I was looking for your input for balancing out the stats (since the system usually assumes that each stat increase is 5 pts).

I've already decided that in the case of Fight, having a lower fight would mean reduced attacks, for example, goblins (F2) would normally only do 5 attacks against elves (F5) - but only when attacking infantry and cavalry (Monsters have a high F value because of their brutality and the ease with which they can destroy, not because they are skilled at avoiding damage - they often don't need to!), and with a minimum of 2 attacks per stand.

This would make F more balanced with S and D. (Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of LOTR/WOTR's system where sometimes your S or D increase matters, sometimes it doesn't - invariably leading to slightly unbalanced battles. I'm considering a wound chart & armour save system similar to WFB. Heavy Armour + Shield would be a 3+ save to the front. 3+ would be the best possible roll to wound as in WOTR, but for every extra point of S after 3+ gives the enemy unit -1 to their saves. The probabilities of S3 wounding D7 are still 1/6, but now if you have S4 instead, it actually matters. And if you have S5, 3+ to wound with 4+ saves is the same as rolling 5+ to wound.)

But what about Courage? Would it be possible to increase the importance of morale in the game to the point where 5 points per increase in C would be justified?

Possibilities include:

1. Courage test to prevent becoming disordered when the unit has lost a stand to missile fire (once per turn max.) This would effectively allow two C checks before being affected (since they can roll at the start of their turn to become undisrupted. Missile units are in need of a small points increase in my opinion, this would go together with that.

2. Courage check to prevent becoming disordered when a friendly unit within 6" is wiped out or scatters & flees.

3. A combat result step similar to Warhammer for Panic: you already total up the wounds caused, so take that as a negative modifier and the C value as a positive modifier for the Panic table. This makes sense when you think about it.

4. A "break point" system similar to LOTR SBG and Warmaster. Count up the number of non-monster formations you have at the start of the game. When you have lost 50% of your initial formations, the following rules apply: every non-monster unit must test C at the start of the turn or become disrupted (without a chance to recover from disruption this turn). Units already disrupted at the start of the turn that fail to recover from disruption scatter & flee instead.


Thoughts? Suggestions? Which of the above options might be workable?
And yes, I'm aware this is changing the game - please don't feel the need to point it out. However, DO point out if something would break the game.

I think WotR is still too unclear to start changing the rules. I also think courage plays a big enough role already, much more than in SBG.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

....I guess I should have expected such a response, even though I tried to say that I really wasn't looking for opinions on whether or not creating house rules / changing the rules is good or bad. Because I know that 99% of people don't like the idea of changing the rules - and fear not! I'm not changing the rules for you. I'm not threatening your game's rules in any way - I'm just trying to come up with something for a small group of friends who aren't afraid to change things around.

But back to your main point. You feel that courage already is worth the +5 points per company, same as, say, defense? Would you say that if you gave Warriors of Minas Tirith Courage 5 at 35 points, it'd be balanced with WOMT with Defence 9 at 35 points?

No, I would find the D9 overpowered.... Because can you name me anything that is D9 for less than 100 points?
NO!! that has a reason, it's not the 5 points per thing... It is the overall balance..
The GW staff have whole formulas for it and extensively test it..

About the Courage 5 for 35 points, I would take it... Look at elves, who has ever seen an Elf fail a courage test?

Glabro, courage 5 infantry (courage 6 with Captain) would almost never (29/36, on the back of an envelope) fail their tests when there were no modifiers. That is actually pretty useful and is something they can't have taken from them by eg 'the Tainted'. So they would be able to recover from being disordered, double (which is going to be at a 1 higher courage anyway), pass terror checks, exit defensible terrain, shake off Dismay spells etc pretty reliably.

I know that if I had the choice between those and Uruk-Hai for the same points I would not feel too hard done by at all.

I definitely do not feel that say Morranan Orcs are always a better deal than warriors of Minas Tirith - sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. Sometimes courage matters and sometimes that extra little point of strength matters. As long as people are playing in an environment where they are using the same lists to fight everyone, that strength table is prefectly resonable. I know that my Carn Dum warbands hate fighting str 4 troops while my Minas Tirith Warriors love the extra little edge they can get sometimes by denying Evil formations their boost from Epics and then getting to face shieldwall units that are more likely than not to fail their tests. Def 7, Str 4 is all very well, but if you get disordered and stay there for a turn or two...

Now, their practice of costing fight at a full 5 pts, that is something that needs fixing. You would make Elves much more viable just through doing that. Rohan Royal Knights could be cheaper, Easterling Warriors priced the same as MT ones. Fight is only really worth so many points to a Monster.

_________________
http://www.roughwotr.blogspot.com

Vault Wardens. F5, S5, D6/10, C5. 70 points.

And yes, the 5 points per stat is not everything, but it is the basis for the pricing, from which you tweak up or down.


But very well, let's say D9 is something nobody gets yadda yadda ya, but it's the same thing with S4 D8.

