Where does it say this in the rulebook? On page 67 of my Hobbit rulebook, right above single-handed weapons it says they must choose one of their weapons for "that Fight," but not for the whole game.

Well personally, I think Bash is stupid.

Literally, with a bad roll, and Dwalin, you can lose to a goblin and then have your whole fight phase wasted.
People will add the argument you can knock down heros or multi wound models and double strike....first off, if youre trying to bash him down with a grim hammer for example....his strength is already more than yours! GOOD LUCK.

Its a dumb rule.

Feint makes sense. The rule does but I still dont like what its called for what it does....

Piercing strike makes sense, but then you have a whole army in case of dwarves that can do it.They gave a whole race a bonus.

Stun-its ok, but honestly, its up to a random roll. You win the fight already, then you have to roll another to see if you can stun??? What gives? Not many models with clubs and staffs already.

Whirl-stupid. For a flail, I understand. I wouldnt complaing if that was the only weapon. But whips!? HOW IS A WHIP GOING TO KILL ANYTHING BESIDES GRASS IN MIDDLE EARTH????


Maybe, if whirl was for flails, and they had say....

Disable
When using a whip against your opponent, sometimes disarmament is favored instead of frontal assault.
Before making the duel roll, a player with a whip or scourge may opt to disable. A model who disables reduces his attacks to 0 after the duel roll. If his side wins, he does not make strikes as normal, but instead reduces the enemies attack value by 1 till then end of the next combat phase.

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

I don't like any rules that mean extra rolls. To me that is bogging the game down.

The way 2 handed weapons are handled is the way to go. You have a set advantage for a set disadvantage. no extra rolls plain consistant and fair to all armies.

I can't say that about feint.

_________________
I think a drug habbit would be cheaper...

I just don't like them. To me they confuse the rules and drag the game much longer than it need be.

_________________
Gondor: 2339pts
Rohan: 1318pts
Dwarves: 2482pts
Elves: 1091pts
Mordor: 2305pts
Isengard: 1762pts
Moria: 1463pts
Evil Men: 381pts

Feint is the worst to me. Feinting means "faking out the other guy", and you can only do that if you are better than the other guy. As it stands now, the only ones for whom feinting is useful are the ones worst at fighting.



Agreed.

Yeah exactly it sounds like it makes no sense

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

Regarding earlier points on whether modelling axes and such like onto models that wouldn't normally have axes either in Tolkein's or PJ's visions of Middle-Earth just to receive special strikes, what we have to remember is that this is a game and like all games there are going to be two sorts of people: people who play competitively and people who do not. If we look at any game or sport there are those people who play to the whistle and look to exploit the rules and there is nothing wrong with that. The rules may need sharpening up a little but if people want to give all their Warriors of Minas Tirith axes then within the context of the game there are no grounds on which one has a right to complain.

Understandably an army of Minas Tirith equipped with axes and maces and whips would look very different to the image we've all become accustomed to (and might I add, very fond of) and pseudo-historically would just be plain wrong to most people.

I personally don't have any experience with the special strikes but from what I understand they're designed to make a one-on-one or many-on-less more dynamic and get players to make tactical decisions based on what their models have to offer. To me, this is a good idea. It makes logical sense that a sword armed warrior would have an advantage over someone with a pike or hammer. However from what I've read the current rules don't really achieve this.

What I think would be an appropriate course of action is for non-official (by that I mean not hosted by GW) tournaments and games to make house rules for each weapon (or weapon class) and also a decision on who can have what. I think the idea of 'hand weapons' is just intrinsically flawed. One fights with a hammer in a totally different way than with a sword and the rules ought to reflect this. (Maybe this would be a good idea for a house rules thread where this muck gets sorted out and tournament organisers can use OR rules if they so chose?)

At the moment they don't, so with respect to current rules and Games Workshop, go ahead, give your dwarves two handed great swords and your Galadhrim maces. I probably will thing they look ridiculous but I will happily play against you in GW and promise not to moan at every dice roll where that feint won you the duel. Having said that I do think those Hunter Orcs look cool with the two handed axes. Not logical or practical, but cool.

