Yep, that's my point. The Second Age contest was centuries long. Having one fate seems more like a scenario rule than a profile.

Point taken. Game-wise, low-point heroes like original Éowyn or Beregond are great, just to get more bodies on the board. Remember, though, that one of the main purposes of my list was to get Rohan and its characters more in line with their fluff - and having Éowyn be both cheaper and considerably weaker than a random Captain just didn't do at all, IMHO.



I tend to disagree on this count. The bond between Éomer and Éowyn, especially from Éomer's perspective, was much closer than what would be considered 'normal'. Remember, Éomer was close to outright killing Gríma just for looking at her the wrong way! If anything, the Twins' bond and its expression in the rules is purely hypothetical by comparison. They look exactly the same and think alike, but that's about it on the information we get on the depth of their relationship. Would they be p***ed if the other got killed? We don't know, but probably... With Éomer, we do know that his grief and rage would be deep enough he'd throw not only his life, but the fate of the entire world away!

Aragorn would probably be aggro, too, but well, Arwen getting slain was never even remotely likely, seeing as she was never anywhere near a battle in which she could be slain, quite contrary to Éowyn who actively sought it out. By the time harm would come to her, Aragorn would be long dead.



Agreed. 1 Fate for the High King of the Noldor who helped "kill" Sauron was hard to swallow, but in the end it does make sense: he is fated to die, as are Théodred and Théoden - wether it's through Sauron, through an Orc axe to the head, or being crushed by your horse. Fate, or lack thereof, reflect that (or in Théoden's case, his horse's special rule).
If we gave all heroes that die at some point the 'benefit of the doubt', we could just do away with the Fate mechanic altogether - or just give the same amount of Fate to everyone... No, I think some variance is a good thing, as long as there are other features that balance things out - like uber-Killyness (F9 + Aeglos) for Gil-galad or an army-wide boon for Théodred.



Indeed, that's why Merry improves her chance to wound. However, she does deliver the coup-de-grace, so for the (not unlikely) case that they don't both get into the same combat with that one Ringwraith, I still wanted her to have a bonus. Her full potential can still only apply when Merry's there.

EDIT: Just one more thing: if we did go strictly by the book, Ringwraiths would be impossible to kill unless Merry personally stuck 'em first... I shiver at that notion...



It does, but where do you apply the measure? Denethor was a strongwilled and talented commander at one point during his life - should we change him too because his rules portray him only as he was during the last few years? That's a scenario rule, too! What then is a profile (as compared to a scenario rule)? Do we take the character at its height? Or at the point when they were most 'characterful'? I prefer the latter...

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

True enough. That's why I liked your immunities, they speak to her spirit. But I think those paired with the original profile would work better. I don't think Tolkien ever implied she could go toe-to-toe with any of the Rohan captains...I'm not sure Hama would have had a job if Eowyn could kick him around the Golden Hall.



Evidently you don't have a sister If Grima was after one of my sisters he's have a permanent voice change to falsetto Remember, Eomer knew exactly what kind of scum Grima was, knew he was a traitor, but couldn't do anything about it. The last thing he'd tolerate is a guy eyeing his sister like that.



The way I see it, Eomer's grief is a build-up of everything that happens up to that point, the gyrating highs and lows of triumph and fear that start in Rohan and Isengard, the euphoria of their awesome charge at Pelennor and then the double-whammy of the death of his kin, IOW, scenario-based.

Then again, maybe it's just that I don't want to feel like I have to be subject to grief rules based on a specific incident in every game. What if the scenario is set in the 4th age?

Denethor's a bit of a different case to me because if you read the Appendices, he's a pretty jealous and petty sort. His instabilities are evident early on, and this character is evident in his profile.

I can understand the "fated to die" argument, but again it should be based on character. Maybe Theodred was reckless (we don't really know from the book). Theoden has no Will because he's been under the thumb of Saruman for so long. The Boromir of Gondor profile works because he's been corrupted by the Ring.



