The One Ring
http://gbain.powweb.com/

WOTR or SBG, discussion
http://gbain.powweb.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=19208		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Shadowswarm [ Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:27 am ]
Post subject:  WOTR or SBG, discussion
Well seeing how there was a bunch of people already posting on my other post, i thought i may as well make this for people to banter ect.... (alghough im not sure if it will get used i think its worth making this post anyway)

SO i have to things to say(one of them being very large)

1. do you guys think that magic in sbg could have been improved? (like how EVERY character is limited to 1 spell per turn (even saruon...))


2. One of the things that Im dying to try is have a BIG campain that is something like this:

you pretty much play out the whole LOTR, you could start will the battle of the last alliance on Mt doom(WOTR) or with the fellowship(SGB), and see how far I go, the objective would be to get ALL i can from LOTR great story, while getting the best of both systems

this way i can enjoy the intricate detailed heroics from the fellowship, the massive battle of helms deep (and the smaller battles there such as defending the hole in the fortress or fighting off the uruks inside the hornburg)

although this could take years to do ALL of it (where the heck am i going to get a helms deep or minas tirith), it would be fun to at least try. (i look for the doing the fellowship ones the most)
(oh and i do realise that GW is already making campains like this)

(anyone intersted in trying some of this out with me? i live in Newmarket, Brisbane, Australia)
Author:  General Elessar [ Sat Aug 07, 2010 7:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
1) I'm tempted to say yes, magic should be better, but I'm actually going to say no. In the books (and the films) and magic tends to be very subtle.
Author:  Mouth-of-Sauron [ Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
MM

Magic is very powerful in this game when used Correctly, true, it is not available to every hero but It is perfectly depicted in this game.


Your idea on the campaign seems interesting, shame can´t help you out there
:rofl:
Author:  Queen Berúthiel [ Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
sounds like a cool idea for the campaign.

Well just like General Elessar i´m tempted to say that magic shoud be better but like it is now is pretty true to Tolkien and that´s how i like it.
Author:  Jamros [ Sun Aug 08, 2010 2:40 am ]
Post subject: 
Magic is fine just the way it is.

Playing through The Lord of the Rings is something I've always wanted to do, but truth be told, I will probably never do it. The current plan is to use Strategy Battle Game rules for the smaller scenarios, and Battle of Five Armies rules (I personally call the adaptation of the rules into LotR "Warmaster of the Ring," but Middle-earth Warmaster seems to be the more popular term) for the larger battles. I would have to buy two different scales of miniatures, but in the end based on my calculations it will be much more cost effective than purchasing everything from GW in 28mm scale, especially if WotR were to be incorporated into the mix. If I've got all of this planned out, why would I never be able to play through The Lord of the Rings? I've got about one year before college. Truth be told, I have a relatively small collection, and acquiring and painting all of the miniatures needed before then would be borderline impossible, especially considering their cost, not to mention playing through such an expansive campaign. I'll try though!
Author:  Shadowswarm [ Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:24 am ]
Post subject: 
i understand you guys when you say, no, but it I feel that there should be more to magic. like there should at least be more spells to use and should vary more (i want to see more creative spells), but it seems that GW is learning that variety and special rules is what people want more (as seen in almost all its latest releases, most of the models have special rules), so if GW continues how it is, it should be fine :)


so what do you guys think about things like pikes in sbg, as me and many others are a bit frustrated that nothing happens when a bunch of cavalry charge into a line of pikes/spears...


oh, and I have just bought a big game board off ebay (2meters by 1.2m), and have a bunch of custom made terrain, lots of goblins, hoping to be buying a balrog and some ringwraiths off ebay in the next few days, some uruk scouts, and the fellowship. and thats most of what you need to play the games in the fellowship of the ring, so if there are any takers out there...
Author:  CreatureFear [ Sun Aug 08, 2010 8:52 am ]
Post subject: 
I've played since FOTR and trust me, right now the spells have plenty of variety. There's only so many spells and things you can add anyway that make sense in LOTR (and GW already add plenty of things that don't make sense as it is). I think spells are as they should be, you don't see magic flying around all the time in the books or movies and I don't think it should be such a common thing.

About pikes, yes - it doesn't make much sense.
This has to do with how much realism is possible in this sort of game without making it overly complicated or tedious. For instace, if you're adding rules for different types of lines - then you need rules for what constitutes a "line" (5 men in a row?) Once you decide that then it gets even more complicated because you can rotate models - so if you led your cavalry quickly around their lines and then your opponent simply turns all his men around - does that count, does he get a bonus? I guarantee this wouldn't be 'realistic' (as charges can, and often do, take the enemy by suprise and men in RL can't rotate a large line in an instant) - so then you have to makes more and more rules...
All in all I think it's fine how it is.
Author:  Shadowswarm [ Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:49 am ]
Post subject: 
yes i understand why GW didnt make that rule, i was just asking what you guys thought about it

now one of the things that i find really annoying is the point cost for some of the original models (I'm looking at you bilbo baggins)
Author:  General Elessar [ Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:00 am ]
Post subject: 
Shadowswarm wrote:
so what do you guys think about things like pikes in sbg, as me and many others are a bit frustrated that nothing happens when a bunch of cavalry charge into a line of pikes/spears...




