Is it right that warriors on Rohan (on foot) can't have proper spears? Seems a bit daft to me.

_________________
Sometimes you CAN be the only one in step...

I guess GW wanted to have some diversity with their armies. In a way having a throwing spear is like having an extra attack except it will always be a S3, unlike if you were to support a hero and give him an extra S4+ attack. Another advantage with them being throwing spears is that you can slay an enemy even before the shoot phase and then charge someone else if you can, this is a great advantage. But yeah it's lame that Rohan doesn't have any support attackers.

_________________
My Lotr backlog: 305/952[][][][][][][][][][]32% completed
Painting Lineup: Mumakil x2, Rohan Heroes x8, Haradrim, SKoDA

Why's it daft?

cause in real life if you have some throwing spears why not use them as normal spears???!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cause in real life they're neither heavy enough nor long enough

Thats not 'real life' though. In general armies would use one or the other, seldom trained to carry and use two types of spears, Typical armies would be your classical spear armed Greeks and your Roman Empire throwing spears.

Didn't the Romans, in game terms, effectively support each other though? (not arguing about throwing spears, just the effectiveness of training and deployment)

If I remember correctly, in the very first edition of the rules (FotR) it was said something about spear support requiring training. We made a house rule out of that and in that rule only models of the same profile entry could support each other with spears. For example we wouldn't use Men of Gondor spearmen to support High Elf front line, which was quite normal tactic at the time. The guys would not have trained in the same garrison so we didn't believe they would have the necessary skills.

Of the original Rohan spear issue, not allowing Rohan regular spears was a brilliant thing in the early versions of the game. Rohan was the first faction to get cavalry (no one could afford more than a few metal warg riders) and not having spear support forced them to rely on cavalry while other armies fought on foot and each had a specific playing style. Then most other armies got cavalry while retaining heavy infantry with spear support and now with the endless troop and ally options you can find a warrior with any stat line for almost any army. That was daft in my opinion. Time to climb off the soap box...

-- Pasi

I pretty much agree with this, not having spears was fine when we still had notable advantages in other areas. Nowadays things are different: our basic warriors are average at best and even our cavalry (the best of the best, lore-wise) is often outmatched because we aren't allowed to give them lances.

Add the comparatively low fight value of 3 and lack of spear support and winning fights against some fairly common armies (e.g. Corsairs, Black Numenoreans /w Spear support, etc.) gets really tough. Just yesterday my line of 15 WoR were utterly wiped out by 16 Corsairs - they are cheaper, all have throwing weapons, they can have spears, and, most importantly, have F4, so it was basically 2:1 in most fights (as I couldn't get all 15 guys in at once) with him winning on draws. Yes, corsairs may be only D4 (with shield), but what good does that do me when they always win the fights? My archers killed some, but his arbalesters weren't idle either, killing most of my riders before they ever got anywhere. I don't know what I should have done differently... them being better in melee and at range and costing less had me outnumbered from the start. I don't mean to whine, but it does seem rather daft to not be allowed spears... at least it would even the odds a little. As would giving at least the Riders F4... but that's just me dreaming

_________________
Rohan - as it should have been. A house rule project.

Pasi, I like your house rule regarding training, I think I'll steal that.
I think it felt daft to me, because I couldn't think of another cavalry-based force that had relied on throwing spears, rather than lances, especially if they had the stirrup. It's even worse when the foot figures that GW do have spears being used like, well, spears, rather than javelins.

My figures are such a mix that I'll never play in a competition anyway, so I don't suppose it matters too much if I give my WoR spears and don't tell anyone...

_________________
Sometimes you CAN be the only one in step...

The problem is definately not because Rohan have throwing spears, its because of GW's stat creep of everybody else. In the early day's, my army of choice was Rohan and I achieved my highest GT position with them, I have also managed to win (even though a Phyric victory) against a Uruk-hai phalanx. If you want to make Rohan favourable again rather than have them armed with spears and lose Rohan their unique identity, go back to the old costings for them and have a bit of diverse fun rather than two phalanxes just crashing into each other.

I agree with most of what you said, but to me the lack of spears takes away much from the 'unique identity' Rohan should have - or rather, the lack of lances for the riders (or at least the Royal Guard):

"'I fret in this prison,' said Théoden, 'If I could have set a spear in rest, riding before my men upon the field, maybe I could have felt again the joy of battle, and so ended. But I serve little purpose here.'" - TTT- Helm's Deep

"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." - RotK - The Battle of the Pelennor Fields

It is fairly obvious from these passages that Tolkien envisioned the Rohirrim's preferred fighting style as riding down their enemies with lance-like spears. From what I read on their product page, the Royal Guard has the option for lances in WotR, I see no reason not to give them lances in the SBG as well.