Agreed, most characterful. And I'm fine with different profiles for different phases of life...even though sometimes that seems like scenario and character rules bleed into each other. I'm not sure I can articulate adequately where I think the line should be. Maybe an example from a recent game:

I like Denethor's rule, it's simple and has the effect of divisiveness that parallels the book. In a recent game I hosted and ref'd I added some special objectives worth extra VP (neither side knew what the other's special objectives were). For Evil, if they killed Faramir and Boromir in the proper order, they'd get extra points, plus a hint that there might be a side-effect on the Good side. For Good, they knew that if Faramir was killed first it wasn't a problem; if Boromir was killed (regardless of order), Denethor would lose a point of Courage; and if Faramir was killed second, Denethor would lose a second point of Courage.

Denethor succumbing to the grief of losing both his sons is a major part of the plot in the book, just as important (or even more important) as Eomer losing it over Eowyn's death...but it's not a profile rule. Instead the general mechanics are there, and whenever I use Denethor I'm not locked into a particular aspect of the story, yet it's easily exploitable for a custom scenario.

The root of Eomer's leadership at Pelennor was that when all hope is lost, Eomer can lose it in a frightening way and draw all his people along with him. Maybe something that kicks in if Rohan breaks first or if he loses a contested heroic move, or...any basic mechanic that is story-agnostic. Then it can be leveraged in a scenario to be included any way people want, including the Eowyn death scene.

Well, I've blathered on enough You make good points, and I'll grant it's difficult to draw solid lines around the issue.

Eomer didn't even find out about Eowyn being there until WELL after the battle was over. Having him go insane over her death makes no real sense at all. I like the new rules for him ALOT (the better version). I feel that giving him a boost just for charging is very thematic and characterful.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

Actually, no. Éomer finds out that Éowyn is alive way after the battle is over - it's him thinking she's dead on finding her lying amongst the dead around Théoden that makes him go gaga. "Éowyn, how come you here? What madness or devilry is this? Death, death, death! Death take us all!" Before that point, he's very contained, even though his king and surrogate father just died and all seems rather hopeless - it's Éowyn's 'death' that makes him snap.



Actually, I do have a sister. And yes, having some scumbag look at her funny could result in a bad time for him. But there's a line between beating the daylight out of him and outright murdering him. No one should be that protective...



From a society standpoint Éowyn wasn't supposed to be a trained fighter, but to behave like a woman was expected. Then again, she wanted to be treated and fight like a man, and trained as such. Openly she fulfilled her social obligations, however, so Háma's job was safe. ^^ I'm pretty sure no run-of-the-mill captain of Rohan could have decapitated a Fell Beast with one blow...

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to answer your other very valid arguments, so let me just return the compliment:

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

If I can flog this horse one laaast time I think this is the gist of it all for me:



IOW distilling the essence of the character makes for a more flexible and generally useable profile. So for Eowyn, her immunities, plus, say, getting +1 to wound Terror-causing creatures, would capture the unique aspect of her character and still have the impact you're after in that particular setting. It could be rationalized that she's stronger against Terror-causing creatures because, while most people have a "flight or fight" setting, she only has a "fight" setting and doesn't know how to back down. Maybe a drawback is that if she is within charging distance of a Terror-causing creature, she has to charge, striving to prove herself. Or maybe she has to make a Courage test to stay rational and *not* charge

And one last bit about the Twins: the difference for them is that they *have* to be deployed together. Their rule is a liability designed to reduce their point costs. Eomer's rule is also a liability, so it's an incentive not to take Eowyn just to avoid it.

Wait, really? Dang it's been WAY too long since I've read the books.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

You know, I actually like that! At least the basic +1 to wound Terror-causers, the drawback, not so much. She isn't reckless the way Théoden or Éomer are. I don't know... I can totally see where you're coming from, though.

Éowyn is a special case, anyway, since the Battle of the Pelennor fields was the only time she ever actually fought. In that one instance, however, she killed both a Fell Beast and the Witch-king, so it's quite hard to level her out into an 'everyday-situation profile'.



I know. That's why I wanted to make her viable enough to make her desirable on her own, while still keeping her in character (i.e. not a 30-point dummy leader). This is really hard to 'get right' without a copious amount of play-testing, though. Éomer's liability is also less damaging than the twins' is - even with 3D6 and discarding the highest, passing a Courage test on C5 is quite possible. And there's nothing stopping him from multi-charging a more opportune target as long his originally closest enemy is also in b2b.

