Army Building Thought

Debate all the finer points of our fine hobby under the gaze of the Lidless Eye...

Army Building Thought

Postby tjski » Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:10 pm

Okay,

So Brent got me thinking tonight about something and I wanted to see what the AWC crowd thought.

We have all seen the new Army building method that GW laid out in the new books (personally I hate them) so that got me thinking, why not drop them and just use the new points and stats?

As a Tournament organizer, why couldn't I say for my event you can build a army much like we did in LoME. So you would need to take a Hero to lead your force and you could take any amount of warriors you like, dropping the 1 and 12 warband rules. Only restrictions would be for allied forces, they would need to take a hero to lead them. People would use the new stats and the new point costs and in a nutshell have a very much more relaxed army build rules.

This way folks can still use all the new cool models and the new stats that are in the current books. This would allow new folks to enter the hobby and it would only effect tournaments that wanted to use this loose version of army building.

What do you guys think? I have not seen anyone mention this in any of the threads online and this would mean folks with large collections (like Brent's Woes) could still be used.

Tim K
User avatar
tjski
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:00 am
Location: Phoenix AZ

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby Guardian of Ecthelion » Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:05 pm

While I was writing this it seemed to come across as a personal attack. It is not, I am not the greatest writer in the world. Please don't read it that way.

I guess you would be writing all new scenarios also. Many of the deployments are based on when and where your warbands come into play. I also think victory points play a part in the scenarios as to the whole game is being played now. I mostly play "good" armies with one hero. So the switch to warbands for me has been a big change. More Captains or leaders and less troops, but having played a couple games last weekend I enjoyed the way the game flowed with the new army constructions. I have been writting lists for the last 2 days.

I said this in response to email from Adepticon reguarding making a change to the new rules---We have been waiting and fighting with GW for years to save SBG and not play WotR. I am not a fan of WotR and I happy to see it become a specialist game. WE WON. Now they come out with new models and a new way to build armies, a new twist to the game, and it's not good enough? We (as a comunity) have been begging for support for SBG, we get it and now we aren't going to use it. Really? I am not A GW fanboy. I like the players in this system, but sometimes the arrogance surprises me.

I guess I recall many discussions reguarding rules and changing them to fit what we think it should be. I said then and I will say it now I think we run a slippery slope to change something just because we do not like it.

I for one am going to play the new way from here on out, including Adepticon, I run the risk of facing a horde using the legions rules like they are, but I don't care. I would feel like a jack@ss about complaining and waiting for GW support and not use it.

I guess ultimately the decision is yours but I do think we need to give this new system a fair shot, and I hope that the people who are lucky enough to attend the Gathering I hope they get what they want. I am pretty pasionate when it comes to this subject. Good luck with your decision.
User avatar
Guardian of Ecthelion
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:26 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby jlong05 » Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:25 pm

I also agree with the idea of giving the new system a fair shake. The warband style of army construction is a key facet of the new scenarios and VP scoring. Overall it appears that all three work very well together and it makes no sense to me why we woudl simply scrap the system because it's new and we so much like the old way.

To take examples form the past, do people mainly still play 2nd, 3rd or 4th ed 40k? No they have for the most part moved on to 5th, does warhammer fantasy continue to live in the past on older editions? No most players have moved on to 8th(or whatever they are at now). Do Warmahordes players still play old 1st ed? No they have all switched to 2nd ed.

As time goes, new ways to play a game are always found and introduced. Some of those ideas stay for the next version, and some fall by the wayside as the next version comes out. For LotR SBG, I think GW has done a stellar job in creating a new format that helped to curb the steady diet we have had of giant horde armies. Are all of them gone? No, but now its really the true hordes that are left, and not the other armies where the game play style was to create an army around a single hero commanding mass amounts of troops. I thought SBG was a skirmish game. Considering the results from the last 2 - 3 years of tournament play where the majority of the field ends their 2.5 hour games in a draw because both sides have 50+ models to move and play with, I sincerely look forward to this new style where my choices in my warband assignment lend heavily to my success of failure at deployment. No more do players coose to save fate(allowing a wound) since the wounds only matter at the last one, Now I can get VP for those early wounds, or you use the fate and roll the dice you may not have it later for a required fate check.