I feel like Gamesworkshop was trying to shake up the stat system - elves get no bonus against goblins any more than against uruk-hai, for example. It was a good plan but flawed in execution. I just find feint not too band since any army with spears and daggers can use it without rolling for fight decrease so all it does is increase killing rates slightly.

The monster brutal power attacks worked much better to change the game dynamic, I think.

I've played this game for three years (never intensively or competitively) and I feel it is no worse of than three years ago in terms of rules. Throwing weapons? the nerf is really annoying. But grey company armies are no longer pure cheese. Warbands make taking named heroes other than Legolas and ringwraiths possible without compromising army integrity. They get some things right and some things wrong, which is a whole lot better of a success rate than I think 40k, which I have played occasionally, is getting. SBG is largely true to Tolkien and largely stat-creep free compared to the warhammers. Perfect? no. Alright? yes.

All IMHO, of course. (Gosh my post went on longer than I thought it would )

_________________
"Release the Kragle!"
They were waiting 45 minutes to make that pun.
Totally worth it.

You think your post went longer than you though!!!

To me it seems odd that Games Workshop don't do something about this. They have a community of people who would be quite willing to write the rules for them, all they have to do is print it and they make money selling rulebooks! And because the people that play have made the game more to their liking they'll play more, buy more and get more people involved. They'd even get some people with established armies buying new models and changing their tactics to play with better rules. All they'd have to do is send a PDF to a publisher.

VandalCabbage - It seems to be a general trend mentioned quite a lot that all Games Workshops games are getting new stuff which is disproportionately OP, is that the case and is that what they've tried to do with these special strikes? Maybe they brought them in to get everyone who buys WoMT to also buy 4 boxes of WoR for their axes?!

Also, for someone in the know on copyright laws what would be the legal status of writing a whole new set of rules and profiles for the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit?

"I feel like Gamesworkshop was trying to shake up the stat system - elves get no bonus against goblins any more than against uruk-hai, for example. It was a good plan but flawed in execution"


True.... oh wait NO IT IS FALSE!! vs any opponent with F2 you wait for htem to say "feint" then say "feint" and you get to reroll 1's and you are still higher fight. BOOM

The stat creep is there; I think it would be hard not to totally eradicate it. But it is much less wide-spread and when the warband books came out some stat creep examples were toned right down. Look at harad - its basic warriors were one point too cheap? Rectified. I think that was based on community pressure - look at posts before that year and they mention this. Mahud? Used to be unthemed and ridiculously powerful. Now they have a nice little niche in the Harad army. Of course you have Abrakhan guardsmen, and Watchers of Karna - possibly one of the most cheesy warriors in the game. But they are not really new, just their profile. The shade is considered broken; but that isn't new (it might even be OOP, not sure).

Of the hobbit, point efficent hunter orcs are balanced out by their overpointed cavalry. Dwarves with spears have no Khazad, only Grimhammers in their list. Sure Dwalin's a bit crazy, but that was one out of 15 named dwarf hero profiles. Gil-galad and Isildur? I think those two are some of the most competitive heroes at their price range and they haven't changed for almost a decade (aside from changes to the Ring).

if they were trying to stat creep people they won't be doing it with special strikes, which have a negligible impact on the game. The majority of complaints are about how feint works anyway, and you don't need to convert Moria goblins to do that.

I think the real damage to the hobby is in them ignoring it, not in the rules, which IMHO largely have been improved by the Hobbit and Warband systems. Though fan input would be nice, less likely than a Battle-Games in Middle-Earth revival and a price drop combined.

It doesn't stop us from doing what we like with their models though. I am enjoying Erunion's Battle company rules immensely, for example.

_________________
"Release the Kragle!"
They were waiting 45 minutes to make that pun.
Totally worth it.

I feel like we're hijacking this thread but I'm finding this discussion very interesting so I might start a new thread somewhere else.

I think most of us agree that the special strikes were a good idea but need some looking at. I think seeing as it's nigh on impossible to engage in a productive discourse with Games Workshop we might as well take matters into our own hands and sort these rules out ourselves.