I don't like that either.
Author:  Shadowswarm [ Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
ok now there is think one thing that has been bothering me about sbg (srry all my critic is for sbg but thats all i play :P )
its how skill it not properly reflected. what im trying to point at is that numbers are better than kill. example, if i was to play a game with goblins vs high elves(or any army that has low number) at 300 pts then i would bet that the goblins would win (durburz and 48 goblins is hard to beat when the best you can muster is 25 models if you went for max numbers)
there is the same problem, but the other way round. dwarves would do well at 500 pts because they can get just about max numbers while still having expensive/elite stuff, while hobbits are looking for stuff to fill up points...

also, if you have a F4 models against two F3 models, then the 2 models have a better chance of winning the fight and also killing him

and unless you change some of the funamanels of sbg it cant really be balanced

what do you guys think?
Author:  TheFlameoftheWest [ Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
I agree to a point. A smaller force with elite skill has to use terrain to their advantage and dictate the game with better ranged attacks or else every criticism you mentioned is true. If they can manage to use ranged attacks and terrain to their advantage, I believe a small elite force can and will win against even the largest horde army.

I am currently very close to producing my own SBG campaign for this site to review and critique. I hope to fix a lot of these complaints about the SBG and provide a great way to link scenarios to recreate the War of the Ring.
As my original forum post on this topic was called, it will be "One Campaign to Rule them All."
Author:  spuds4ever [ Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
General Elessar wrote:
Shadowswarm wrote:
so what do you guys think about things like pikes in sbg, as me and many others are a bit frustrated that nothing happens when a bunch of cavalry charge into a line of pikes/spears...




I don't like that either.


Err... yes! Pikes are deadly against cavalry in SBG as if the cavalry want easy pickings, they have to fight against 3 fight 4 attacks all the time so they will have little chance of winning the fight.

One thing I've noticed in SBG, though, is that wizards and ringwraiths etc. are all very weak in combat and I know Gandalf is definetely not supposed to be like that. I think that ringwraiths should have the option to increase wounds and attacks up to 2 each for will of evil rule for 10 points per point and that wizards should simply have 2 attacks.
Author:  Shadowswarm [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:03 am ]
Post subject: 
1st about the numbers issue
the thing that really gives big armies and advantage over small ones is the fact that they can volley, this means that the small army has to march over and fight the larger one on the larger one's terms.

so like if the goblins all hide behind barricades ect and volley, then the opponent has no choice but to fight the goblins att the barricades (unless you can out range the goblins (normal range, not volley range) and shoot them, but if the goblins target ur archers with the volleys then this probably wouldnt work)


about the pikes: i do realise that cavalry charging into a wall of pikes will get pretty smashed up, but its not the same as getting skewered on the charge


Ok and about the wizards, i think that gandalf should get 2 attacks (i already made a house rule about that), but i havent known the other wizards to get into combat much, so i think 1 attack is fine for them.

the ringwraiths are a different story, the ringwraiths have ways to get multiple attacks such as special rules of getting a fell beast, but overall they are not ment to be combat guys. and having 2 woulds is something that they could of done, but i think GW gave them 1wound but really high D so reflect that they are not flesh and so you can ''injure'' them, you can just banish them
not to mention that nazgul are already tricky to kill (magic and a fell beast - they can avoid just about all that you through at them, unless fill them with arrows, but still..)
Author:  General Elessar [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:29 am ]
Post subject: 
spuds4ever wrote:
General Elessar wrote:
Shadowswarm wrote:
so what do you guys think about things like pikes in sbg, as me and many others are a bit frustrated that nothing happens when a bunch of cavalry charge into a line of pikes/spears...




I don't like that either.


Err... yes! Pikes are deadly against cavalry in SBG as if the cavalry want easy pickings, they have to fight against 3 fight 4 attacks all the time so they will have little chance of winning the fight.



Yeah, but I think they should be more directly anti-cavalry.
Author:  Shadowswarm [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
do you think that GW will release a new version of LoME? apart from the obvious mistakes/ build quality/ usless stuff (will the blackhearted tree ever come out?), i think that there needs to be one because of all the updates they make and because some models need repricing (bilbo, spider queen ect) and because the new updates are only on wd, and sometime later on the gw site.

along with this is the question of how long/much will gw support sbg? yes they are releasing new stuff, but they seem to support wotr WAY more (and no wonder, if ppl get into wotr, then they would make so much $ because you have to buy so much stuff). currently they are only doing little bits here and there for sbg, but i really would like to see a new rulebook that has updated profiles ect as well as LoME included (although that is a bit far fetched)
Author:  General Elessar [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
I would love an updated LoME, but I don't see it happening. Like you said, WotR is now the main thing.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/