Overall I am excited for the new game system and would hate to see it shelved by the majority of the gaming community. I will however abide by the choices of the individual TOs, but significant changes to the core rules(both in play and army creation) would seriously sway my final decisions on attanding an event. GitD 2013 is a LONG way away and there will be a full year of playing the new rules for getting use to that system. I say we shoudl stay the course and see how things turn up in a year.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
User avatar
jlong05
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ (In a lead-lined fridge)

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby JLeong » Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:06 am

I would echo the thoughts of those who spoke before me. I am excited by the system shake-up, and I would really prefer not to make a rush to judgement. I've been with the game for a long time, and every stage of development so far has worked towards to good of the system. I remember back when the "One Rulebook" came out, changing quite a few things. People were a little apprehensive then, too. When Legions of Middle Earth came out, people had their complaints about that too.
I think one of the things that makes us so hostile to the Warbands change at first is that we were incredibly comfortable with how Legions did things. We had really crafted a science of list-building, and the game's tournament scene revolved around certain ideas. GW left us in under-development limbo for so long that change is very alien to us. The game used to update every year! haha. I know I was originally shocked by the change, and I felt incredibly uneasy about changing my lists and the way I play the game. Having examined the books and having played one game (I know, a wealth of experience haha), I am incredibly eager to use the Warhost system.
I've had a few armies planned that the new system has made impossible to create. It's a bummer, and I was pretty disappointed (I bought all the models, afterall). I know Brent had over 50 Woses Warriors all painted up and ready to roll, and the Warhost system has made that list all but impossible to take (and impossible to take well themed). That can't be pleasant to say the least!

That said, it seems that most of the armies that are now invalid are niche armies-- like the Woses or armies centered around mounted Rohan archers (Using Rohan Outriders to go above 33% bows).

I believe that it is to our advantage as a community to abide by the Warband system. The company has changed the game, and I'd really like to support the system.
The changes are exciting. Having dealt with Legions for so long, the tournament community has to go back to the drawing board for their army lists and tactics. To me, discovering what works and what doesn't is one of the best parts of tournament gaming.
JLong05 mentions the similarities in armies these days under the Legions rules. Everyone has moved towards the hero-light lists in favor of mass numbers of troops. The Warband system forces players to do something different, and I think that is a great thing. The Legions system needed help--we have played it out. Now there is a whole new set of tactics to develop, a new method of army building, and new game-defining approaches to be pursued.
I'm a boring conservative, and I don't like change :lol: , but I can accept good progress. I believe the Warbands system is good progress. Resisting it by clinging to Legions of Middle Earth is a mistake.
User avatar
JLeong
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:26 pm
Location: North Barrington, IL and Valparaiso, IN

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby tjski » Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:46 am

Well guys thanks for your comments, I see that all three of you have the same thoughts.


I am done!

Tim K
User avatar
tjski
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:00 am
Location: Phoenix AZ

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby jlong05 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:31 am

tjski wrote:I am done!

While I like the idea that my opinion is all that matters ;) , I am under no dilusion that is the case. You only have the feedback of 3 individuals and are still missing the majority of the player base. That said, I hope your statement is more a matter of deciding you are done looking to change the rules and more a statement of acceptance to give them a try and a fair shake. I woudl hate to lose you as a gaming community leader for LotR as you are super knowledgeable on teh subject and imho (again, it's the one that counts right ;) ), one of the best TOs the community has. GitD is a premier event that I hope conitnues to carry on.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
User avatar
jlong05
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ (In a lead-lined fridge)

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby Yakthor » Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:58 pm

Although I agree with the posts above, I also believe there is room for and the need for some tweaking to the new system in tournament play. Please bear with me in this post, I haven't thought this through very far yet, so most the ideas need polish. I wasn't going to post anything yet, but the discussions is moving faster than I am, as usual, lol.

