I believe that the Warbands Rules as they currently stand are simply a GW cash grab. Consider the finecast captain blisters of one mounted and foot version of the same figure for $36.50 US. That's highway robbery right there! Now add a rule "who's" sole purpose it to demand you buy more of this finecast blisters. What other conclusion can an intelligent person draw?

I happened to mention my opinion of this rule in The Hobbit Release thread and people responded to it. That's not the proper thread for it so I'm starting this one. Here are the relevant posts for the other thread:

Start Warband Rules rant.
"Dorthonion wrote:
Do you ever get the feeling that the consequences of fiddling with rules are never fully explored? The Army of the Dead should be that - an army, not the Undead Dirty Dozen plus One."

Fiddling is never good. And by that I (and I suspect Dorthonion) means that they didn't take any time at all to think this through. So now the retinue of a king like Theoden or Isildur is the same size as a lowly captain.

"RangerofTheNorth wrote:
12 should be the minimum for a unit, not the max. Warbands has really screwed up my Gondor army as I usually take very few heroes and hordes of spearmen"

Rreally? Just what do you think a warband of 12 Mordor orcs/Moria goblins can do? Other than make a mess of your front lawn? These armies are pretty screwed considering their one advantage was out numbering people. Sadly this indicates the true motive of this rule- up captain sales.

"KnightyKnight wrote:
However, having built a couple of army lists and had experience playing I've definitely changed my mind. A requirement to take heroes and captains works.

I like the order, organisation and balance it brings.

I like the way you have to really think about how to bring the best out of the units you have - am I taking too many warriors, too few? Can this unit hold its own or is it based around a supportive role?

Captains can become characters in their own right. Rather than just having a super character with 2 dozen warriors, by spending time making the best of a warband formation you can find yourself thinking about the captain leading them. What's the backstory behind this warband? Are these guys a motley group thrown together by chance, or a thick-as-thieves bunch?"

KnightyKnight you've aptly illustrated the attitudes and issues with GOOD players seduced by all those shinny Aragorns, Boromirs and Gandalfs. Yes the poor good captain never caught a break. That was never the case with EVIL players. They knew you had to keep your scum in line and nobody did that like an orc captain.

"ukfreddybear wrote:
Actually I like the new war bands rule. It helps balance the troops to leader ratio. The only thing I don't like about it is army of the dead only have one leader available to them (king of the dead) so you can only field 12 of them unless you house rule a captain of the dead to lead another warband."

Yes this is one of the major issues with this "rule/marketing tool". Can you have in fact 24 dead troops? Aragorn leads them in the book and the movie. Can he lead 12 of them? Don't know. No body at GW cared enough to think about it. We need a set of warbands rules that are really rules, not simply a demand for people to buy more captains!

End Warbands rules rant.

RangerofTheNorth
"Yeah evil is screwed too"

So I ask you, can anyone show any show any evidence that this rule has been incorporated into the SBG rules and not simply tacked on?

This thread is a year late a lot of the issues were hashed out last Feb. I can't disagree, at the time I viewed it (cynically) as a happy accident of GW execs sitting around a table where one said "how can we split the box of 24 into 12, and charge almost the same price for the new box?" and another said "how can we change the game to make it more about the heroes and avoid the 'long-march-to-the-middle' problem of LoME". There was a moment of silence and then they all said "Warbands! Max of 12! New deployment rules!"

After which they had a night of celebratory drinking and many a nerd-bro-moment

I think in general the game plays better with warbands than before, when everyone tried to cram Legolas and 40+ elves into 500 points, and the Shadowlord was the only evil wraith. I like dusting off the heroes I never thought I'd use unless I fielded 1500 points (of mostly warriors...imagine the tedium!) I like the way deployment happens by warband, because even the pre-game requires some strategic thought. I like the new scenarios that form a good foundation for custom story-driven, objective-based games. And Might is fun to use, now there's generally more of it floating around (though never enough...).

All that said, I agree it could have used a lot more thought. KotD is a perfect example. I could see the Twins leading a warband of 18, or goblin captains (except Durburz) leading 8. I'm not sure why shamans or stormcallers can lead any more than a couple (call them guards, or personal assistants ).

And maybe there's an entirely different way to achieve the all the positive (imho) changes the warbands have introduced...

I agree in all respects. And yes I'm terribly late. So is there an offical FAQ with new sorted rules?

