Said this in other threads but as it's being discussed here...

I hate the new archery rule, only part of the new rules I really don't like - although I haven't experienced the infamous Hurl...

My main issue is not so much with balance or nerfing but with record keeping. One of the joys of SBG for me was the simplicity and I think a lot of the new rules add needless complications. The main one for me is trying to remember which models moved a full phase later.

I played a game recently with an all-mounted Rohan army, had about 30 Riders of Rohan and it was really tough trying to remember which ones had moved full, which ones has moved half and which ones hadn't moved, very frustrating and slowed the game down.

For me if you do feel the need to need archery it needs to be something you can work out in the shoot phase. -1 for being over half range for example.

However, I'd far rather just go back to the old-rules, I think we're going to ignore the rule when I play with mates.

As for whether ROR would be too powerful with no shooting modifier I'd have to say no, it was fairly common consensus that Rohan were (and still are) underpowered and it would be a nice boost.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

Well, i'm just gonna throw my 2 pence in on this (that's right americans i used your phrase, boo yah) but how about, a 6" penalty to the range of your bow if you move up to 3" (and no penalty to throwing weapons), and no -1 penalty at all. This would represent a lack of power behind the shot because some of the models strength has been invested in moving, but not reduce their ability to hit. This would also remove the whole 'back a few inches to get out of range while still being in range' problem, what d'ya think guys?

Also, why don't we seriously get a petition together for all the little things we want changed; i reckon the vast majority of the lotr community is on this site, and if not, we all lead groups of friends who would gladly sign a petition to have some changes made to the rules.

Having a bunch of str 2 shots from a group of 13 point models wouldn't be very overpower, if it even would be.

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

One other option I was thinking about for archery:

1) dispense with the new rules, but keep the throwing spear range.
2) infantry archers are considered unarmed (-1 to Duel) but may take a hand weapon for 1 point.
3) list of exceptions to rule 2, eg: WoMT and Osgiliath vets, Rangers of all kinds, Easterlings, Corsairs.

I guess the problem I'm trying to solve is this: make archery effective, but discourage overuse. A game is frustrating when you roll handfuls of dice and achieve nothing, but it's easy to make it overpowered. With only 6 pips to work with, statistical shifts are pretty wide.

I could definitely see this working. Archers being unarmed is, by and large, how it used to be in Fellowship days. Orcs had bladed bows so they counted as armed.

The Overuse Issue:

I think why shooting is so off-balanced in the game is because shooting isn't good enough across the board. In 40k and fantasy you want to get into hand to hand to avoid being shot at as soon as possible. This is especially true with armies like Dark Eldar.

As it stands in LOTR shooting poses no real threat. So an Elf, a Rider of Rohan, an army of Dwarf Rangers, can kite all day and never have to stop kiting because Evil shooting poses no real danger. These examples groups and the kiting play style (the overuse factor) are the types of forces the -1 penalty rule is meant to target - even though it ends up not really helping much since everyone now gets it.

However, if Elves and Riders had to deal with Orcs who could actually hit a barn, let alone the field it sits on, then they couldn't rely on overuse tactics nearly as effectively. I mean you do get roughly 2 orcs for every one elf or 3 orcs to every one rider. The game would balance itself without the -1 rule that ultimately fixed nothing and just added complexity. Of course, what it would also do is put expensive heroes more in danger of dying from bowfire. Again, this would also encourage people to not overruse ranged weapons, and push them toward engaging the enemy rather than running away from them.

Obviously, under this concept, ranged weapons would have to cost more. If they did cost more it would also limit their overuse or neglect because you definitely would need some, but at the same time, too many would cost way too much and leave an army lacking the numbers to deal with an opponent effectively.

Happy Gaming,

Commoner

Unless you're the one that brought the most dakka to the table.

This -1 to shoot business is being totally blown out of all proportion. Now that there is no volley fire there is no benefit to having all your archers in B2B, they are free to take up every position on the table that allows them to shoot without moving and make it very difficult (or a waste of time) for your opponent to target them.

Ruins with an upper level are good, GW's Osgiliath Ruins are a good example. Archers up on that upper level will have plenty of shooting opportunity and they can now spread out (no volley fire) and since they'll all count as defending an elevated position they'll be a pain to get rid of as only one attacker can fight them at a time, he'll get no spear support as he has no friends in B2B, he'll have to take 'in the way' rolls to even hit the defender if he wins the fight, and as he'll have had to climb to charge the defender he'll take falling damage if he fails to kill the defending archer. Cliffs and large rocky outcrops that need climbing would work too.

If you dispense with the -1 for moving and shooting then cavalry with missile weapons become disproportionally powerful as soon as someone puts a stream on the table. Infantry move at half speed through the stream, but cavalry treat it as open ground. The cav could kite backwards and forwards across the stream shooting with no penalty and the infantry would never catch them as even a 2" wide stream would knock infantry down to a 4" move with the cavalry moving 5" and shooting.

The tools to balance shooting are already in the rulebook, they're just not in the shooting section. I am building a pond for my home games (a test piece for a river.....last time I wanted to use a river at home I used A4 paper cut into river shapes with a ford drawn on in biro.....it worked but did not look good). The water terrain will add a new dynamic to my games, but every club or LGS is going to have ruins, rocks and rivers.

_________________
Titans Wargames Club

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_Titans/index/

@Damian, so what you're saying is that Rohan armies were overpowered in the old rules just because someone could put a river on the table?

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

@Draugluin;
No, because under the old rules areas of water were treated very differently and the changes have a large bearing on how cavalry interact with areas of water.

Under the old rules shallow water was difficult ground for all troops, but in the new rules cavalry, wargs and monsters treat it as open ground. Shallow water is anything that the model can stand in with it's feet on the bottom and not drown, so that will include all streams and most narrow rivers.

Under the old rules cavalry could not swim across deep water, the riders had to dismount in order to do this. In the new rules cavalry get a +1 bonus on the swim chart.

Cavalry have a significant movement advantage now compared to infantry if there is a river on the table. Cavalry with missile weapons can now kite over shallow water in a way they simply couldn't before. Light cavalry will get across 5" of deep water in one move.

House ruling shooting changes out of context of other rules changes is only going to lead to more imbalances and more house rules. Any rules that you think are balanced can be rendered overpowered or underpowered by terrain placement, so it's a futile exercise.

_________________
Titans Wargames Club

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_Titans/index/

why penalty for crossbow?

Crossbows are strength 4.

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

agh yes that makes sense, i was thinking real life crossbows wouldn't have a greater penalty... except maybe loading

Two problems - slower game by tracking movement distances, and bow overuse. Both solved by making ranged weapons more expensive. That's how you should balance a game - not by adding complication and crippling the player by forcing awkward limits on them. The 33% thing is lame - if the player wants to field an army full of archers then they should be allowed to. It should just cost them a lot of points to do so.

If you've made a unit type too strong then you have a data imbalance, not a gameplay issue. If archery is a dominant strategy then nerf the strength or make it more expensive, don't tack on silly rules that make the game less fun.

I agree, anyone should really be able to have a 100% bow army

Gw make up silly rules rather than changing profiles and points costs because they can't be bothered to reprint rule books and sourcebooks or even do another FAQ.

How often are FAQs released by GW?

Every 6-12 months or when they release a new book.

_________________
12th GBHL 2013.
13th GBHL 2014
9th GBHL 2015


Mid Sussex Wargamers

Oh well... At least another 2 months then

the latest FAQ is written, they had copies at the Throne of skulls but no-one was allowed to see them (other than the TO's) until they are released to everyone. They are hoping to have them on the website by the Hobbit Battle brothers event in june.

_________________
12th GBHL 2013.
13th GBHL 2014
9th GBHL 2015


Mid Sussex Wargamers