Well, simply put this is what I envision. Admittedly, I'm writing this with a bit of stream-of-thought & hope it is understandable.

There have been many attempts on this forum to correct some of the non-thematic elements, power creep, or even issues with the game mechanic itself.

I have been very influenced by Whafrog's "By the Book" project http://lotr-bythebook.wikispaces.com/Introduction Zogash's "Rohan as it should have been" http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24219 and emperor_thompson's d12 project viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25242&hilit=d12.

This post could very well be considered my response to all of these ideas at once. I propose a change in the Fight system to d12, tweaks to Special Strikes, changes to the profiles/factions that cry out to be revisited, and doing so with additional Generic Special rules taken from the now-defunct War of the Ring system.

First, the Fight roll-off and Wounding systems should be changed over to d12. The strange bottleneck effects that cause certain armies to have unrealistic advantages over others (Minas Tirith's vulnerability vs. Isengard comes to mind), and heavy armor/shields to have no effect makes no sense. Here is my proposed solution:

To see who wins a Duel, each side rolls 1d12 for each Attack on its profile. If all dice rolled result in less than the model's Fight value, you may re-roll the lowest dice. After each side rolls, the player with the highest result wins.

I'll have to tinker with the math, but what do you think?...


I have posted my WotR Generic Rules before, but will do it again here. I hope for comments & ideas.

I'm looking forward to see more of this, and I'll definitely try to introduce it in my gaming group.

_________________
The men of Dale are fighting a battle with my brush at the moment.
3 guys will never know the grey again... rest in peace

I think it would be a bad idea to change it because the game is balanced when it is not un sportingly exploited, and everyone knows the rules and it works well.

I see the appeal of d12, but personally I think that to gain widespread acceptance any proposed effort to clarify and correct the rules as they are published would be better off as minor changes rather than a total overhaul.

In truth, the rules as they stand work very well, and there are a few silly points which need addressing (like special strikes for example), but I think major changes are likely to open up more serious issues than they resolve.

However, if your goal isn't widespread acceptance, ignore my whining!

I only make the point because I look forward to a fan edited "ultimate" edition of the rules when GW eventually drops the Hobbit.

_________________
Available for Commissions!

Check out my blog: http://yggdrasilpainting.wix.com/yggdrasilpainting

The game mechanics are good but new point values and new troop types would be useful to balance everything out.

_________________
The men of Dale are fighting a battle with my brush at the moment.
3 guys will never know the grey again... rest in peace

I'm not a fan of blanket statements. Could you give an example of where this is needed? Personally I feel as though most troops are very well balanced (as they come standard, not with conversions to improve them). Sure Khazad Guard could be a point more and a few other units here and there but those are less common than some would think

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

Rohan and Numenor are the worst armies needing a boost, while the elites within Harad & Mordor & other Evil armies should be drawn back (Azog, Watchers of Karna, Black Guard, etc).

Overall, I just feel that the expansion of models in the range, and the number of new rules given to these models have left many of the original 'bread and butter' models behind (Theoden, Faramir, even the Fellowship to a lesser extent).



This is basically what I'm aiming for. Giving more skilled warriors more ability to hold of larger horde armies, while balancing factions and making it seem more thematic.

TBH this is exactly why I'm not looking forward to post GW days. The game has flaws, that we can all agree on but there's examples such as this where ppl want to change the game drastically, the aforementioned changes in this thread would create basically a new game, and those of us who are happy with only a few minor tweaks to fix minor glitches etc.

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

Here's your major issue, when talking about a major revision of the rules who gets to decide what needs revising?

You specifically mention that Azog is overpowered whereas I think there's a very strong argument that he's fairly substantially overcosted. He should be about 30 points cheaper!

Personally I don't think the fight system needs tweaking and as Mertaal hinted, such a huge overhaul (D6 to D12) would likely not be welcomed by the majority of players.

It's an interesting issue to think about in the future, once GW drop support for the game, will there be a final, community driven set of rules that incorporates all the FAQ questions and fixes the most agreed problems (Peircing Strike springs to mind)?

I don't know, it would be very hard for the ruleset to gain any serious traction amongst the player base (how would they get it? How would you ensure that all players have it?). I think the most likely event is that there was a community ruleset for a club, region or (very optimistically) a country. For example it's possible that the UK tournament scene might have it's own ruleset, so any event that was part of the GBHL used that ruleset and so it would gain support. However, there's then no reason at all for gamers in the US to use those rules.

GW have the wonderful monopoly in that when they publish a new version (like the Hobbit rules), they are the rules. It's not an alternate, it's a new version. Anything community driven will never have that kind of weight; you could well spend months and years of your life coming up with the best possible revision to the SBG rules that is beautifully laid out and perfectly balanced and the vast majority of players would still say "huh, fair enough, but those aren't the rules, I think it should be a D20 so I won't be using these rules"

I'm not trying to quash your enthusiasm for what is essentially a good idea, it's something I've thought about a lot too. However, I think creating a ruleset that your local gaming group is happy with and can playtest on your own without hundrededs of outside opinions is a more achievable goal.

