This thread is simply for us to discuss how the new rules, namely the warbands, are going to affect SBG.

Let's start with some of the obvious changes. Armies are going to have a lot less models and lot more Heroes. Also, there is going to be a lot more Might available for everyone.

Here's some stuff to discuss: is archery going to be more or less potent? Will all-cavalry armies be better? Are uber-Heroes now better or worse? Is it important to try and get as many models as possible, or should we just accept that armies are going to have very few models?

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

I would say that Uber-heros are now going to be more effective, fewer enemies means fewer chances of loosing and being trapped.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

Let me ask you this: What is the point of point limits? Then allow me to answer it my way: Point limits were a way to limit how long a game would take. More points = more models, nothing more. The good ol' "700 point army" wasn't a GW decreed standard for everyones games, it was what alot of people felt allowed them a good enough game to have fun in. With the introduction of Warbands, we are more hero heavy, and thus, games will be shorter. So I also forsee a raise in the point levels for alot of games. For example, in my group, we used to play 800 point games. 800 points spread out between 4 players. It was a leangthy game, and 2 games took an entire day. Morning to dusk. We have now played a warbands game with a point limit of 1,600 between 4 players and it lasted 5 turns before a player was eliminated (2v2) and only 4 more for his ally. This was stunning. Quicker than a 800 point game without warbands, and our armies felt alot more rounded with the hero's. We did another round, however and this game was closer to the usual 3-4 hours. So in essence, Warbands has allowed us to increase our points costs, add allies much easier (before 1 capitain armies were the norm and if you wanted an ally you had to waste points on a second), AND I get to use all my shiney and well painted hero's without sacrificing anything really?! Two thumbs up from me!

"Here's some stuff to discuss: is archery going to be more or less potent? Will all-cavalry armies be better?"

I really don't think that Warbands will have much effect on this, but maybe it will. We may see more heroic moves and shoots since might is more prevelant, and armies like Rohan that depend on the charge will need to buy hero's anyways, so why not a mounted one?

"Are uber-Heroes now better or worse?"

I would say Better, because I know I sit and go "Okay, I need a capitain now... but if I spend just 15 points more... I could buy Erkenbrand over a generic capitain..." So I expect to see pricey heros such as Eomer and Theoden appear more often within my ranks.

"Is it important to try and get as many models as possible, or should we just accept that armies are going to have very few models?"

I'd say there is no change at all in this regard. We all know hero heavy armies suffer. Theres no two cents about it. If you stuck Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas VS their points worth in Uruk scouts, my money would be on the scouts. So finding a balance between your models will be cruical. Yea sure, it will only cost you 50 points to go from a normal capitain to a named one, but those 50 points could be 6-7 more models in a capitains warband. The question is, what is more appealing to your playstyle?

Doubles 2012 is 1000pts

I agree with Battalia that games are a lot faster now, and it's usually the heroes doing all the killing. The increase in pts mean we get to field all those shiny characters we wouldn't normally because of the amount of models that would mob them

I can tell you one thing, because of less shooting, and that 2pt upgrade.. my spider army has become ridiculously good!

_________________
++ THE VANUS TEMPLE ++
Contact for commissions!

Warband One: Goblin Captain (with shield/bow), twelve Goblin Warriors (with shield/bow/spear), 100pts
Warband Two: Goblin Captain (with shield/bow), twelve Goblin Warriors (with shield/bow/spear), 100pts
Warband Three: Goblin Captain (with shield/bow), twelve Goblin Warriors (with shield/bow/spear), 100pts
Warband Four: Goblin Captain (with shield/bow), twelve Goblin Warriors (with shield/bow/spear), 100pts
Warband Five: Goblin Captain (with shield/bow), twelve Goblin Warriors (with shield/bow/spear), 100pts

I built this 500pts army with the old points; I don't know if they've changed. Also, is there a model limit? However, if this army is valid then isn't it practically invincible? It's got 65 models; it's going to outnumber some armies by 3 to 1!