I can get a little bit carried away.
But that's a good idea for a thread since it seems many are unhappy with special strikes.
Totally agree with "the good idea but needs changing" thing.

_________________
"Release the Kragle!"
They were waiting 45 minutes to make that pun.
Totally worth it.

I cannot disagree with you more on the GW and productive discourse.
I chat to Games development members on a regular basis (...I have contacts) and they listen and have often addressed my points in FAQs.

There are many of us who have seen our views reflected in the rules or in the FAQs. The problem GW have is the pace of change on SBG is slow. It takes so long to get an updated FAQ as they translate it before releasing.

I have to disagree quite strongly on this. I've played this game since it's inception and while I don't mind these new special strikes but the extreme changes through conversion is an abuse of the rule system

*Note I only care about changes that are to weapons outside of what models within the faction already have. If you want to convert your orcs to all have axes that's fine, you're really just saving on money as you could concieveably purchase enough Orcs to field an all axe force, but giving your wood-elves axes when there are no gaming pieces with them is a bit foul.

To use your sports analogy its like (in my favorite sport) the NBA. Players took advantage of flopping all the time to get the benefit of fouls that never really occured. And players while shooting could sweep their leg out and if an opposing player made contact (despite the shooter creating the contact) fouls would be called. The NBA took action to reverse this kind of legalistic rules abuse and now the foot sweep is an offensive foul and flopping is fined heavily.

The point being that the rules were put into place without the thought to how they would be abused, legalistic advantages were gained that abused the spirit of the rules and this is no different.

As to competetive vs "fluff", I'm a very competetive person. I've never lost a game of SBG and I haven't lost any table-top strategy game in more than a decade. That being said I have no respect for such abuse as at best its questionable, at worst (and in my eyes) its border-line cheating.

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

These two points are absolutely spot-on and perfectly encapsulate my attitude to this issue. Rohan warriors/riders all with axes? Sure, why not. Warriors of Minas Tirith will all axes? Next opponent please.

There's a very similar issue with Ringwraiths on Fell Beasts using, or I should say 'attempting to use', special strikes and special rules in combination with Brutal Power attacks. It really doesn't matter how you justify it, the reality is that the Ringwraiths rules were worded at least a year before the BPAs were written and, whilst the intent of the rules is clear, there was clearly not enough thought given to how the more devious players might attempt to combine/abuse the rules.

I generally find that if you're really honest with yourself in this kind of issue and think carefully about the intention of the rules then the answer is normally very clear indeed. If you're more interested in trying to get an in-game advantage at each and every opportunity then that's your choice but it doesn't make for a great game.

I also second Cereal's comments about the games designers, the people themselves are very receptive and forthcoming with rulings, it's the production processes of the game/company that are slow. Why they can't release more regular (weekly? monthly?) FAQs on the 'What's New Today' page, like they used to in WD, that are then collated into a yearly PDF baffles me but the fault almost certainly lies with the higher ups, not the games designers.

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

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

Holy [word deleted] are you just that good or do your opponents not know the best way to play? A claim like that makes me think you'd have to be one of the best players on the planet..........

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

@LordoftheBrownRing probably a mixture of the two. Also note we don't play all those GW scenarios lol so it's skewed a bit as its always death-matches or capture and hold. But I do have the advantage of being a student of Sun Tzu (in that I read his book and put it into practice) I study my opponents models stats as much as (if not more than) my own.

But always (so as to not get TOO off topic) even the best strategies cannot stand up to good old fashion rule abuse lol. So I gave a double stake as I have a streak to protect

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

I don't see it as rule abuse. Whilst I agree that players shouldn't equip all their WoMT with axes, if they want to then fine. I think the rules should be changed (personally I think what kind of 'hand weapons' a model can have should be specified) but before that happens there is nothing wrong with equipping elves with maces. People who decide to do that are not doing anything wrong. It's not like diving in football, it's like wearing spikes when sprinting. Okay it's not really in the spirit of the Olympics or whatever (being the fittest a human can naturally be) but it's not against the rules so it happens and people accept it. Rules are rules and if you're not breaking them, that's fine.

Hasn't lost a game? Have you played big tournaments? Or even left your gaming group to play?