Good luck with it

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

I'm not really looking for too much change. I don't want the rules changed based off the opinions of a few gamers. That's bound to cause just as many problems as it is fixing.
If everyone universally agreed on changing a rule or two that was severely broken, then no problems there, especially if in tournaments it was stated in the players pack, just not interested in dozens and dozens of little tweaks. Some people would like them, some wouldn't. If it wasn't official it would cause confusion and petty squabbling which would undermine the experience of the game.
If GW fixed them though that would be a different story. Play by the rules or don't play at all.

_________________
My old WIP thread - http://www.one-ring.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16246&start=0

I don't understand the appeal of a D12, I don't even own one. I am a bit confused as to how changing it to D12 would be helpful, though I can understand that there would be a larger spread, so you can have more variation for troops, which in my opinion isn't necessary.

The part that confuses me is that someone with a high fight value has an uneven chance of beating a warrior with lower fight value as they get to re-roll up to a higher value, so the weak orc or man will mostly wallow in the middle somewhere and the time that they roll decently, the elf or whoever has extra chances to beat them. I can clearly see how this represents weapon skill between the two warriors, but I'm sure it could be exploited. Wouldn't it be better that the elf could re roll anything equal to or below the orcs fight value, not his own?

So I think I understand your mechanic, though I'm not sure what happens in a tie, which again leads us to square one, but all of this is potentially re-rolls after re-rolls, and the game already takes long enough to resolve things. This also makes banners less useful, so what would your idea be for them?

I want to encourage your thoughts, which is why I have asked a few questions above, but I think that the system works quite well and that you are biting off more than the community can chew, so I doubt your intentions would succeed, even as good as they are. There is not one strategy which always wins which shows that the system itself is quite sound, however there are armies which do well, or rather, armies that do badly consistently and this is where I can see the most beneficial changes coming from. Its the army lists/profiles, not the system.

Jump over to TLA and have a look at my War in Eregion thread, you can see that there is a lot of thought and changes that can still be made with profiles without needed everyone to re-learn the game.

_________________
My trade thread
http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=25957&p=325932#p325932

I always favored the idea of rolling a D6, adding your fight, and then the higher roll wins.....

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

Not a bad idea, but this and the whole (imo) over-complicated D12 with the re-roll thing is simply making my point that its not editing the SBG but basically making a new game

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

On the subject of drawn fights, my gaming group used to re-roll the models that drew. So for example Shagrat is facing off against 5 elves having been surrounded, but fortunately he rolls a 6 and a 3, the elves then roll 2 6's, 4 a 3 and a 1. Then another fight roll is made with only the drawing models so Shagrat would get both of his attacks versus the two elves that drew with him. This represents Shagrat fighting off the other elves whilst still dueling with the other two and then we did wounding as normal although I guess you could twist it and say the models beaten back couldn't roll to wound but I think that's kind of more unfair.

Gshaw, thats an interesting way of doing things, I like it, but I don't need to see it changed in our game

_________________
My trade thread
http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=25957&p=325932#p325932

Haha yeah, it started out as a mistake and we just improvised and came up with that it's actually quite hard trying to change to how it's supposed to be done haha

Well, I can see that introducing d12 might be a bit too radical for what I'm looking to do. I do think it solves some issues with SBG, but it is replacing one of the very core mechanics & wouldn't ever gain wide acceptance.

My primary goal is just to allow Heroes to survive campaigns, and scenarios to be more "realistic". For example, as it is right now a Mines of Moria/Amon Hen/A Knife in the Dark scenario(s) will almost always result in multiple Fellowship deaths. Any Helm's Deep battle might see more than half of the Good heroes die. In my opinion, Good cannot claim victory under such circumstances, but with the current rules that's exactly what we're looking at.

That being said, perhaps I could get some feedback on how much the adapted WotR rules should cost?
My suggestions:
Ambusher- 1.5 points for warriors, 10 points for Heroes.
Councilor- 5 points for every 2 points of Will in that Hero's profile.
Skilled Rider- 1/2 point for warriors, 5 points for heroes
Inspiring Hero (Faction)- 10 points
Inspiring Hero (All)- 15 points
Overlord (Faction)- 10 points
Spirit Grasp- 1 point for warriors, 10 points for heroes
Stalwart- 1 point for warriors, 10 points for heroes
Touched by Destiny- 5 points
We Stand Alone- subtract 1 point for warriors, subtract 5 points for Heroes

I love this idea!
Doesn't completely change mechanics but allows Heroes superior Fight value to play more of role.



I'm not debating Azog points cost relative to his effectiveness, my issue is that an Orc with a metal rod for a right arm, that passes off almost all the 'knife-work' to his underlings has a higher fight value than Aragorn, Boromir, etc. I see your point though, as his special rule makes his STR 5 less relevant.
To me, this is another example of GW releasing profiles designed to sell models with less regard to Middle-Earth flavor or game balance. I don't blame them, it's what they do. However, it is not in the best interest of players or the game. Seeing as they have done very little to support the Hobbit line other than release models & re-package material, I'm not optimistic we'll see anything useful from them in terms of gameplay.

***I would like to point out that I write this not to "bash" GW as I am thankful for what they have done for the Hobbit movies & love the models... They are, precious to me....