So, I have a friend that has started into the game and he has a constant list of complaints against the fairness of the game. I maintain that the game is balanced but that he has to learn how to play his army. It doesn't help that the army he chose was Rohan; not the greatest army out there....


But anyway, here are some of the complaints, all of which I feel are invalid but I'd like to see if the community sees it similar to my friend:


1. Panic Steed should hit on a 4+ instead of a 2+;
2. Expert Rider does nothing to reflect the prowess of the Riders of Rohan;
2a. Rohan should get +1 to all rolls on the thrown rider chart;
3. All elf heros are overpowered;
3a. Specifically, Arwen is way too powerful for how much you pay for her;
4. All Rohan heros are underpowered;
4a. Specifically, Theoden is not well represented as the chief hero of his people;
5. Treebeard costs too many points;
6. Galadhrim Knights should not be allowed in the game since there is no equivalent in the LotR cannon.
7. IF mounted elves are to be allowed @ all, they should not be better riders than Rohan who are, according to the books, the most proficient horse handlers in all of Middle Earth.
8. Isengard sucks.


That's about all I can remember.

What would you say to my objecting to all of these statements, carte blanche?

_________________
Woodland Realms: 2382 pts: 18/08/2010

Wow you must have completely destroyed him in your game... seriously if you want someone to join the hobby make them win there first game but make it look like your trying so that they can actually feel proud about it lol.

I actually agree with some of the stuff he said..

1. Nothing to say lol..

2. Agreed espically if your using bearley any terrain.

3. none of the elf heros are overpowered in my opinion as they cost so much points and your just going to be low on numbers anyway plus they only really have one special rule which is woodland creature which is pretty much as useless as expert rider.

4.Eomer is better than most elf heros (not including ones with 3 attacks) the only thing thats bad is that hes got a lower fight value, just give him a shield horse and a throwing spear then hes much better(also you can use the new version of Eomer hes way better. I dont know the rules though..). Hama and gamling are also pretty good. they have good special rules mainly Gamling with the banner. Theoden is the only really underpowered hero for rohan hes way overpriced and well sucks.. just make a house rule for his and give him heavy armour for free.

5.Don't know i've never used Treebeard but his stats look good.

6.Who cares...

7.Oo well

8. Isengard is good.. i just dont have any advice lol..

LOL... n00b.

_________________
Hmm... what would a chair look like if your knees bent the other way?

I'd agree Rohan is tougher to play than some. Isengard is easier though, so if he's losing with Isengard he has a lot of learning to do. Maybe he's too big too soon and the battle size exceeds his experience. Maybe having a couple of 250-350 point games in an evening, trying out different scenarios, will help him learn how to deal with various armies.

I agree with Theodens stats being too low though.

For a leader he is indeed a little "nothingsaying"

I disagree with treebeard having a too high point value. I mean
come on! He is ca. the biggest baddest monster you can get for the good side!

_________________
Eru was the one who on Arda is called Ilúvatar

-The silmarillion by J.R.R Tolkien, first line-

I think most of his points are fair.
1. I think that 2+ is O.K. since this is one of the best things about Radagast.
2. He's got a point.
2a. Sounds like an interesting house rule to try out.
3. Not in my experiance.
3a. Not really-she only has Nature's wrath going for her.
4. They're not underpowered-they just don't have any Uber ones, which is a real weakness.
4a. Yup, no argument here.
5. I have never played with the ent, so I wouldn't know.
6. True.
7. I think that they should be powerful, but that should come from a lance or fight value and not from horse-skills
8. I don't think so.

All IMHO of course.

_________________
"Woe to the Vanquished!"
-Brennus-

Forgot this...I guess he wasn't paying attention when Legolas handled Arod. They might have been the best among Men, but not better than Elves.

hmm I'm not too sure on this one.. I could see that Elves would be more in peace with their horses & treat them very well etc.. but Rohan is the land of the horse, & I think they should have better things for horses because that is the main power of the army really. While Elves have many other positive things apart from the horses

Since when does Legolas know A-Rod?

_________________
Hmm... what would a chair look like if your knees bent the other way?

I think he has to understand that Rohan are underpowered and are hard to use effectively. By the sounds of all the points he's trying to make, he might as well just buy some elves if they're THAT good.

