The One Ring :: View topic - Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations

The One Ring http://ww.one-ring.co.uk/

Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations http://ww.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=20346	Page 1 of 2

Author:	jscottbowman [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:45 am ]
Post subject:	Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
Guys I am looking for some discussion on best use of slow formations. Here I am talking about things like trolls, and other formations that do not or cant get a captain,( or have "we stand alone") to allow them to "at the double"... like court of the dead king, castellans of dol guldur, even isengard berserkers (but I guess you could always stick Lurtz in with these guys to get them up the front) etc etc... A lot of these formations you would ideally want leading your army, yet so many simply get left behind by at-the-doubling routine infantry. I suppose you could just slow the whole army down, to their pace, by then you may face more attritional fire from shooty armies that hang back. Or you just could accept they will be in the second wave to mop up. Or do you just advance them to take and hold terrain? Any thoughts or discussion welcome... Scott

Author:	hero of gondor [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
Most of the formation that are we are stand alone are very strong but vulnerable. Like trolls they die in one round of shooting with some might on the hard to kill table. Same with beserkers they are not strong enough to suffer casualties. That's why I always let them come in the second wave when my larger formation are already in close combat so my more vulnerable but hard hittiung fromations can take the flanks. Like with mordor. I always use 3 large morannon formation with some trolls. The trolls are running as fast behind the morannon's as they could and when they are arriving the morannon's are already attacking the enemy formation but they need some extra strength to actually win the combat's so that's where your trolls are coming in.

Author:	Rich1982 [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
I'm only just starting to get back into WOTR but from the few games I did play with my Misty Mountains army when WOTR was released I do remember the Stone Giants getting left behind and not really contributing much. I imagine in a more defensive army though they'd do really well as they would act as counter chargers if you could get the enemy to come to you by having lots of bows and artillary.

Author:	Slythar [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
I just know you have to B-Line them up into to fight. Moving them thru defensible terrain is a good way to protect them till they make it aswell.

Author:	Xelee [ Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
hi jscottbowman, I find slow monsters relatively hard to use, so much prefer to either take ones that can ambush or ones that can double. Fortunately, one of my lists has one that does both! I think this might be a funtion of 1000pts games though. I caould see myself doing something like massing up 100pt Isengard trolls for 2000 pts. They would be very useful in numbers once a frontline had engaged and slowed down the enemy and you could send the to work on the flank. In numbers the aweful randomness of the table wouldn't be so bad and it would be very dificult to bring enough formation's missile fire to bear to take a flank force down before it got to work. Cheers

Author:	Shadowswarm [ Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
well slow monsters arent that hard to use, if i have a stone giant in my MM army then i just wont move very fast.... if there are objective then ill heroic move out to get them, then move back.....

Author:	rohan nut [ Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
If you really HAVE to get them up there fast something like Gothmog or Sarumans Overlord rule works. If you heroic move the troll using say Gothmogs might its one triple move closer to the enemy. I use this tactic just as my Morannons engage to ensure that in the next or possibly this turn the troll flank charges.

Author:	jscottbowman [ Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
rohan nut wrote: If you really HAVE to get them up there fast something like Gothmog or Sarumans Overlord rule works. If you heroic move the troll using say Gothmogs might its one triple move closer to the enemy. I use this tactic just as my Morannons engage to ensure that in the next or possibly this turn the troll flank charges. Oh I see, Overlord and heroic move, I hadn't thought of that! I must admit i missed the discussion on overlord - I had always thought overlord could only be used by formations that normally had might of their own, but were just using the overlords might that turn instead. I did not realize it could be used by formations that do not have their own might. Like a regular troll... That opens us a few new dimensions to my army choices and styles of play Thanks

Author:	Xelee [ Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:01 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
The discussion broke down into two camps, both certain that the RAW supported their position, then it was FAQ'd to save us all the trouble... then many of us (since there was no point arguing over the letter of the rule now) reached a consensus that this was in some ways not a good FAQ decision for the game. It is a good option for you if you are running an evil list though.

Author:	jscottbowman [ Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
Thanks for clarification. I quite like the idea of it, and feel it brings some much needed mobility to certain units in the game. Nor do I think it should be too unbalancing, as its limited by the number of might points one individual has. Agian, I think we have narrowed our minds to small level games (1000points seems the norm, but I feel is too small) . Once you make armies bigger, and think of waves or brigades of troops, not just 4 -5 formations per side, which is still pretty much small beer, then I think it will even out. I think we should be aiming to playing this game with at least 2-3k points per side. I would equate it too something like the napoleonic black powder rules. I would like to have 3 "brigades per side", with each brigade being 3-5 formations. Thats the level I am aiming towards. Perhaps a lot for one person to put on but good for group games, multiplayer per side. That's when this game will really come into its own. But in the meantime its good we are getting small game played and sorting out rules issues like area terrain etc etc...

Author:	Xelee [ Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
I actually feel it is fine as a rule in almost all circumstances, save using it with Mumaks - which is abusing things a bit. This isn't really related to game size, and is more just a matter of the unique Mumak rules. Big games are a lot of fun, but I wouldn't want to be doing that as a standard. The 1000pt army I ran a couple of nights ago was 200 miniuatures, plus three more Epics.That wasn't even a horde army! Managing all those figs would be a bit much effort for a fun evening game. Permanently basing them all to coy sized bases helps a lot there though, and I find using my Good army more enjoyable for that reason.