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

I am not too worried by the relative weakness of cavalry and tend to have polarised results when using them, in particular when fielding a fully mounted Rohan force. Which I generally use hero heavy with Gamling with Royal banner. It is generally devastating against hordes of Mordor orks and evil men, but stalls when up against anything a bit tougher or with high fight values. Rohan does allow you to hit and run and harry with bow fire that can be enormously frustrating for a ballistically weak enemy, and occasionally throwing spears will cause the odd casualty (I have yet to see them justify their points value!) but essentially remains a "one trick ponnie".

I agree completely with this, being a large Rohan fan. I certainly disagree with every RoR being equipped with a bow, so this is good for me. As much as I like Games Workshop, some of their rules aren't as well thought out as the should be. I may well start playing with these rules in my House Matches. Keep up the good work.

_________________
http://www.middle-earth-marauders.blogspot.co.uk/
Tabletop Gaming in London. New members welcome.

I was ready to snatch up the KoM book if they would have done almost anything to make Rohan more in line with what we had in the books. I absolutely loved Rohan as my favorite force from the books and started collecting them right away when I got started several years back. I own over 50 RoR, 30+ WoR and many of the major Heroes. And have not painted a single one yet...

Almost immediately when I got started I began experiencing Rohan from the other end as my first playable force was Uruk Hai. I quickly came to realize they weren't that good. We had an excellent player in our group that any one of us would feel proud to beat when you faced him...he just had a great sense of tactics, the flow of the battle and could build effective, well themed armies. But even he could never make Rohan work unless playing it primarily with foot soldiers, using a number of Guard and a relatively small mounted force. It just wasn't right.

I will admit that WotR made things a little better but had so many other not-Middle-Earth thematic issues for us that we just aren't drawn to it that much. Fun as a diversion but not much more.

With the new source books they had such a good opportunity (probably their LAST one) to refresh Rohan and Gondor compared to the creep of stronger profiles over the years and they just let it slip by. Very disappointing. Something like what you produced above is a real nice effort to do it more right.

I do think that 2W on horses may be a good thing to try. Sadly I don't get enough play time to actually do some play testing. But I do know that one of the biggest issues with RoR is how easy it is to kill the horse and that cripples the force. An extra point of Defense may have helped a couple years ago but look at the typical Fight and Strength values of standard Evil troops now. You hardly see anyone play normal Orc or Goblins with all the tougher options available. And as mentioned a horse is a big animal. 2W is not really a stretch. And I have no problem with it for Wargs either. Again, Warg Riders are generally not considered worth the points for similar reasons.

One thing WotR had for Eowyn which I thought was a nice thematic device was the ability to keep her off to the side as she is considered in hiding in the army and then replace any normal RoR / WoR with her model and Profile when you are ready to reveal her. This, combined with the immunity you mention above and whafrog's suggestion of +1 to Wound any Terror-causing models could make her a viable option without needing to actually increase her base Profile stats, and therefore not need to adjust her points much.

In addition to your format above are you able to generate a PDF?

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

I have had a battle using some of Zogash's ideas last weekend - being of similar opinion that Rohan needs a rethink. We just used the changes which relate to troops, not heroes.
The horses rule worked well. No horses were actually killed, they just ran when their rider died. Fight 4 on horseback was useful several times without being excessive. However warg riders were more formidable than usual as I think 3 or 4 wargs (now with 2W) made their courage checks and stayed after losing their riders. The shield wall didn't make much impact, though this could be down to terrain as the battlefield was broken up with lots of small features.

I think the biggest problem with Rohan is that they don't hit that hard. I'm ok with them not being that resiliant, but the fact that they both die easily and have a hard time killing stuff is wrong. The house rules that I use make them a bit better without forcing a massive recost.

Rohirrim:
Every model of the Rohirrim nationality gains the Horse Lords and Rohirrim Throwing Spears rule.

