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

Best "basic" Ringwraith?
https://ww.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27024		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  GWvsJohn [ Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Best "basic" Ringwraith?
Hey all. Just starting to play LotR/Hobbit SBG. Longtime 40k player, but I hate 6e and need a new game.

Anyway, like many, my favorite characters from the Lord of the Rings are the Ringwraiths. So I want to build my first army around them. For fluff reasons, I'd rather not use one of the named ones.

So, my question boils down to these.

1) Are the named Ringwraiths so much better than the vanilla, that I'd be foolish not to use one?
2) If yes, which ones would be the best in a "generalist" list?
3) If no, what's the best way to run a vanilla Wraith? IE, how much to spend on extra M/W/F?

Thanks :)
Author:  JamesR [ Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
I think they're far superior with their individual specials, if you don't like the look however you can always field the vanilla model and just make it clear to your opponent which you're fielding.

If you do field a vanilla wraith I'd max everything. Their spells are their strength and they need that fate with only having 1 wound. And might is just so useful to have around
Author:  Coenus Scaldingus [ Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
I'd view it exactly the other way around: if you're going for a nameless Wraith, it will be because it can be cheap. Once you've bought all the M/W/F, you might as well spend the last 10 points and make him a (generally much superior) named Nazgûl.

Budget wraiths definitely have their uses: with perhaps a bit of extra Will, probably some Might, they can stop enemy monsters or heroes just as well as others (even better than some named ones, for whom spells are more difficult to cast): just for a shorter amount of time. They'll struggle to be very useful against heroes with 3 Will (let alone Resistance to Magic), but can help take out a captain and other low-level heroes.
At smaller points sizes, you won't have the points to spend on very expensive heroes, so a budget Wraith is good there, and you probably won't face expensive heroes, so a budget Wraith is indeed good enough. 7-10 Will should be enough to severely slow down or help bring down most low-medium level heroes, after which you can keep them around with a single point left to provide a solid stand fast while making the opponent run faster (especially if you managed to grind down their heroes). Can be nice to put him on a horse, gives some extra range to cast spells, keeps him out of danger and, while it makes him more visible to enemy troops, also provides protection against missiles if it instead of the rider is hit.

Many discussions on 'the best named wraith' have been held over the years, depends mostly on the army surrounding it, as well as their requirements (killing loads of troops: Khamul on Fellbeast, decent all-round with great banner effect: Dark Marshal, good caster, especially when using multiple Nazgûl: Undying etc).
Author:  JamesR [ Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
Apollogies if my post was unclear on my intent. What I said about fielding a vanilla wraith was if he didn't want to use a named wraith because he doesn't like the divergence from the books and movies. That was my interpretation of what the IP said
Author:  GothmogtheWerewolf [ Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
But you said and I quote:
JamesR wrote:
If you do field a vanilla wraith I'd max everything.

This is the bit Coenus was disagreeing with.
Author:  SuicidalMarsbar [ Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
I wouldn't really say there is any one specific wraith better to whack in a standard army. If on the wraith is on foot/horse then either take Dark Marshall if you just want to be bolstering your boys/maybe fighting, Dwimmerwaik to castrate enemy heroes from being heroic, Shadow Lord to protect you from bowfire, Knight of Umbar to match the enemy heroes, or take the good ol' Witch King if you just wanna have a super wraith.

If you are taking a fell beast as a mount then any wraith will be pulling their weight, except for maybe The Tainted, your models will REALLY need their standfast and it is risky to jeopardise that.
Author:  whafrog [ Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
JamesR wrote:
Their spells are their strength ...


The greatest strength of wraiths is their flexibility. Sometimes all you want is a super cheap vessel of terror and standfast. It's a very gratifying use of 55 points to neutralize a hero, then break an army and watch them run like Goblins.
Author:  Draugluin [ Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
If you're going to take a wraith that costs ~100pts, you may as well get a named Nazgul. Except the Tainted. He's terrible.
Author:  Coenus Scaldingus [ Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
Another advantage of budget wraiths: you can get two for the price of one of the named variety. Seeing how a model can only cast a single spell per turn, two cheap Nazgûl can sometimes achieve more than a single expensive one ever could.
Author:  Beowulf03809 [ Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
I'm not a fan of GW's named ones either, except for the WK and Khamul which were each identified by Tolkien. And as the first named one released, Khamul's rules were actually good IMO as they deviated slightly from the typical Nazgul focus (giving him a combat slant) while not really going overboard on the special rule. I think he really balanced well with the generic Nazgul.

A few key points above are the flexibility of the unnamed RWs to fit into your army as you need by simply adjusting the points. Even one light on Will can be extremely useful and I've seen a few players so hung up on using the named versions that they are surprised when a standard Nazgul is fielded in a lower point level. For many years they were perfectly fine supporting models.

If you do decide to max out then you could just bump up the last little bit and pull in a special rule as mentioned above. I really try not to do that but there are some times the special rule can add some strong synergy to a list...but that doesn't mean you have to accept the fact that he's got the GW "inspired" name. Just tell yourself he's a Nazgul that you paid extra points for a special rule...not for The Dark Marshal...and you won't feel as dirty. :-) I can honestly and happily say I have never made an army list with any Nazgul named except the Witch King or Khamul, though I have had a couple special rules attached once or twice. I really try not to, but a few times the tabletop need has overruled the better angles of my nature.