Are you saying that in the current rules, a WOMT with S4 and D8 is balanced with a WOMT with C5? (Not necessarily against each other, but in general terms, if you assume the use of the normal to wound table). From my POW, it does not appear so, and I'd be interested in hearing arguments for why you think it is.


Xelee, I think rules should be balanced on a per game basis, not per a series of games with different opponents. That is why I don't agree with the to wound table (and it makes "tooling up" against certain enemies too cheap and easy).

Well, in your example, we'd have two armies - both presumeably with WOMT as their shieldwalls to be a solid defensive line.

One would be str 3 def 5(7) and one str 4 def 6 (8). Fighting each other, which is quite likely given their roles, one will be hitting on 6/4 and the other on 6s ie they will not be doing much damage to each other as they push and shove. That's fine, it is not their purpose to do so, their purpose is to live, keep passing their disorder checks and permit the other parts of the army to do their job.

What both lines will be assailed by is the damage dealers from their respective armies, spells and effects that just inflict auto-kills, flank attacks, various +1 to hit weapons, shortrange crossbow fire (at an even str value) that kind of thing.

Now in this situation the str 4 def 6(8) guys are not exactly always better off than the other guys. Failing their disorder and terror / dismay tests is still a big issue for them and a lot of the things thrown at them have little regard for their higher defense or, when they do, the edge does not matter too much overall.

And also, you are overstating the ability to tailor usefully in this game - how exactly does a MT army tailor to fight an Angmar one, and is that army meaningfully different to what the MT player would have taken anyway?

_________________
http://www.roughwotr.blogspot.com

Like I said, I didn't mean to compare the two WOMT against each other. You can't really do pricing that way especially in a system like WOTR where sometimes your boosted S and D mean nothing.

I meant in a more general sense, like you said earlier.

But even in this example of yours, what is the chief cause of disorder checks? Losing combats. It stands to reason that the unit that wounds 100% more loses combat rounds much less often.

But never mind, let's assume that you're right and C is balanced with S and D as it is. (And here's the acid test: do you believe F is balanced with S and D, too?).

What about when we add a hero with C5 that grants everyone within 12" his C value? Are the two units still balanced?


After that, consider it again from this viewpoint: imagine the rules were already changed and we were no longer playing rules as written in the BBB. Would you still feel that none of the suggested tweaks for C should be used and it is in line with the other stats after the changes I outlined?

Glabro, that was not actually an example of two units vs each other in isolation. Surely you can see how it was an example of how they could, as you asked for, be seen as roughly of equal use given where they will be in the overall battle, the things they could face and the things that could happen?

I've already stated my opinion on the valuing of fight.

As to your example of the hero, frequently they still will be, since battles are not lab tests where we control single variables. So what if that hero gets dueled out? What if 'the tainted' is there? What if that hero's points gave your opponent three companies of Corsair Arbalesters and a Captain to swing around the flanks and pour close range xbow fire in? What if...

I think there are perhaps both 'hard' and 'soft' positions on this - so, do I see Def as higher ranked than Courage? Yes I do. Do I think that a unit getting more Courage instead of more def and str as a dealbreaker? Not really. It's at about the point of picking one over the other if I ever had the choice (which you pretty much don't) but not actually feeling hard-done by when I get given one and not the other.

_________________
http://www.roughwotr.blogspot.com

Indeed, I meant in the sense of fighting various opponents with differing stats (as you suggested earlier on). But yes, you have a point.



That you did - I am sorry, I probably forgot about it. Thank you, though.




Well said. So, with that said, do you feel, as part of a small house rules revision, there could be anything done that could add to the game and slightly tweak the balance towards courage, even if the difference is not deal-breaking currently?
Perhaps one of my ideas in a tweaked form?

I think all that needs to be said between the disparity (minute though it may be) between C and the other stats - now let's simply concentrate on possible game-enhancing tweaks.

(By the way, Inspiring Leader is not usually a problem as the C values they grant are in line with the base C of the race in question, except in the case of the Dark Marshal (but we know that Ringwraiths are problematic already, and he's not nearly the worst) and Sauron. In all other cases, it's simply a matter of pricing).

Glabro, without touching issues like Wraiths etc (fond as I am of the topic) - I think it would be simple and straightfoward to look at consistency over:

1. Unit costs and fight values, no way is + 1 attack most of the time equivalant to a str or def boost that will quite likely double/half lethality about half the time - Even if high fight does reduce the attacks against you a little and make the Captain a better dueler. +2 (if not +3?) fight per + 1 str etc is IMO a closer equivalent.
2. How upgrades - shields, bows, longbows, crossbows, glaives, 2HW get applied and how they are costed. There are issues both with the calculation of unit points (ie MT Archers should be 25 pts -swapping bow for shield) and the relative value within that class (at the moment glaives are a joke, and crossbows are awesome)
3. GW's bad habit of always making the Rares better than their common equivalents. I know it is marketing driven rules, but it is an easy fix given what you are doing and will stop a lot of the sillyness.

Without even touching heroes and magic, this would IMO improve some armies a great deal, while toning down others.

About the only extra role I can see for courage that would not be too disruptive, would be for it to perhaps matter against more of the magic you face.