Points of consideration:
1) the new scenarios will have to be, in some way, normalized. They do not have the same number of available VIPs for each scenario. Unless we go to a straight W-L-D format. If some scenarios are worth more points, you will see army composition tailored for those scenarios and some games/scenarios will become less important.
2) in a straight W-L-D a single day 3 game tournmanet of more than 8 players may not have a clear winner. A two day, 5 game tournament may not have a clear winner if there are more than 32 players (I think). Going to a tournament with multiple people having perfect Win records and not winning seems kind of weird.
3) Although I like the new scenarios, I think I'll miss some of the very well-done custom scenarios the major TO's have come up with. I really think the efforts listed above to 'normalize' scenarios will be extra valuable in allowing the historical scenarios, in modified form, to still be used.
4) I think some basic theming could address a lot of the issues. Small tweaks in the name of theming could very much matter in list construction: (some thoughts)
a) Require all armies to have a named Hero as the general. -This will somewhat reduce evil's hoard size by requiring a named general instead of a lot of generic captains.
b) Require any army with allies to have as many or more warbands in the generals contingent than allied contingents combined?
c) Allow armies with no allies a boost to the 12 warriors per Hero or per named Hero? Maybe go to 15 per named Hero in single contingent forces?
d) The use of modified scenarios that emphasize Heroes instead of hoards of warriors could eliminate the perceived advantage that Evil hoards have over Good. For instance, Contest of Champions that adds the kills by all Heroes instead of just one, giving a list with several powerful Heroes an edge over one with lesser Heroes.
5) I also think people might be losing sight of the fact that a hoard is a valid strategic choice. The choice to go with horde of low quality troops, vs small number of elites, vs a balance of the two is a very important part of list building. I think the problem is more with Elite Hordes than with hordes in geveral. I'd rather see scenarios that punish the concept of using a horde to force a draw instead of a loss than see list building rule changes that prevent hordes.


Like I said these are only half thought out as of yet. I wanted to get some games and experience in before posting, but the conversation is moving faster than I am, so I'm throwing these out there as food for thought.

In conclusion, I really enjoyed the GitD I attended and am disappointed each year that I cannot attend. I trust Tim to make his tournaments fun. At the same time I would hope any changes are small enough to not alienate new players, fracture the existing playerbase, or discourage GW from further supporting the game.
Yakthor
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:09 pm
Location: Naperville, IL

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby VeteranNoob » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:52 pm

I'm not sure I've had time to think this through as much as I want to, but here goes.....

First off, I think TO's can do anything with their tourney's that they want to. If everyone is going with the new books, why not have GitD be the one that uses the old? Just creates more variety.

As far as the new material, I haven't had the chance to test it yet, so I haven't formed an opinion of the gameplay. However, I hate the idea of doing away with ally restrictions. That may just be me, but it allows power gamers "more cheese for the sandwich". But again, it's about having fun, so to each his own.

I hear everyone complaining about horde armies, but that's a choice you can make, both in the Legions and in the new books. My opinion: "It's each players choice how they want to make their lists, regardless how others may feel."

To answer Tim's question, "What do you think about using Legions instead of the new stuff?", I would say this: Both could be fun, so do what you want. As long as it is communicated in advance so everyone knows what they are signing up for, more power to you. I'll be in either way.
VeteranNoob
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:40 am
Location: Peoria, AZ

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby jlong05 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:05 pm

Negatives to holding onto the LoME rules though include;

1. New models... what lists get them and what lists don't and WHY?
2. LoME is no longer a published book(as well as the other sourcebooks(Mordor, Khazad Dum, Harad, etc... ). Given this fact, or soon to be fact as I am sure GW is stopping those sales soon if not already, how will players get those rules for army creation? Do we plan to provide those rules to the community? I woudl think not as they are still copy written material not available in teh public domain. I guess if GW provides them as downloadable PDFs that woudl be ok, but if not, we have an issue with attracting newer players to the game as they can't get our older rules.
3. Inconsistancies with what everyone plays. Honestly it will be hard to play Warbands style games for a year and then go to an event(for a GW tournament circuit) that uses their own rules? I can see list making issues as well as other issues where players have trouble fitting their legal GW armies into the older LoME allies.
4. Can our Tournaments even be acknowledged by GW if we are not playing their current rules?