I (like I'm sure everyone else) really like the concept and the warband deployment. I know you Warfrog are involved with a lot of Moria goblin battles. How do you overcome the obvious issues this rule can cause Moria armies?

Do you think the problems this rules cause are settled?

My son fielded goblins, but never went for numbers, so I can't say. All the other games I host I have to plan both sides, so I don't do that.

I think generally people know they could but don't bother, because a) they don't want to move that many models, and b) they really want to add something with more beef. And now the Hobbit rules make taking even a Cave Troll far more appealing, I think concerns about numbers fade away somewhat. Anyway, lately he's been trying max uruk xbows, as many berzerkers and ferals as he can (we have 9 and 3), and the rest just uruks with shields. So numbers aren't my problem

There isn't a FAQ, but all you need is one of the new sourcebooks, they all have the same info in the first few pages. And this is a must-read thread:
http://www.thelastalliance.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4723

In the end, I still think it's an improvement over LoME...not perfect, but better. I have similar thoughts about the new Hobbit rules: generally improvements, but special strikes and bow-nerfing are irritating. Can't have everything, and GW is only going to spend so much time on their 3rd game line.

I just don't like how restrictive it seems, if they had kept the warbands at 20-24, just like the boxes and required a commander that per 20-24 I'd be happy with that. That's how I ran my Gondorians. Thankfully I have lots of cheap heroes like Beregond, Angbor, Forlong, Damrod etc to incorporate, but I'm at a loss how to build a new Goblin force with the box set, Mordor orcs one advantage was numbers, but now what? I know the answer, one captain for every twelve orcs, but I don't think it works as a blanket rule. Cavalry armies it doesn't hurt, horde armies it does. Sbg was always very adaptive and easy to work with I'm just struggling with warbands now because there's finally a GW near me and people to play, its been dry for over a year

Yes I knew your son played them. Yes I own one of the new sourcebooks and know the rules as written there. I feel they're incomplete. I don't own the Hobbit book, but I understand that those rules are not updated in that book. Being more of a traditionalist I don't play all those later Mordor special troops. Warbands forces you to pick the more advance troops, which IMO doesn't reflect the battles of LOTR. If there isn't/won't be an offical revision to fix some of these issues then we here at One Ring should work on some.

I agree with Whafrog--the Games Workshop higher-ups likely conceived of a way to address issues with the Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game and conveniently make as much money as possible doing so. The reformat of the boxed sets are tailor-made for warbands, and encourage your army to be bought in chunks of one boxed set and one hero blister. But, of course, by halving the box contents and requiring the purchase of expensive Finecast heroes, GW found a way to maximize profits as much as currently reasonably possible through a rule set. If pushed, War of the Ring could obviously bring in even more money, but the focus had returned to the Strategy Battle Game with the advent of the Hobbit.

Most of GW's current rules, while often quite enjoyable, can, upon some inspection, be found to have been cleverly designed to pump cash from the player. It's not about the game, per say--the game is merely a vehicle providing the hobbyist a reason to buy specific models. War of the Ring answered the problem of bogged down play in larger SBG games but the rulebook alone forced SBG players to at least invest $50ish to play the larger games. That, and many have mentioned that the game needs high points levels for balanced play.

Like Lord of the Rings/Hobbit, the Warhammer boxed sets are being reformatted. Eighth edition rules encourage large infantry formations. This balances out the game and puts the focus more where it should be. But, where the sets used to come with 20 models for $35 as a standard, many are now sold in boxes of 10 for $29. Similarly, the monetary prices for Special and Rare choices in Warhammer are not in proportion to the price for Core choices; 10 Orc Boyz cost $29, but 10 Black Orcs cost $41.25. The Black Orcs set may come with a few more bits and pieces, but it actually seems clear that GW is simply charging $12 more for the Black Orcs because they are a Special choice.

I got off topic a bit...but after thinking about it and looking at the patterns, imo, there seems no reason not to think that, more than anything, warbands was a way of squeezing out money by reviving the SBG.

I can see, and agree with points made on both sides of the argument here. I think the strict 12-man warband rules only become an issue when playing at your local GW or official tournament. When playing with friends in your own home or club you can agree to remove/amend the limits.

