Here I'll present a sure to be controversial house rule that tampers with the very engine of SBG - the D12 system.
Quite simply, this consists of replacing D6 rolls with D12 rolls in the game, and at the same time, changes the core dynamics and fixes some of the perceived weaknesses of the game (highly subjective!)

1. Fight and Wound rolls use D12s instead of D6s.
a) In Fight Rolls, models add their Fight score to the results rolled on the D12s and determine the winner that way. In case of a tie, roll-off or toss a coin to see which side wins. Roll models with different fight values separately (as you would do for two-handed weapons anyway). Mob Rule: If the outnumbering side in a multiple combat rolls a 12 on any of its dice, add +1 to the combat score for every outnumbering fighter (this is intended to help with wildly different fight values).
b) in Wound rolls, the score needed to wound on a D12 is 7 + Defence - Strength.

2. All effects that add "+1" for Fight or Wound rolls add +2 instead. This includes Might, Two-Handed and some magical weapons (note that penalties like the two-handed -1 penalty are not doubled).

3. Morale rolls still use a 2d6 for obvious reasons, as do any rolls on D6 tables.

This modification is intended mostly for scenario play and has not been balanced for points based games. It is also somewhat slower to play with.

Comments?

Interesting, and does seem to satisfy my main critique of the current rules, that, say, an elf is no better against a goblin than an Uruk-hai. But without some balanced scenarios it's hard to see how it would be used effectively without re-pointing every profile.

Not sure about the wound calculation. Currently S3 on D6 needs a 6 (16% chance). Your rules, S3 on D6 needs a 7 + 6 - 3 = 10, or 25% chance; S3 on D7 is back to 16%. Also, how do you handle S3 vs D9? The target number would be 13.

Ah yes, the 6+ followed by a 4+ mechanic, or in this case, a 12 followed by a 7+, is used in that case.

The odds for wounding are meant to give each point of S or D a meaning. This means that the odds will change for every other match up of S and D and stay the same for every other. But the main point is, the curve will still be the same, linear one, just without the plateaus in between. This is intentional.

Like I said, this is mainly meant for scenario play with set forces, as certainly there'll be balance changes.

Despite seeing how big a difference fight skill can have, I always wanted it to do more.

Like what whafrog said, if you have a higher fight skill than an unit it doesn't really matter if you have one point more or three, the advantages are the same. Which I didn't exactly like.

I am curious Glabro, did you come up with this yourself? Or with your group? Have you play tested? Do you consider this a rough draft, or the final product

EDIT: One thing I like about this, is you can kinda do "tier" weapons now. Maybe Eomer has a wonderful blade that you can give him +1 to, not the standard bonus but still a little something. Where someone wielding a elvish blade of legend get the standard +2 or maybe even +3.

Yep, I like that aspect of it. The plateaus trade simplicity for weird bottlenecks I never liked. I think it would be cool, but without some scenarios it's a coat hanger waiting for a coat

I made this myself, it simply popped into my head reading old White Dwarves several moments before I wrote it here. I believe it was a Standard Bearer article about associative and dissociative rules and then seeing LOTR on the next page. Funny how that works, since the redundant fight and defense issues are definitely good examples of dissociative rules! Mind you, I have thought of a die swap like this before for AT-43, it had a similar "plateau" mechanic in the whole universal table of resolution! Funny how the one D6 can be limiting unless you really think outside the box (not that I don't think it's possible, and I hope games dev comes up with something new for The Hobbit SBG, such as allowing higher fight values to re-roll 1s in a fight, or even 1s and 2s if the difference is big enough etc.

But anyway. This hasn't been playtested at all. I'm suggesting it's perfectly playable with every published scenario with set combatants, where the story and the fun is more important than strict 50/50 balance. The scenarios are rarely like that anyway, and it doesn't matter! They're not meant to be competitive, but to evoke a story of LOTR into life as a fun recreation.

As an aside, what games you know have such a wonderful breadth of "historical" scenarios? I'm certain there's quite a few historical games that can compete, but what are the stars? Maybe this merits another thread, though...

Glabro I actually think your system could be really utilized as a rpg system based off the LOTR mechanics. I have been doing that for my fiancee and I for a little while, trying to adapt these rules into a simple RPG system(for us to play table top like) and it seems that the rules you have come up with really work with that.

Any reason why on the 'to wound' it is 7 and not 6?

I also am looking to play test your rules over the next month or see and I can give you feedback if you want.

Sounds good. The set-piece scenarios from the books,especially those that detail the Fellowship's ordeals, like those in the journeybooks (if I only I could find #1 somewhere, I've got #2 and #3, but they're useless to me without #1...) would work with this more narrative system.

It's a 7 because that's the cut-off point similar to 4 on a d6: just like there's 3 results under 4 and 3 results that are 4 or better on a D6, so it is with D12s and 7 (except 6 results each). Basically, rolling 7+ is the same as rolling 4+ in every sense of the probabilities.

I actually found someone keen to start playing the Journeybook scenarios (he has the #1!) and even try out my system with it. I'll report back from my end, while you report from yours.