_________________
http://www.roughwotr.blogspot.com

Hmm. I suppose I'll look at historical war games for a consensus about morale effects.

I can't help but feel that the combat resolution / panic is lacking and oversimplified.

What would you do about C and magic? I've heard the notion before but how would it work in practise?

I forgot to mention that yes, I'd be taking a look at unit costs as well. I was just hoping for more experienced players to provide their views on those, and there's a separate thread for that.


Edit: The consensus is that the mechanic for "army demoralization" after losing 50% of your force seems to be the most universally accepted one. It's also something that doesn't affect any of the phases or the game mechanics as they are.

About the archers, I'm feeling a 5 point increase in cost is justified (meaning the Gondor Archer prices would be right) if I went with the armour save system (S2 is better against odd numbered defense then) and a chance to become disrupted as a result of shooting (I'm thinking if the D3 roll to drive back is a 3).

Hi Glabro, I play historical wargames too - but WOTR does not have to always work by the smae conventions. In this genre - generally exceptional events, like armies fighting to the death, are relatively commonplace.

I think a breakpoint would be good for pragmatic reasons though, and would be a useful way to shorten larger games with high troop counts. Something like: when the army has lost more companies than those that remain (ie 50%+1 casualites), the army leader must pass a courage test with a -1 penalty at the start of each turn to remain fighting. It could possibly be by formation count? I wouldn't exempt Monsters, a monster often costs as much as or more than an entire formation. You could make lost Epics count too, thsat would address their overuse a little.

I think it would be a shame to bring armour saves back in, quite frankly the concept of having both str vs toughness AND saves is archaic and collapsing all the factors into a single roll was one of the best decisions they made IMO. There are enough dice interactions in this game as it is. Still YMMV, I just don't personally relish the prospect of an extra layer of dice rolling for a typical 25 coy + per side 1000 pt game, let alone higher points totals.

One possibility for giving courage more of a role in magic would be to alter the 'will of iron' mechanic by making it a simple courage test (when you spend the might point) using the formation's BASE courage. So Morranan Orcs would be worse off (fail on 3+), MT warriors the same (fail on 4+ is same as pass on 4+), Rohan Royal Guard better off and Elves do very well indeed. I've given the lists a cursory look and no formations seem to have base courage 6, though you could add a caveat that a '1' always fails, just in case.

This would be good for two reasons: It is a simple way to lessen the effect of magic slightly overall (since there are more benificiaries than losers) and it gives a bump to less favoured armies, especcially Elves. At the same time, some of the 'good value' shock infantry - like my Carn Dum Warbands, Dunlendings, Morranans, are a little less valuable (through being less able to mitigate magic) while other less often used units like Citadel Guards get a new perk.

_________________
http://www.roughwotr.blogspot.com

My version of the break point, on the other hand, highlights the value of individual units' C values and tendency to stand and fight. It's true that Monsters should roll here, too. The main question is, would it disrupt the game too much to have units roll for disruption at the start of the turn? A more elegant solution could be simply that there are no extra rolls, but disordered units who fail to rally scatter & flee. What do you think about that?

The armour save thing: yes, I agree it's a bit of a chore to roll saves and archaic - one roll is good, but the unfortunate side effect is that a D6 simply isn't good enough to diversify units with one roll - I do think it's an issue that the table has an effect every 2 steps. I don't like the idea of "pairing off" optimal units in combat just because the game mechanics give you an unrealistic advantage (send low defense units against high S to negate their S advantage, for example - and low S ones against high D because extra S wouldn't matter).

The armour save system is the only one that keeps the probabilities the same - unless I do something like S4 v D7: Re-roll all 5s, they hit on a 4+. That's still an extra layer, but more elegant and doesn't require separating D and armour - now that I think about it this solution is obviously better - and it's effectively the same one used for 6/4+ and so on.

The magic resistance idea is a good one.

Hi Glabro, ultimately this is for your group to try so if you are happy with extra rolls then I don't think the original breakpoint system you had (with the units taking tests rather than auto-running) is a bad system.

_________________
http://www.roughwotr.blogspot.com

The breakpoint system is also good in the sense that if you want to make heroic last stand-type scenarios like you mentioned, you can do so with scenarios, but every battle doesn't have to be like that.

IMO, FV is the biggest let-down. I think that units should get at least +2 dice for every point higher. Also, there are too many Strength 4 units.

_________________
"War does not determine who is right, only who is left."
- Bertrand Russel

I do think the reduction of attacks from an inferior F value works better than doubling the bonus attacks. For the shooting value, however, that might be the case, if it would be considered as a 5-point stat for serious shooting units.


The thing with courage is this: I would like Morannon Orcs to be 25 points just like WoMT. The Morannons have +1 S and -1 C, and that should be an even deal. That is why I want to increase the role of C even more.

Err, Morannon Orcs are 25pts if you give them shields.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

Yes, I know - but would you say they are balanced with WoMT? That's my point. As it stands they're more valuable than WOMT in general (though not in versus combat obviously due to the current wounding rules).