I personally prefer to see horde armies still being just that, but I also like to see a more regimented structure to mannish armies - a squad (shall we say 12?) of Gondorian troops needs to be led by a captain of some sort as their army is structured by its very nature, ditto Rohan with its eoreds etc.

As to whether GW is cashing in - well, of course they are. They are a business after all, and any way to squeeze more profit is welcomed by the board and shareholders. I sometimes see their motives as cyncical but, after all, they need to be able to afford to keep the bricks and mortar shops open so we can all see what is on offer in the flesh rather than on a webpage. The shops (if we are lucky enough to have a shop near to us) also represent a place for us to meet, game and get advice, and a place for new players to be attracted to our wonderful hobby. I often gripe about their price structures, but I can see why they have to charge what they do. We have to remember that without GW we have no hobby.

You can still have hordes of models. Just with more heroes.

_________________
My old WIP thread - http://www.one-ring.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16246&start=0

Yes but each extra hero replaces 5 foot models. This isn't such a big issues since I never play at the GW store.

I am surprised that the community hasn't come up with a better Unofficial set of rules for this.

Rob

Now I have to ask: how much have you played with the new warband rules? Are you objecting experientially, or philosophically?

...because I imagine the reason no one has come up with new rules is that it's just not that big a deal experientially for most people. I mean, one warband of moria goblins costs 100 points (captain with 1 piece of equipment, 12 goblins with 1 piece of equipment). In 1000 points you can get 130 models, or 120 with a few shamans and Durburz, whereas the old LoME limits were 75.

So if you want a horde you can have a bigger one with these rules than with LoME.

No I haven't played with them yet. I don't play 1000pt battles. I player smaller skirmishes of 400 to 700pts. My games generally have been very themed.

I see what your saying here. But there is still the issues of the large until blocks; i.e. if you wanted 20 spearmen you would have to treat them as 2 warbands for the purpose of deployment and they would require 2 hero "handlers". Nor does that offer and aid the the poor AOD players. These are part of the issue I was thinking about when I spoke about unofficial rules.

How about monsters and warbands? If you have 3 trolls can they be combined into a warband? Or can they only be individual monsters?

Do you even know the rules? You can have a Mordor Troll Chieftain lead a squad of 12 mordor trolls if that is your goal.

Wow, I think I just started to drool...

Good point about LOME being rescrictive, in light of that Warbands seems better

This, you really should at least play using the new rules before you complain about them.

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

True Monsters aren't mentioned as monsters. They seen to be divided into heroes or troops. This I like. I don't have the new Angmar & Moria book so I can't say if cold drakes are troops or not. The only one of the new books I have so far is the Free Peoples.

Yes I'll make an effort to convince my friends to give them a go. But you do seem to be glossing over the obvious reasons for the number of "12".

I guess I like the warbands rule WAY more than the old rules, to me it fits much more nicely with the game.

I think also that it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that it was done purely for monetary reasons. As with all real life issues I'd suggest that what happened was a mixture of financial ideas, game rules ideas and general philosophy of the game.

I reckon that for simplicity and for all of these other reasons, 12 was playtested and thought to be a good balance of ALL of the issues. Sure it probably makes more money for them if players aren't keen to convert their own captains and leaders etc. I think they kept it at 12 for all of the different factions because they wanted to keep LotR games relatively simple to learn without all of the hassles that different numbers for different factions would entail.

I don't think anybody would mind if you house ruled different numbers for your own games though =)

Personally I like 12, a dozen, four rows of three, two rows of six, lots of neat combinations with 12. It also fit somewhat with the old boxes too.

So in summary, it's always going to be more complex than a single reason and arguing back and forth over "which reason" is the only one is probably silly =)

_________________
My LotR and 40k blog, Realm of Battle board, dwarves, gobs, space wolves and battle reports. http://simbattleboard.blogspot.com/

I don't think anybody is glossing this over. Well, okay, maybe not everyone is as cynical as we are I can tell you I had exactly the same thoughts as you way back. My son and I played one game, both of us dubious about this new-fangled warbands thing, and we were instantly converted. It just works.

So, in the end, does it really matter if it started out as a GW marketing stunt, if the overall game play is improved? Two weeks of concern and complaints very similar to yours, and then months of silence on the issue suggests not.

I hate to sound like a drug pusher, but...just try it, just a little hit, it won't hurt you...

And read that thread I linked to! It's full of insight.

My mother always said I was hanging out with the wrong crowd.