My bigger gripe is it seems very hard to find the original models at a decent price any more (especially the mounted versions). Some of the newer ones are fair but I wish I would have picked up some of the box sets when I first got started.
Author:  JamesR [ Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
@Beowulf it makes me all the more happy my parents bought me the old metal pack of all 9 when they first came out lol
Author:  Draugluin [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
Beowulf03809 wrote:
I'm not a fan of GW's named ones either, except for the WK and Khamul which were each identified by Tolkien. And as the first named one released, Khamul's rules were actually good IMO as they deviated slightly from the typical Nazgul focus (giving him a combat slant) while not really going overboard on the special rule. I think he really balanced well with the generic Nazgul.

A few key points above are the flexibility of the unnamed RWs to fit into your army as you need by simply adjusting the points. Even one light on Will can be extremely useful and I've seen a few players so hung up on using the named versions that they are surprised when a standard Nazgul is fielded in a lower point level. For many years they were perfectly fine supporting models.

If you do decide to max out then you could just bump up the last little bit and pull in a special rule as mentioned above. I really try not to do that but there are some times the special rule can add some strong synergy to a list...but that doesn't mean you have to accept the fact that he's got the GW "inspired" name. Just tell yourself he's a Nazgul that you paid extra points for a special rule...not for The Dark Marshal...and you won't feel as dirty. :-) I can honestly and happily say I have never made an army list with any Nazgul named except the Witch King or Khamul, though I have had a couple special rules attached once or twice. I really try not to, but a few times the tabletop need has overruled the better angles of my nature.

My bigger gripe is it seems very hard to find the original models at a decent price any more (especially the mounted versions). Some of the newer ones are fair but I wish I would have picked up some of the box sets when I first got started.

I view the extra special rules as belonging to the Nazgul's ring. They make a lot more sense if you think about them that way.
Author:  Zarathustra Suicuine [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
Must admit that is the problem with new named ones is that Khamul doesn't look that great in comparison, okay, but not great, with several beating him at combat, and others beating him at magic.
Author:  whafrog [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
Draugluin wrote:
I view the extra special rules as belonging to the Nazgul's ring. They make a lot more sense if you think about them that way.


Hadn't thought of that, but it certainly helps get my brain around the objections :)
Author:  JamesR [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
Zarathustra Suicuine wrote:
Must admit that is the problem with new named ones is that Khamul doesn't look that great in comparison, okay, but not great, with several beating him at combat, and others beating him at magic.


Personally I still only field Khamul. His combat flexibility and the ability to recoup Will always works great for me (I always mount him thou)
Author:  Zarathustra Suicuine [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
The problem with him is the fact he just does not seem to work well unmounted, and even then mounted, he will struggle to kill enough to do anymore then brake even on will, and their are better combat characters out there, but his magic needs more will to succesfully cast then other ringwraiths so I found he burns through it more.
Author:  Beowulf03809 [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
@Zarathustra: I agree! But when FotN was released he was the first and only named Nazgul other than the WK. So all Nazgul at the time were mostly spell focused support units that you could leverage at various degrees based on the points available. If you wanted a Nazgul that was capable of casting spells but had a little more capacity for combat then you could go with Khamul. On foot his special rule gave very little. On a horse it means you could last a long time as a combat leader (recovering enough Will to hold even if increasing your Stat now and then). On a Fell Beast he was great. I thought it made a lot of sense thematically because in addition to being named he was also noted as being in charge of Dol Guldur and that fortress had a lot of combat action against both Mirkwood and Lothlorien Elves.

Then the Mordor supplement came out. GW did the GW thing and came up with several more named Nazgul. Some names are a real stretch of language, some are pathetically non-informative, and some are just stupid (all IMO). They now needed to come up with eight more Special Rules and be sure each is unique enough to get people to want to buy each one. Some rules are more useful than others and there is some nice variety

Personally if they were going to go in this direction I would have preferred just the basic Black Rider style model and a pool of "pick one" special rules similar to the upgrades for Mumukil or Dragons but GW has never seen fit to invite me to their planning meetings. I'm guessing it's because I live on a different continent but there may be more to it than that.
Author:  Zarathustra Suicuine [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
No idea why they didn't update Khamul's rules when they introduced the new ones..
Author:  SuicidalMarsbar [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 8:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
Zarathustra Suicuine wrote:
No idea why they didn't update Khamul's rules when they introduced the new ones..


Because when on a fell beast he is probably the most powerful one?
Author:  mertaal [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Best "basic" Ringwraith?
From a purely aesthetic point of view, the vanilla models are far superior to the named, in my opinion. They're really menacing and brooding, and rather like their screen representation. Scary! The named equivalents just… aren't.

The "Tainted" looks like Death in the Muppets Christmas Carol. *snigger*
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/