Author:	Beowulf03809 [ Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
My Dol Guldur force includes a strong Castellan formation and some Trolls. Unfortunately, in the games I've played with it so far my Black Guard, Morannon Orc and (allied) Ghosts generally get where they need to be through ATD and/or Wings of Terror and do the damage. I've rarely gotten my Castellans up in time to be as effective as they could, and should, be and the Trolls have often been a no-show as well. I wish the Necromancer had Overlord (forgive me if I'm not remembering correctly) as neither of the other options are really well themed. Even if you consider waves of forces, which I have no objection to, the overblown mobility options to many WotR armies means your basic troops without "turbo boost" options will often be left behind as faster formations chase each other across the board. And sadly due to the Epic Strike we're finding that a Captain can be more of a liability to a formation so the Ghostly Legion, for example, can either be fast enough to participate with Captain's At the Double, or else "safe" from ES but not as likely to do any good during the major clashes. Not to be talking down to WotR as I am enjoying it (still prefer SBG but I like the mass battles too). Just thinking there are a lot of places for tuning for the next release (go back and compare the original FotR erra SBG to the One Ring Book version).

Author:	jscottbowman [ Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
Thanks for your feedback on Dol Guldur... Yeah I would agree, whilst I prefer the look and play style of WOTR, the rules have a lot of holes and bugs that need fixing. Whilst they have included a great many troop types or upgrades, many have almost become redundant from experience from game-play, which is a great shame. The recent discussions on terrain have shown what a mess that is... many folks cry fowl over "broken" spells and abilities... And the number of house rules discussions is no joke! Whilst its not exactly an old rule set, it seems its already crying out for a revamp, and if GW wants to go selling lots of figures for this game system, then they perhaps need to look at fixing the rules!

Author:	Xelee [ Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
I think you are focusing too much on the negatives there. We have a lot of fun and good competitive games, with most of the armies anyway, down here. A lot of the difficulty melts away once you play a bit

Author:	jscottbowman [ Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
Maybe so! Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy playing the game, and will continue to do so. I just look forward to some improvements, and more official looking FAQ at the least, re; Terrain etc. regards Scott PS - Xelee, I note from many of your pictorial battle reports, you include what looks like a farm/village; Buildings around a 'courtyard' with a fence/wall perimeter. How do you play this ? Is it all one terrain area, or is it separate buildings attached to a 'walled field'? Just curious.

Author:	Xelee [ Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
I play it as one capacity six piece. I often like to have a couple of pieces this size on the table. THe only 'trick' with it is that I use the walls and not the base as the border, to make it harder for the enemy to mass against the defenders. I have on occassion put a walled field next to it and when I do we just have units able to fight each other from between the pieces as they had charged in. Cheers

Author:	Beowulf03809 [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:18 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
Not focusing on the negatives at all. But this topic is about dealing with slow formations. We too have fun with WotR, I am blocking off a whole Saturday this month go get a few games in, I am working on my next two armies now and still expanding my first two, but it's not as well balanced as SBG (after years of maturity I will add) and many units are minimally effective or else a liability itself. That's a sign of incomplete design or testing, not a "bad game". Slow formations are a key example of nerfed forces. Trolls, Ents, and some other Formations without access to a Hero are left with base movement speed and very little option to change it. In a mobile battlefield they will not be brought to bear at the time or place you would like them in many games. For some of these you have the ability to drop in a Captain to At the Double, but not all (like Castellans). And if you do use a Captain an army with one or more Epic Strike-able Heroes has an easy gateway to hack it dramatically. Not saying this is wrong, as Heroes are a major power house, but it does mean if you put a low-Fight Hero into a Formation you are taking such a risk that many Command Company options aren't even being used in competitive games. Again, this just shows an area where things may not have been fully considered. I love the Ents in my Wood Elf army. With Ambush at least they have a chance of coming into play near the action but if they don't they are hard pressed to get anywhere in time (and a well timed Strength from Corruption can blow them away immediately). I have also put together a few very nice Trolls and two Companies of Casteallans that add a lot of flavor and options to Dol Guldur, but because they are "slow" (except for the Troll Chief) they are often not worth their points unless the scenario is favorable. So its' not a factor of the game being bad, but rather a factor that there are some "less than useful" units in the game because they lack the speed to compete with Wings of Terror / At the Double Formations most of the time, and if they elect a Captain to help give them ATD then they compromise their strength by opening a weak front to Epic Strike. It means less options are played and more armies start to look alike.

Author:	jscottbowman [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
@Beowulf Well said and I agree with you. A couple of things which may be house rules, I thought of while reading your post. Why not extend a ATD for regular trolls, within say 6" of a Troll Chieftan. That would get them moving and would fit fluffwise, with the troll chieftan bellowing/threatening them? Why not allow Ringwraiths to join formations of Castellans of Dol Guldur. Both are spirits, and again it seems to match fluff wise. The same could be argued for other spirit formations. Seems logical to me. Not sure what the fix would be for cheap captains, but I guess they should be getting butchered by Epic Heroes... regards Scott

Author:	Xelee [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
Beowulf03809, I was not referring to your post. I wonder if those slow formations are being discarded too quickly? It has been my experience that even slow infantry can work in multiples of units (basically you position them so the enemy gets 'forked') and HRM had some good thoughts on using Rohan Riders in MSUs. Trolls etc are only 2"slower and benifit from not being so dependant on getting the charge, so whichever unit gets to be anvil will still get to contribute. I think the Troll cheiftain idea is a good one, though. My houserules page kind of drifted almost into the territory of tweaking many things, which I stated I would not do. Perhaps those bits could be chopped off, leaving just the essentials, and then someone else could compile a list of all the little unit tweaks that seem needed? A sort of community V2?

Author:	jscottbowman [ Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:07 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tactical discussion of 'slow' formations
You lost me with the acronyms! MSUs??? I tend to think of Riders of Rohan (and warg ridrers) more as light cavalry, in terms of missile harassment, rather thank shock cavalry. Not sure if this mirrors your thoughts?

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/