These are just my thoughts, but I think they need addressed if anyone is going to be serious on not following the sanctioned game rules as outlined by GW.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
User avatar
jlong05
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ (In a lead-lined fridge)

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby VeteranNoob » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:49 pm

First, I don't want to sound argumentative at all. I don't think it's worth it, so please don't take this as that. I just have thoughts in reply, and that's all they are: thoughts.

1. Which list do the new models go with? That seems pretty simple to me, just looking at theme. Again, that can be clarified later.
2. Legions isn't published. That I understand. However, it hasn't been readily available for several months now, and we still have a new player or two coming to Gathering. We don't have to publish the information, thus breaking copyright laws. But word of mouth can work to some degree.
3. Lack of comfort coming out of the new stuff actually appeals to me. It is somewhat of an equalizer, having the "cold hard math" that people will be used to with the warbands thrown out. A little insecurity is a good thing sometimes.
4. "Can tournaments be acknowledged by GW?" The better question is, what the hell good is it now that GW "acknowledges" them? What support is really given, and who says it has to be GW "sanctioned" to have a tournament? If it's well-run, and players have fun, then I don't see why it's a requirement to drink the "GW Kool-aid".

Again, I'm game for whatever is decided, but I don't think either way can be deemed as "wrong". The only wrong way is to leave no room for improvement or interpretation.
VeteranNoob
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:40 am
Location: Peoria, AZ

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby jlong05 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:17 pm

VeteranNoob wrote:First, I don't want to sound argumentative at all. I don't think it's worth it, so please don't take this as that. I just have thoughts in reply, and that's all they are: thoughts.

1. Which list do the new models go with? That seems pretty simple to me, just looking at theme. Again, that can be clarified later.
2. Legions isn't published. That I understand. However, it hasn't been readily available for several months now, and we still have a new player or two coming to Gathering. We don't have to publish the information, thus breaking copyright laws. But word of mouth can work to some degree.
3. Lack of comfort coming out of the new stuff actually appeals to me. It is somewhat of an equalizer, having the "cold hard math" that people will be used to with the warbands thrown out. A little insecurity is a good thing sometimes.
4. "Can tournaments be acknowledged by GW?" The better question is, what the hell good is it now that GW "acknowledges" them? What support is really given, and who says it has to be GW "sanctioned" to have a tournament? If it's well-run, and players have fun, then I don't see why it's a requirement to drink the "GW Kool-aid".

Again, I'm game for whatever is decided, but I don't think either way can be deemed as "wrong". The only wrong way is to leave no room for improvement or interpretation.

I am glad you see 'obvious' spots for new models. I however dont see which of the 10 or so Mordor related lists would get the Great Beast, and for the Watcher, would that be a dwellers below or a Moria? Or both. Again, the lists in Lome are designed about a level of balance and its pure speculation on where these new models would fit without upsetting that same balance. Just my opinion of course.

As for word of mouth, that is all fine 'now' when most of us still have those books, but what about a year from now when the only event I will need it for may be GitD. How many of us will still have it then? Just curious. Point here is you cannot live by word of mouth, and new players will need the rules available to them. Without them they will quikly lose interest when they always have to rely on others to knwo if they made a legal list.

And for the last point, I never meant that GW sancioned gives us anything, but it is the ticket to the finals event that is offered. You are correct though that we dont 'need' that to still have a tournament as GitD survived the first 2 years without that sort of bonus, but given the lack of other support, it does make it harder and more costly to run when you decide to just do it yourself. Not saying its a bad thing, just pointing out the pains that exist.

Also, I have said from the begining that it is up to the TO to make his event what it is. I was simply pointing out concerns that can cause issues with that direction. Maybe its possible to get GW to make the LoME lists avaialble via pdf and that to e woudl solve significant issues in the legality of using them with new players and in teh future.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
User avatar
jlong05
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ (In a lead-lined fridge)

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby tjski » Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:45 pm

Okay,

It would seem that some are missing what I am saying. First off what I am suggesting is not using the warband construction laid out in the new books. You would use everything else (points, stats, special rules, current allies in the book). All I am saying is as a TO I would lay out you can still build armies from the new books, just not follow the warband construction. I never said to keep using LoME.