_________________
Sun is by sea-men always hoped for,
when they fare away over the fishes' bath,
until the brine-stallion they bring to land.
OERP

I should say that Theoden is weaker than he ought to be. But I've grown a little weary of "your army is overpowered and my army stinks."

Maybe I should've let him win a few of our first games but my competitive nature kicks in as soon as I lose a WE spear warrior.

_________________
Woodland Realms: 2382 pts: 18/08/2010

Some of his points make sense but Isengard do NOT suck.

_________________
"I will take it. I will take the Ring to Mordor...though I do not know the way."
—Frodo, at the Council of Elrond

well i think i only have 1 answer to all that: LOL!!!
ya, you really should have gone easy on him. although when i first started playing the only opponent i have was 3-4 yrs younger than me, and although we learned/started at the same time, i should of gone easy on him (i play goblins, he plays elves, he's only beaten me once out of all our battle companies/ moria battles/ skirmish battles... so he thinks that goblins are a bit too good (although when we do play and my battle line meets with his battle line, the goblins seem to always come out on top....))

oh, and how old is he??

Yeah, but Arod was trained by someone from Rohan. I've also found it strange that elf cavalry are more skilled at riding than rohirrim- remember that 'rohirrim' actually means 'horse-masters' or 'horse-lords'.

Anyhow, back to the complaints...If you and/or your friend have problems with the rules, there's not really much you can do about it, except perhaps agree on some 'house rules' to use in your private games which fits with your own idea of Middle-earth.

And Isengard does NOT suck, they are very competitive in tournaments; whenever I use isengard I win, whenever I play against them I lose (even with uruk-hai-tailored army lists) and they're right up there with Mordor and Gondor in terms of the 'good' factions.

_________________
Backlog reduction Oath Participant

Well the creators of the game read the silmarillion and others books by Tolkien. Galadhrim knights play important roles in some stories in those books. So them being stronger makes sence I think. (Let's face it, they're elves after all.)

I don't play with rohan though, so I can't really talk about their cavalry.

Rueben

_________________
"Mickey, my friend!"

It seems like you hae ne'er read "those books". Galadhrim Knights are not once mentioned in the silmarillion. Galadriel does not inhabit Caras Galadhon until after the changing of the world.

The Knights you could be referencing would be from Nargothrond or Gondolin or Doriath. But if someone can find me support for any of these knights being mounted (apart from Fingolfin when he rode to battle Morgoth) i would greatly appreciate it.

_________________
Woodland Realms: 2382 pts: 18/08/2010

'By Ill chance, at that place in the outworks stood Gwindor of Nargothrond, the brother of Gelmir. Now his wrath was kindled to madness, and he leapt forth on horseback and many riders with him...'
The Silmarillion

The riders are mostly Noldor High elves, but Gwindor is a Wood Elf.

_________________
"Woe to the Vanquished!"
-Brennus-

Sorry to be blunt, but all the original complaints are just typical noob knee-jerk reactions. They are just blinkered views of specific parts of profiles without considering the wider picture - which we have all done when joining the game and thinking we know best. Once your friend has got a couple of dozen games under his belt, he will find that none of these complaints are really valid.

For example, if Arwen, elf knights and Radagast were so great why do we never see them in the GT's, but conversly alway's see a ton of Isengard armies?

And as for elf knights not being cannon, the game would be mighty boring and short-lived if we never had the models of GW's or the films embellishments to the written works of Middle-earth.

Exactly what could you field in a Lothlorien or Rivendell army if you only went on descriptions from the Triology? An elf with a bow or spear, would that be it?

Brilliant!

_________________
Woodland Realms: 2382 pts: 18/08/2010

Regardless of whether or not your friend's complaints are valid, if the game's not enjoyable for him then he's not very likely to stick with it, so it's kind of up to you how much you're willing to concede, at least for now, to make the game more fun for both of you. No one likes being introduced to a new game only so that the friend introducing him, who's already a seasoned player, can whipe the floor. Play a few small games to get started, leave out big heroes, let him get comfortable with the rules, his army, some basic tactics, etc., and take a break from the stuff that's grinding his gears if you want him to stick with it. As he gets a better grip on the game, then he'll probably be able to deal with things like Radagast and Arwen a little better - one can see how they might be daunting at first (especially Radagast against a cavalry army), but a bit of experience will teach him how to work with them.

_________________
Well, that's my 2 cents.