Well more models = more dice. The more dice you have per combat etc, the more likely you are to win.
(Although that doesnt apply to my moria force or my dice...can have 100 goblins plus and still lose
Dice gods hate me.)
| The One Ring http://ww.one-ring.co.uk/ |
|
| Quality vs Quantity http://ww.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24539 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | halkias82 [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Quality vs Quantity |
I've noticed something in the SBG that took a while for me to realize given how my bunch of friends tends to play the game. But that is that overall quantity tends to overwhelm quality rather decisively. It's starting to bother me more and more lately. Have you guys noticed the same thing? How would you get around it? |
|
| Author: | SouthernDunedain [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
Well more models = more dice. The more dice you have per combat etc, the more likely you are to win. (Although that doesnt apply to my moria force or my dice...can have 100 goblins plus and still lose Dice gods hate me.)
|
|
| Author: | The Horde Lord [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
Whafrog has been trying to work around it for at least 5 years now. Maybe the new special strikes help. |
|
| Author: | halkias82 [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
I feel like the solution should have something to do with breaking points. Maybe a staged 2 tier breaking process? 75% and 50% with heroes passing courage tests automatically so smaller more compact forces fear this less? What other ideas have been put forward? |
|
| Author: | SidTheSloth [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
Seeing as most swarms are evil, perhaps just a few more 2 attack good warriors? |
|
| Author: | JamesR [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
From my experience its all about formations and knowing both your and your enemies units completely. I spend almost as much time analyzing every other unit's strengths and weaknesses as my own and then you find the best matchups for you and make those happen |
|
| Author: | The Horde Lord [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
It's not really that big a deal to be honest. I see smaller forces win all the time. As long as you are awere of it when making your list, it should be fine. |
|
| Author: | doegred winsterhand [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
As much as I dislike them (I like having the choice, not a rule to force a particular build), the warband rules do help prevent the swarms effect you describe. |
|
| Author: | GothmogtheWerewolf [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
I'm pretty sure the all Wraiths on Fell Beasts army dud really well in SBG tornies and that is cerytainly no horde. |
|
| Author: | Lord Hurin [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
GothmogtheWerewolf wrote: I'm pretty sure the all Wraiths on Fell Beasts army dud really well in SBG tornies and that is cerytainly no horde. I doubt they would do as well now though, with Transfix having been nerfed some. |
|
| Author: | theavenger001 [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
Lord Hurin wrote: GothmogtheWerewolf wrote: I'm pretty sure the all Wraiths on Fell Beasts army dud really well in SBG tornies and that is cerytainly no horde. I doubt they would do as well now though, with Transfix having been nerfed some. But, fellbeasts now have the special strikes.... |
|
| Author: | Lord Hurin [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
theavenger001 wrote: Lord Hurin wrote: GothmogtheWerewolf wrote: I'm pretty sure the all Wraiths on Fell Beasts army dud really well in SBG tornies and that is cerytainly no horde. I doubt they would do as well now though, with Transfix having been nerfed some. But, fellbeasts now have the special strikes.... Wait, that applies to monstrous mounts as well as monsters?! Oh, that's dirty. 
|
|
| Author: | whafrog [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
Good points all... If quality is just the fight score, yes quantity trumps quality, because higher fight only gives you a 16% advantage 1:1, but if you're outnumbered 2:1 it swings the other way by 16%. Sounds like a losing proposition, but it's not that simple. It does bother me a bit thematically (I always thought, based on the books, an elf should be able to handle a squad of goblins, and men a few of them), but you can't deny the rules are well balanced for points, otherwise elves would never win. But you can still win with, say, elves vs goblins, for a variety of reasons. When quantity breaks, they break hard. You will hardly lose elves or dwarves to attrition after breaking, while goblins and orcs can simply disappear in a turn or two. Boosts from horns and drums and special profile rules and standfast are hugely important and become tactical objectives. Destroy the drum, kill the shaman, get to the wraith before he can roll standfast... More terrain helps. I see pictures of a lot of games where the board is open and lines approach and fight. IMHO, it's not very interesting, and not the way the game was designed to play. They mean it in the rules when they say cover 33 - 50% of the board in terrain. This creates pockets and bottlenecks where quality, backed by spears and pikes and banners, or a shielding wood elf with a spear, can get more dice into the fray. More dice means better odds of rolling a 6 (42% if you can get 3 dice), and a 6 auto-wins. Then there are the heroes, and now that Transfix/Immobilize is nerfed slightly, and spear and pike support use the Fight of the supporter, there's more incentive to bring some expensive quality heroes back into the game. Not to mention that well-constructed all-hero armies can win. And with the new monster rules, I'm sure Evil and Good monster armies are going to have a heyday. There's some quality trumping quantity... 
