agree with pretty much all you say. Well put indeed! :-)

I´m not whining or quitting the game because of it. But the new supplements were a great wasted opportunity to address the issue.

Amen brother! In the weeks leading to their release I was so stoked Rohan would finally get the attention it deserves... boy, what a letdown it was... :-( They added things nobody asked for and ignored problems as obvious as an Oliphaunt in a tater patch... *cough*RoR bow issue*cough* And I doubt it will get any better in future, seeing as they have yet to release even a basic FAQ for the KoM book even though there are some major issues in desperate need of an official answer. Shows how 'high' LotR is on their list of priorities, huh?

[fracas]

how about a simple fix by giving mounted rohan models with +1 attack?
this will make them more powerful mounted than on foot
but with the rules they will still be vulnerable with the larger base

[Peregrin]

Tupinamba: I mostly agree. I did not say that I wanted movie Rohan over Book Rohan, but rather that GW's original concept is based on JP's movie version. I didn't say I liked it, only that it's what we've got.

Zogash: I didn't really elaborate before on what I thought of the Elf cavalry. They should be elite units, should not have Shadowfax's speed (he was supposed to be unique and there's no indication that Elves had better horses than the Rohirim), should not have 'Woodland Creature' perk while on horseback (the Elves may be good, but there's no way to move a horse through trees quickly without seriously endangering the horse), but may be considered expert riders (Legolas, Arwen, Gildor, et al seemed to be better than average on a horse).

As for the overall character of Rohan and it's heroes, I do have a hard time resolving the movie/GW game with the books. I love the Weta design for the helms, armour, even the wall hangings, etc. I think the casting was spot on... but the writing? They just couldn't let them upstage Gondor, I guess.

[Zogash]

Tupinamba: I mostly agree. I did not say that I wanted movie Rohan over Book Rohan, but rather that GW's original concept is based on JP's movie version. I didn't say I liked it, only that it's what we've got.

Too true...

Zogash: I didn't really elaborate before on what I thought of the Elf cavalry. They should be elite units, should not have Shadowfax's speed (he was supposed to be unique and there's no indication that Elves had better horses than the Rohirim), should not have 'Woodland Creature' perk while on horseback (the Elves may be good, but there's no way to move a horse through trees quickly without seriously endangering the horse), but may be considered expert riders (Legolas, Arwen, Gildor, et al seemed to be better than average on a horse).

Yes, I totally see the justification for Elves being expert riders - they are specially in tune with their horses, but that doesn't make the horses themselves special.

As for the overall character of Rohan and it's heroes, I do have a hard time resolving the movie/GW game with the books. I love the Weta design for the helms, armour, even the wall hangings, etc. I think the casting was spot on... but the writing? They just couldn't let them upstage Gondor, I guess.

Completely agree about the costume design and sets, not so much about the casting... Éomer is spot on indeed, but Bernard Hill as Théoden was a really bad choice IMO. Not that his acting was bad, he was just way too young for the role! He was 56 at the time of filming, portraying Théoden as a man in his prime, whereas book-Théoden was 71 and looked it (incl. a long white beard). Richard Harris (who played Marcus Aurelius in Gladiator and Dumbledore in the first Harry Potter film) would have been the perfect man for the job, though he was probably already too weak at the time to have been able to do the fighting scenes. Peter O'Toole would have also been great.
Miranda Otto did a good job as Éowyn, though I still would have preferred an actual blonde as the White Lady of Rohan instead of a redhead - analogous to red-haired David Wenham portraying raven black-haired Faramir. Minor issues, but mildly irritating nonetheless.

The main issue I have with the character writing is their unneeded switching around of support characters: Gamling (Old English for 'old man'), in the book an appropriately named old soldier in command of Helm's Deep's rearguard, in the film suddenly becomes a young man and the king's most trusted advisor - usurping Éomer's place (pushing one of Rohan's pivotal characters into a more or less fringe role) as well as Hama's, whose death turns from one of Théoden's main motivations for vengeance on Saruman into some wierd form of comic relief. GW even pushed this further, also making Gamling the bearer of the Royal standard, which was Guthláf's job.

[Peregrin]

Yup. Thus reinforcing that GW's Rohirim are really JP's and not Tolkien's. I did have a problem with Tolkien's version where a 71 yr old regular man (not half elf or Dunedain) was able to out fight most of his juniors, so I thought Bernard Hill was fine. The part could have been written more powerfully and directed as such, though... just an opinion.