And though game-wise the lack of spear support may make Rohan 'unique', there is no notable advantages anymore to make up for said lack, as even their once-awesome cavalry now is outperformed reglarly. As far as I can see, Rohan is the only army except Dwarves (who have the distinct advantage of superior Defence) to not have spears. Yes, throwing spears may be powerful, too, but the superiority of +1 Attack in combat (both on to-win and on to-wound rolls) to 1 one 'attack' on the charge is obvious, especially when up against enemies with higher F value. Even more so considering that throwing weapons are by no means Rohan-only. Corsairs, for instance, can have both spears and throwing weapons at the same time, plus F4, at a lower cost than a WoR with throwing spear and shield!

_________________
Rohan - as it should have been. A house rule project.

I agree with you, I think even the movies show the Rohirrim with long spears or lances on horseback, even in the first scene with them when they circle the three hunters.



No question Rohan is nerfed. Hithero has a longer perspective, but it seems to me their stats hail from the days when D5 was the big deal, since it protected you from unlimited D2 bows. Then they put in the 33% bow limit, which a) made D5 the same as D4 against most wound rolls, but you're still paying for it; and b) took away one of the key advantages of a RoR army.

Eomer dismounted to form a shieldwall at the Pelennor Fields in ROTK. While there would be some benefit in a smaller frontage, especially if unable to get the charging bonus, without spears and against a horde army with spear support this would go horribly wrong quite quickly.

I believe Rohan should have Lance options, especially for Heroes (not Outriders, for theme), Royal Guard and Sons of Eorl. This could even be changed to War Spear, giving them the option to dismount and support colleagues. Why should Harad get the nicest toys?

Another House Rule might permit a second (touching) rank of mounted Rohirrim throwing spears at enemy spear support during the Shoot phase, allowing the superior height of the rider to overcome the Fight immediately in front of them.

There is definate argument for lance armed cavalry, they even have them in WOTR, but you alway's have to be wary of weapon terminology from authors so many times have I thought WTF when infantry are armed with 'lances' and cavalry with 'pike' even cahnging terminology within a sentance, even Homer has his Greek heroes armed with every combination of pointy sticks possible!

Don't see why you need spears to forma shield wall, its a defensive formation and Eomer certainly wasn't taking the offensive. Having your Rohan base to base and shielding is the best form of defence, especially when heavily outnumbered.

I say give, guard/knights lances and infantry Riders of Rohan throwing spears at 1pt and they will be a very effective army again without needing to add special rules,

I honestly don't think so. No argument on the lances, but I still think that even 1p. throwing weapons won't alleviate the severe drawbacks WoR have in melee. The throwing spears don't help the sub-par statline that plagues Rohan - F3, S3, D5, meaning they have trouble winning fights because they are usually outnumbered due to not having spear support, if they manage to win, there's a big chance they'll need sixes to wound (unless upgraded to Helmingas... making them even more expensive) while most enemies will only need fives to wound them. To have any chance against the likes of Uruk-hai, each WoR would need throwing spear, shield and Helmingas upgrade, pushing their cost to 10p. a piece! You can get an armored elf with sword and shield for that price! And they'd still be butchered in the long run. There's only so many times you get to use your throwing spears before you have to fight hand to hand, and hitting on 4, wounding on 6 they're not that likely to do much damage even then.

The two things that hurt WoR most are their F3 (which is ok for standard humans) and their low number of attacks (1, also standard). The former can't be reasonably changed, the latter is negated in almost all armies by spear or even pike support, or in the case of dwarves, staying-power - only Rohan is gimped, having neither.

I say, either give Warriors of Rohan spears or make them noticably cheaper.

_________________
Rohan - as it should have been. A house rule project.

As I've said before, I used to use Rohan a lot, mainly against Uruk armies - they do not need spears to win or to have a fighting chance, with Rohan you have to be extremely patient and tactical which in turn makes them more fun and challenging to win. Not all games need to be a clash of shieldwalls, with Rohan you need skill & tactics. For some reason everybody keeps ignoring the strategic effect of having throwing weapons and just concentrates on the probablilities of 2 lines contacting each other, they do damage too psycological as well as material.

Granted, with patience and tactics you can still win against most lists (though I've yet to find out how to win against a 24-bow 250point Ranger list or hordes of cheap F4 throwing weapon-wielding Corsairs...). However, I still think that, for what they can do, WoR feel overpriced.

_________________
Rohan - as it should have been. A house rule project.

Yup, they are now overpriced, need to put their throwing spears back down to 1pt and the guard and Theoden back to their original cost to.

Do you recall what the original guard and theoden costs were? I have to say, 16 points for a guard is a bit much, compared to, say, a berzerker.