As for other comments about re-writing scenarios, well thats what TO have to do anyway now, so what is the difference?

And as for being supported by GW and on the Circuit, well this could be the last year for the Circuit. The main guy running it left the company and it does not look like there will be another one, but who cares. GW has been cutting back their support for the last two years, so there is no real support. In fact I have been trying to get info about GitD (which is this weekend) and I can't get much help from GW. Sad to say this, but if I do GitD again, I will not take any help from GW, they really havn't helped that much anyway.

Also as for getting support from GW about "our" game, well it looks like you got what you wanted, higher prices, less models, Finecast and poorly written "new" repackaged books. Couple this with an Ard Boyz style of army building and yep! You got support alright!

I have been playing LotR ever since it came out, it was the real last GW game I actively played, but with this new "Supported" game, I may be moving onto other gaming. Will GitD happen next year, yes it will, but not in the form it is now.

Tim K
User avatar
tjski
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:00 am
Location: Phoenix AZ

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby Slammers77 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:13 pm

I've been thru many edition changes in other games. Gamers are by their nature stubborn to change. They found that one thing that worked well and all of a sudden it doesn't anymore. They don't want to have paint new models or whatever. One of the things that attracts new players is seeing tournaments and if you are playing an old edition, what does that say about the game?

Obviously every event can do their own thing, but I would encourage using the new version.

John
Slammers77
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:47 pm
Location: Orlando

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby jlong05 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:24 pm

tjski wrote:Okay,

It would seem that some are missing what I am saying. First off what I am suggesting is not using the warband construction laid out in the new books. You would use everything else (points, stats, special rules, current allies in the book). All I am saying is as a TO I would lay out you can still build armies from the new books, just not follow the warband construction. I never said to keep using LoME.

As for other comments about re-writing scenarios, well thats what TO have to do anyway now, so what is the difference?

And as for being supported by GW and on the Circuit, well this could be the last year for the Circuit. The main guy running it left the company and it does not look like there will be another one, but who cares. GW has been cutting back their support for the last two years, so there is no real support. In fact I have been trying to get info about GitD (which is this weekend) and I can't get much help from GW. Sad to say this, but if I do GitD again, I will not take any help from GW, they really havn't helped that much anyway.

Also as for getting support from GW about "our" game, well it looks like you got what you wanted, higher prices, less models, Finecast and poorly written "new" repackaged books. Couple this with an Ard Boyz style of army building and yep! You got support alright!

I have been playing LotR ever since it came out, it was the real last GW game I actively played, but with this new "Supported" game, I may be moving onto other gaming. Will GitD happen next year, yes it will, but not in the form it is now.

Tim K

Tim, I appologize for the misunderstanding then. I took your LoME comment as to continue to use LoME. So if I understand what you are aying then, you are saying use the new army lists, but toss out the 1hero to 12 warrior rule but in essence continue with the books as currently laid out? I think that may be a functional option. I was taking it as a complete scrap the new books, rules etc and stay with the LoME army lists which I more disagree with. Going with the new lists I like. Books are still avaialble for the general players, and we get to play with the new stuff. I think to do that we would have to adapt the use of older LoME scenarios though as the new VP based ones are geared for warband deployments and not full army to a side.

I like the idea as an option of play style. Good idea!

As for the rest, again as a TO its up to you all on how/what you do, so I leave that to you all to decide.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
User avatar
jlong05
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ (In a lead-lined fridge)

Re: Army Building Thought

Postby Bart » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:51 am

One other way to go is to embrace the new changes they made to SBG and take them even further:

Create a compilation of armylists that are valid, themed, fun to play and fun to play against.
Sort of what GW did with the Battlehosts supplement for WOTR.

Give players a huge point benefit as they come with one of these lists. If most of them do, the TO has an easy time checking for valid armylists and isn't troubled by 'theme'-judging.

Just my 2c.
Bart
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:48 pm

Next

Return to Rules Discussions (LotR)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron