The One Ring :: View topic - To Crown or not to Crown?

I only use it when playing Angmar against Arnor of old as a fell beast would be non cannonical! Or if the battle happens under ground.

Bilbo wrote:

I only use it when playing Angmar against Arnor of old as a fell beast would be non cannonical! Or if the battle happens under ground.

Is it ever explicitly stated that the first time the Nazgul rode fell beasts was after the "battle" at the Ford?

GWvsJohn wrote:

Bilbo wrote:

I only use it when playing Angmar against Arnor of old as a fell beast would be non cannonical! Or if the battle happens under ground.

Is it ever explicitly stated that the first time the Nazgul rode fell beasts was after the "battle" at the Ford?

Its somewhere in the "Uruk Hai" chapter of the Two Towers, I believe. Basically that they are being kept back for Sauron's war!

The crown combined with fell beast will allow him to roll three dice if he gets charged which can make a serious difference in winning fights (giving him a 50% chance of rolling a 6 rather than a 33% chance) [...]

Odds of rolling a 6 on xd6 = 1-(5/6)^x

2 dice, 11/36 = 30.5%
3 dice, 91/216 = 42%

I only use it when playing Angmar against Arnor of old as a fell beast would be non cannonical! Or if the battle happens under ground.

Bilbo wrote:

I only use it when playing Angmar against Arnor of old as a fell beast would be non cannonical! Or if the battle happens under ground.

We will really be limiting our armies if we only use things directly from the books. I completely agree with you and I try to build my armies to a theme, but besides the fell beast, there are no mention of other Nazgul in Angmar, but we'd be down to orcs, trolls, and evil men (ignored by all incarnations of the GW Angmar lists). The entire thread is about a magic item that might be nothing more than a fancy hat in the books as far as I can remember...

I also agree the crown isn't worth the points if mounted on a fell beast...

Author:	GWvsJohn [ Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:52 pm ]
Post subject:	To Crown or not to Crown?
What does everyone think about taking the Morgul Crown for the Witch King on a Fell Beast? Without a beast, the cost for +2 Attacks seems 100% worth it. But once you have the beast, it's only +1 Attack. Is it worth the cost?

Author:	SouthernDunedain [ Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
I take him without the crown when I stick him on a fellbeast. You get 3 on the charge, 6 to wound which when combined with rend, is usually enough to kill anyone. So no, not worth it.

Author:	Bilbo [ Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
I only use it when playing Angmar against Arnor of old as a fell beast would be non cannonical! Or if the battle happens under ground.

Author:	GWvsJohn [ Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
Bilbo wrote: I only use it when playing Angmar against Arnor of old as a fell beast would be non cannonical! Or if the battle happens under ground. Is it ever explicitly stated that the first time the Nazgul rode fell beasts was after the "battle" at the Ford?

Author:	Bilbo [ Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
GWvsJohn wrote: Bilbo wrote: I only use it when playing Angmar against Arnor of old as a fell beast would be non cannonical! Or if the battle happens under ground. Is it ever explicitly stated that the first time the Nazgul rode fell beasts was after the "battle" at the Ford? Its somewhere in the "Uruk Hai" chapter of the Two Towers, I believe. Basically that they are being kept back for Sauron's war!

The One Ring http://wwww.one-ring.co.uk/

To Crown or not to Crown? http://wwww.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27609	Page 1 of 1

Author:	GWvsJohn [ Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
Bilbo wrote: GWvsJohn wrote: Bilbo wrote: I only use it when playing Angmar against Arnor of old as a fell beast would be non cannonical! Or if the battle happens under ground. Is it ever explicitly stated that the first time the Nazgul rode fell beasts was after the "battle" at the Ford? Its somewhere in the "Uruk Hai" chapter of the Two Towers, I believe. Basically that they are being kept back for Sauron's war! In the War of the Ring, sure. But it's certainly possible the Nazgul rode similar beasts in earlier wars.

Author:	Dragon from the East [ Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
It was my understanding that the nazgul did not ride fell beasts until the war of the ring as well. I thought that they were being bred before the war of the ring so that they could become as large as the eagles and once the riders lost their mounts to the river near Imladris it just made sense to give them fell beasts then. But I'm not entirely certain ... I think the Morgul Crown is worth it on foot personally, but I would say no if he is mounted on a fell beast. So I would only put it on him with a fell beast if the other player brought Panic Steed to the table. Because you know what he will target first.

Author:	Bilbo [ Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
[quote="Dragon from the East"]It was my understanding that the nazgul did not ride fell beasts until the war of the ring as well. I thought that they were being bred before the war of the ring so that they could become as large as the eagles and once the riders lost their mounts to the river near Imladris it just made sense to give them fell beasts then. But I'm not entirely certain ... I think that is pretty much bang on, and there is no mention of anything else even similar that I am aware of, and feel that an Angmar army should reflect whats in the books. The crown combined with fell beast will allow him to roll three dice if he gets charged which can make a serious difference in winning fights (giving him a 50% chance of rolling a 6 rather than a 33% chance), it does however really allow him to put the boot in when he charges rolling 8 dice to wound against most opponents. I would recommend it as a must at big battles like the Pelenor fields where his job is to head hunt seriously hard enemy heroes, and is potenetially up against Aragorn, Imrahil, Eomer Knight of the Pelenor Gandalf, and naturally Theoden. The eight strikes he can potentially bring to bear on them is not enough to guarentee death if he wins but will make it a real posibility!

Author:	Coenus Scaldingus [ Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
Bilbo wrote: The crown combined with fell beast will allow him to roll three dice if he gets charged which can make a serious difference in winning fights (giving him a 50% chance of rolling a 6 rather than a 33% chance) [...] Ehm, that's not how odds work. Yes, there is a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6 when it concerns a single die, but that doesn't mean there is a 1 in 2 (3 in 6) chance of rolling a 6 on three dice, as that would mean that there is a 1 in 1 (i.e. always) chance of rolling a single 6 on six dice - indeed, it would mean that rolling six dice always gives a single 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Been a while since I've done any calculations like this, but I think the odds of getting at least one 6 on two dice is roughly 31% and the odds of getting at least one 6 on three dice is about 42%.

Author:	GWvsJohn [ Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
Odds of rolling a 6 on xd6 = 1-(5/6)^x 2 dice, 11/36 = 30.5% 3 dice, 91/216 = 42%

Author:	Beowulf03809 [ Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
GWvsJohn wrote: Odds of rolling a 6 on xd6 = 1-(5/6)^x 2 dice, 11/36 = 30.5% 3 dice, 91/216 = 42% If my kids ever ask "when will I ever need to use this in real life" I can look them right in the eyes and say "for in-game odds calculations!"

Author:	VandalCabbage [ Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
In addition to foot I would say on Horseback as well, for knockdown. No challenging a horse mounted WK in an Angmar army...

Author:	Bilbo [ Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
It was somewhat of a generalisation, dice not having memory and all that!

Author:	quindia [ Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
Bilbo wrote: I only use it when playing Angmar against Arnor of old as a fell beast would be non cannonical! Or if the battle happens under ground. We will really be limiting our armies if we only use things directly from the books. I completely agree with you and I try to build my armies to a theme, but besides the fell beast, there are no mention of other Nazgul in Angmar, but we'd be down to orcs, trolls, and evil men (ignored by all incarnations of the GW Angmar lists). The entire thread is about a magic item that might be nothing more than a fancy hat in the books as far as I can remember... I also agree the crown isn't worth the points if mounted on a fell beast...

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Bilbo [ Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: To Crown or not to Crown?
quindia wrote: Bilbo wrote: I only use it when playing Angmar against Arnor of old as a fell beast would be non cannonical! Or if the battle happens under ground. We will really be limiting our armies if we only use things directly from the books. I completely agree with you and I try to build my armies to a theme, but besides the fell beast, there are no mention of other Nazgul in Angmar, but we'd be down to orcs, trolls, and evil men (ignored by all incarnations of the GW Angmar lists). The entire thread is about a magic item that might be nothing more than a fancy hat in the books as far as I can remember... I also agree the crown isn't worth the points if mounted on a fell beast... I am happy to use anything on the list apart from when we are looking to re-enact a specific battle. I feel that the undead miniatures are appropriate for this, but not the fell beast.