[Zogash]

Yup. Thus reinforcing that GW's Rohirim are really JP's and not Tolkien's. I did have a problem with Tolkien's version where a 71 yr old regular man (not half elf or Dunedain) was able to out fight most of his juniors, so I thought Bernard Hill was fine. The part could have been written more powerfully and directed as such, though... just an opinion.

Not quite regular: Théoden's mother was from Lossarnach, so she, and in extension her son, was from noble Gondorian lineage. Besides, he spent most of his pre-kingship years fighting for Gondor, so it does make sense that he knows how to fight. Plus, after he is "healed" by Gandalf he really expects to sacrifice himself to save his country, regains his lost strength and holds nothing back when it comes to the point - "fey he seemed" - think 'berzerker mode'. It's just so much deeper than "relatively young guy fights like a relatively young guy". ^^

I for one am still hoping that one of these days GW will at least give us the possibility to play a more 'book-true' Rohan army, just as I hope High Elves will receive some attention someday. To be honest, after the rather large Evil release in January (I think...) I was expecting something for the Good side to be not too far ahead. But with the new 40k releases and the Hobbit in the tubes, it seems I may have been mistaken...

[40Kossar]

Hi,
Just read this thread and while i can understand the complaint regarding paying the points for bows, that your not allowed to use, I fail to understand the desire for a fluff based Eored that is fully bow armed, in the book when Eomers men are attacking the Uruk-Hai " A few of the riders appeared to be bowmen, skilled at shooting from a running horse" and aren't these the Out riders, and I don't recall in either the rest of the book or the films where they are portrayed as Hun or Mongol Horse archers.


Apologies if I missed anything , I have to admit I have only read a store copy of the Kingdoms of Men book, so my source of information is somewhat out.

[Peregrin]

Well, it was GW's decision to make them all carry bows. But it was also GW's decision to only allow teams to equip 33% of their forces with bows.
So as is, either we have to pay for the bows and not use them, or we cannot field an all horse team of Rohirim. It's not necessarily that we want them all to have bows, but that we want to be able to field an all horse team.

Then we just got talking fluff regarding other related subjects.

[wilsongrahams]

I have enjoyed this thread. It does highlight the differences between powerful writing and realism, as well as the film and the books' glaring disimilarities.

In short, I think that Rohan simply needs the bow limit removing (this is now FAQ'd I believe) and that expert rider needs to do more. The problem is not with the rohirrim, but with other cavalry being cheaper or better. Easterlings were not mounted in either the book or film, so should not have a cavalry that is so superior and cheap! Elves as pointed out, do not breed special horses like in warhammer fantasy battles, and so should have regular horses.

Where I disagree mainly is that being the horse lords, does not mean that they are better warriors or fighters, but more skilled at riding horses, and not falling off them etc. To me, the elves should have the skilled rider rule as it stands - jumping on/off moving horses etc relates to the falling rider table. What I would have given the rohirrim is something to make them not count as trapped when surrounded, as being cavalry, and having most of their battle experience being mounted, they would be used to being surrounded - we see it a lot in the films - the charge halts and the hacking starts. This alone would give the rohirrim a unique special rule that would matter. They should also be able to shoot at full gallop as seen in the films (And this is because the game is based on the films, and so I think so should the rules).

Regarding Theoden/Eomer/Grimbold etc, well to be honest, the later characters were added, and GW saw fit to give them special rules to do something other than being basic captains. I guess the problem was that they didn't want to alter the other four or five characters they already had, and had to do something. Personally, any army wide rule like this should not be part of the game in my opinion - it makes no sense. Surely other heroes should have a courage-raising effect too? What should be done here is to give Theoden that bonus and drop the strength bonus altogether - it is a gamey thing that is unrealistic to me.

As for characters doing different roles - the film had to limit it's cast or nobody would recognise anything, and that meant combining characters - and as for Gamling - he carried the banner in the films, so he does so in the game, simple. The evolution of Gamling was an organic one in his becoming the new right hand man. I accept this one too - with Hama dead, Gamling effecticely got a promotion, and he was the only man available - so whether it was previously his job to carry the banner does not matter - with only a few men at his side (less than ten ride out at helms deep in the film) any man is better than no man. The glaring omission is that Hama does not have a mounted model, and yet in the only fight scene he is involved in, he starts mounted lol!