Riders of Rohan can choose to not take a bow, in which case they cost 12pts instead of 13. (this is just so you can have an all mounted army)

Rohirrim Throwing Spears: These spears are designed to be balanced enough to
throw, yet long enough to be used like any other spear. Any Rohirrim model equiped with Throwing Spears can use them as a throwing weapon and as a normal spear (ie they can support another model with them) when on foot, and can use them as a throwing weapon and as a lance when on horseback, but not in the same turn. (this is to give them some extra punch and to give them some spears support)

Horse Lords: Any Rohirrim model on horseback gains +1 to there Fight value when they charge, even if they charge another Cavalry or Monstrous mount model. (this is because they're supposed to be the best cavalry in Middle-Earth)

Theoden gains Forth Eorlingas! He has a 12in Standfast! (he is the King after all)

Theoden, Grimbold, Hama and Gamling all gain 1 might and Grimbold gains the option for heavy armor at 5 pts. (the Isengard heros don't have to pay for the extra might, why should the Rohirrim?)

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

Thanks for the replies, guys!
I'm glad (and a little proud ) my ideas are actually tried out by others. Feel completely free to use/modify/re-post them as you see fit. Credit is appreciated, but not required.
I don't have a pdf version yet, but that's something I've been thinking about doing for a while now. I'll do it as soon as I have some free time - and after I've had a thorough look at the new Hobbit rules and how they affect us.

To be honest, when I saw that they didn't revamp Rohan at all in the KoM book I was this close to just giving up and ebay off my Rohirrim for good. But then, like Beowulf, Rohan has always been my favorite force, so that's why I decided to draft up these house rules since I share the belief that they will never be officially made the way they should be.



I like this concept. I'll give it a try sometime.



That's precisely how I envisioned it. I actually don't mind riderless wargs being more formidable than usual... I always thought wargs were too fragile anyway. They're only D4 after all. I also wanted the Shieldwall to be situational and only semi-reliable - once it's broken, it's useless, just like in real life. Remember, its inclusion didn't increase the WoR's points cost, so they had to stay less survivable than the more expensive WoMT - think of it as a bonus if used correctly. Fighting on foot should be an exception rather than the rule for Rohan, anyways.



From a playing PoV, this is very sensible, especially when considering the Throwing Spears' cost compared to other special weapons. From a realism PoV, the foot version does indeed make sense, too. The mounted version, however, is hard to justify: to be throwable with any control, the spear must be rather short, which precludes its use as a lance (which has to be long by definition). I do see where you're coming from, though.



This I don't like, since cavalry's (and especially RoR's) problems stem less from the moments they charge (and where they get bonuses), but when they inevitably take a charge - that's when higher F becomes more important than ever. And as, as you rightly said, Rohan has the best cavalry in Middle-Earth, I don't see why they should be F4 on the charge only, while Harad Serpent Riders (who are postively butchered by the Rohirrim in the book) are F4 flat.

EDIT: I just noticed that the rule applies to all Rohirrim, not only the RoR. I like it in this respect, though I still think RoR need a flat F4 base.



Simple (well, definitely simpler than what I came up with ^^) and effective. Whatever works for you, works for you.

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

As I said, the only reason I wouldn't give RoR F4 flat is because that would need a recosting. I do agree with you the lance respect, but they seriously need some lances in the army.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

Indeed they do.

Move the obligatory bow to options, raise F to 4 while mounted, keep the cost at 13 points - IMO that's a fair tradeoff, especially when comparing them to Serpent Riders of the same price.

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

It's official. Check the new Kingdoms of Men FAQ. RoR don't count towards bow limit.

_________________
Titans Wargames Club

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_Titans/index/

Jep, I've seen it. I'm not happy about it though... especially with the -1 movement penalty they introduced alongside. If you move, you don't hit the broad side of a barn 2/3 of the time, if you don't move what's the point of being mounted? Add to that that their horse is as vulnerable as ever and that their main strength is their charge bonus, I'd still rather take 2 foot archers than 1 RoR for ranged firepower. Without the -1 movement penalty or if they were allowed to move their full move and still shoot, then I'd say they were viable - as it stands now, I still think they're not.

I remain of the opinion that removing the bow from their standard wargear and dropping the cost would have been the better choice. Not only would it have made RoR more flexible (horse archer or slightly cheaper melee cav), it would also have been more in line with both the books and the movie, where only some, not all, Riders carried bows.

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

Expert Rider should allow a mounted model to move and shoot without penalty.

_________________
My (more regularly updated) painting blog:
https://www.facebook.com/Pindergorn/

+1

Meaning (for me at least) without the new -1 movement penalty, but you are still bound by the 1/2 move to fire limit.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com