|
|
| Author: | whafrog [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
Lord Hurin wrote: theavenger001 wrote: But, fellbeasts now have the special strikes.... Wait, that applies to monstrous mounts as well as monsters?! Oh, that's dirty. And possibly chariots too, I think everybody's waiting for a new FAQ. At least, I can see Barge being useful. |
|
| Author: | Beowulf03809 [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
I think extremes of 'quality' (tiny forces) is a risk of course, but generally a well built and WELL PLAYED quality army can do fine. My standard Good force is Wood Elves. A little cheaper than Lothlorien / Rivendell but still a rather expensive set of models and Heroes. I often play against Moria Goblin hordes and Isengard Uruks (two extremes for Evil). I have to play differently depending on what force I face and how my opponent is playing, but I would say the army plays equally well against either. When facing numerically superior forces, especially when a big difference exists in the numbers, you have to play very carefully. Shield when you are out numbered (you will usually have a higher Fight vs. swarms). Maximize use of Zone of Control. Use Heroic Combats when optimal. Focus on weak points in the enemy force. Also, keep focused on the OBJECTIVE of the game. If you're playing to kill 100% of each other's force it's one thing, but most games have scenario objectives that are different. If you loose focus on the objective you will find victory much harder. |
|
| Author: | BlackMist [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
I always find it a bit weird people talk about quality and quantity as opposites. You can easily have a huge amount of quality troops. In 1000 points you can easily fit 60 High Elves which are hardly going to die to 100 goblins every time. I'm not sure how people play with limits these days, but in the LoME rules you could fit a 700pts force of foutain guards or khazad guards that had 50+ models and would only be outnumbered by 50% by far weaker forces. Now with no limit taking more than 70 models is not advantageous either. First of all it drains your time which you need to get objectives and second of all the more troops you have the more good heroes you need because frankly you can't rely on Goblin Captains to hold stand fast. All-hero armies absolutely obliterate forces which are based solely on quantity too. It's not so easy to define what's better, you have to have both to build a solid army. A strong army is a combination of right heroes and right amount of right troops. Army building is a skill which accounts for probably at least 75% of your success because no matter how good you might be, you won't beat an opponent who's as good as you and has a much better army. |
|
| Author: | Beowulf03809 [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
I think the argument is more visible at games in the point range of 250 (minimum we may play SBG) through 500. As you said, at 700+ the "quality" armies will also have some significant quantity as well. |
|
| Author: | SMORG [ Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
Being a skirmish game it's all about picking your fights and using terrain. The benefit of quantity falls apart when you can't get into a position to use your numbers, or when your numbers aren't enough to cut it. For example while elves are considerably more expensive than goblins they are faster and don't suffer the normal movement penalties for terrain so they have a bit more ability to pick their parget, but if they choose wrong then they'll get swarmed. If you're a dwarf then you can rely on your armor to compensate a bit for all of the time you won't win the fight. I play an all mounted SKoDA force, its generally pretty small relies on confusing the enemy and having enough might to call heroic moves when I need them to keep up the momentum. Simply put, if you charge head on then yes quantity beats quality, but if use what you're paying the extra points for and give it a bit more consideration then you're in with a good chance. |
|
| Author: | halkias82 [ Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
So if I were to synthesize the overall opinion of this thread I would say that Quantity has an edge over quality, but not enough to ruin the game? So overall a smaller force can win, but it has to be more careful and conscious of its engagements... I'll give it a shot. Now, just how to deal with GW's failed attempts at Rohan... 
|
|
| Author: | whafrog [ Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Quality vs Quantity |
halkias82 wrote: Now, just how to deal with GW's failed attempts at Rohan... I've decided Erkenbrand brings more to the Rohan table than any other hero. I mean, a +2 horn? All Rohan are Elves. Stats like Eomer, for far less cost. And upgrades to RoR. So start there
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|