Another thing, I predict that Nazgul will become much more popular, due to their anti-Hero abilities.

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

Nope no model limit, however in Lord of Battle you will be able to give away 75 VP's

Now swap out the captains for some shamans and and Groblug in there, then you're saving another 1/3 of the goblins from death...

_________________
++ THE VANUS TEMPLE ++
Contact for commissions!

Aye, you would outnumber most armies, but every other aspect of your army is inferior. Speed, defence, pretty much everything. So a scenario could really put a strain on that

You can still get high model count armies, as General E's above. I wrote a 500pts force with 49 models, a 1,000pt force with 69 models, a 1,000pt force with 74 models, a 1,500pt force with 90 models, a 1,500pt force with 92 model, a 1,500pt force with 115 models etc

General E's - if you want to lnow, Prowlers and Blackshields have both gone up in pts.

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

I find that outnumbering your opponent is better then having speed, defence (which they have enough with shields), especially with the 10 points of might.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

A few more thoughts: I fear that a lot of strategy may be lost as there are far fewer troops to manoeuvre. I don't want my games to be focused on grinding down enemy Heroes.

Perhaps we should not compare old and new systems using the same points, but rather the same models.

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

The new Victory points changes things quite a bit. Depending on the scenario you get points for causing wounds on enemy heroes, for each banner that survives, etc. Your army has no banners, which means if your opponent automatically gets points if he has one.

The game mechanics have always favoured numbers, but time will tell if the new war bands and point scoring can balance that out a bit.

I generally concure with the consensus. Heroes will drive the game, purely because there are so many. Heroic actions are probably going to be a lot more common, due to the surplus of might.

Bows remain really important, I think, if just to thin ranks so your Heroes don't get bogged down at much. I think we may see less bows in some factions due to heroes being forced, but generally, I think they'll remain the same.

The biggest changes, I think, is going to be point costs. Lower point games are going to quick, hero driven affairs where the goal will probably be to let your heroes carry the day (mostly around 3-400pts). The more points you go, the role of warriors shift back to driving the game, by sheer numbers (unless, you know, you're that one goblin list above).

Overall, I think it's a good shake up for the game, and maybe a little closer to Tolkien's work.

I believe that the new change will promote more Hero orientated interactions overall -- good advantages for a player who utilizes and exploits his/her hero's skills well. I have seen too many games where players over focus on the size of their force rather than the available skills/tactics -- bloody mob smashing and hacking does not always win. I would rather get my backend handed to me by an excellent strategical player. I believe this change is good for the game.

Regards,

Grey Company

What's going to happen to all the monsters?

_________________
The Southern Fiefdoms: http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21928

Monsters can be a powerful force, only problem is they still need the hero to be bought AFAIK. So for rohan to have an ent or eagle you still need the hero ent or eagle first which is a massive point problem unless monsters are your focus

Well, if you want an ent, just bring Treebeard, if you want an eagle, bring Gwaihir. If you want a troll, Troll Chieftan or Burdur. The rest of the monsters (Balrog, Dragon, Mumak) count as heros, and so can be included in any force. The only ones that will be difficult to fit in would be the Dwellers and the Great Beast.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

I know it kind of feels wrong, but I'm presuming now the Ents are grouped in as Wanderers in the Wild you could put them with any hero from that group. So for example you could put an unnamed Ent in a warband led by Bullroarer Took or Bilbo Baggins and not necessarily by Treebeard if you don't want to use that many points?

I meant more along the lines of will they be worth their points now that armies are going to be even smaller! Having to take a hero to lead 12 orcs will impact on the ability of a troll now imo. For example you could have taken one orc shaman, a host of orcs and a troll in the previous rules. Now you have to take a hero for every 12 orcs which will limit your numbers if you want to include a troll. I think this will impact evil players more...

_________________
The Southern Fiefdoms: http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21928

Thats correct, however Bilbo and an Ent is more points than Treebeard on his own