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

Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=18896		 Page 5 of 9
Author:  Sacrilege83 [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
Alright let's get this topic back up and running again. I was hoping someone would pick up the ball, but I guess not.

Topic of the Week
Factions
DWARF HOLDS :gimli:
Once again, their strengths and weaknesses, strategies, etc., etc. Which armies they measure up the best against and the worst. Keep it to the faction itself, don't include allies into the discussion. As well your thoughts on how they rate as a whole on a scale of 5.
Author:  DainIronfoot [ Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
Dwarves are a defensive army. Their basic warriors have a defense of 6 not counting shields (that would make it 8). As an army they are slow and not agile with their lack of calvary. In combat they are not the best but they are decent.

My favorite unit in the section in the khazad guard which have a strength, two handed weapons, and a decent defense. I use them as a hit unit with dain and matched with dain's epic rampage they are a strong unit.

In the dwarf section there are many useless formation and units and if you want to run a good dwarf list you need to be able to navigate and distinguish the good units from the bad.

Bad
Dwarf Archers- shortbows while hobbits have regular bows
Vault wardens- weak against ruin magic, no captain/heroes, can be flanked
Moria Expeditionaries- regular warriors that are goblin bane and rare
Iron Guard ancients- specific to orc fighting only (but they are decent)
Durin's guard- more viable in points to take khazad guard alone.

Good
Dwarf Warriors- Basic troops with a high defense
Khazad Guard- ^above
Dwarf Rangers- Good archery unit
Dwarf balista- Viable artillery with high strength and decent range
Kings Champion- Picks out monsters and low point heroes while can also flank
Ered Luin Rangers- Although I never used them they seem that they could be a jack of all trades and could be decent
Balin- Decent medium epic strike hero
Gimli- Good offensive hero
Dain- Good offensive hero with good resilience

(I left out stuff I thought was only decent)

Overall weaknesses- depending on the list could be lack of agilness (calvary), magic, and points

Rating out of Good forces: 4
Rating in General: 3.5 or 4
Author:  General Elessar [ Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
The main problem I have with Dwarves is their lack of variety. The vast majority of their formations are very similar and have the same role. Also, their Epic Heroes all fulfil the same role.
Author:  Sacrilege83 [ Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
Topic of the Week :gollum:
Factions
MISTY MOUNTAINS
The goblin hord, their strengths and weaknesses, strategies, etc., etc. Which armies they measure up the best against and the worst. Give your thoughts on how they rate as a whole on a scale of 5.
Author:  Shadowswarm [ Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
im just gonna talk about a few specific things

they could be the most broken if prowlers were in plastic.
prowlers are dish out the most damage for their points, and cause they are cheap and can get them in 9c, you could have an army made up of 5f of 9c of prowers with whatever heros.
in fact, being able to get 9c formations is very powerful, it means they dish out the same damage as everyone else, but can take twice as much damage as everyone else.

their heros are some of the best. durburz is soooo cheap, and same with druzhag (and he has the awesome spawn rule)

id rate them a 5. they are really good, but since no one can really get 9c of prowlers no one can use goblins to their fullest
Author:  General Elessar [ Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
Misty Mountains are, in my opinion, one of the most competitive lists. They have lots of underpriced units (especially Prowlers, Blackshields, Druzhag, and Durburz), and also lots of variety. Almost all their formations are faster than average, so they should be able to outmanuever their opposition as well.
Author:  Xelee [ Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
The Prowlers rule works to the flanks, and there is only so much space on a table - every Goblin vs heavy inf game that I see, does not end up going well for the Goblins. If their opponent sets his lines properly, then Goblins are pretty much like all the other Evil lists with Orcs - they can have shield or 2HW Orc/Goblins, and these can be in 9 coy units - with 2 supporting attacks. These are tough formations in any list, not least because the lists they come in have Ringwraiths that boost entire formations or Ruin casters.

The actual Prowler unit is then just another def 3 2HW unit with an extra little reroll. A good unit, but most Evil lists can manage that, so I wouldn't single them out for notice too much. They have their strengths and weaknesses, and in my book, 1/3 casualties to bow attacks is a significant weakness.

I'm not knocking the list, and I am not knocking the Prowlers unit, it is just a matter of degree. Heck, there are Good lists I'd take before Goblins, let alone some of the Evil lists... :)
Author:  BlackMist [ Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
I personally rate Misty Mountains as the number 2 army list in the game, with number 1 Mordor obviously. If you have the right models and army composition, MM can do anything and beat anyone. In a 1000 points list you can get 3 formations of 6 companies of Goblins (or rather the well underpriced Blackshields), 2 formations of 4x Spiders, 2 formations of 5x Wild Wargs and both of their Epic Heroes. Even if you're playing vs a 3-wraith list (let's face it, 5-wraiths are popular at 1500, not 1000 :) ) then having 7 formations is just too much for Pall of Night to stop from charging. Add to that that if you move 2nd, Druzhag can summon yet another formation that will be getting to charge, so it's even better.

MM have the ability to outnumber everyone and their key weapon is not in Blackshields or Prowlers in my opinion - their key unit are Giant Spiders: Ignoring terrain means that they even get charge bonus in it, so having a piece of terrain on your flank provides no benefit. True, they are only D3, but 4 companies of them charging the flank will get 30 attacks with S5, Prowler and re-roll 1s - that kills Heavy Infantry (except Khazads etc.) on 3+ with re-roll 1s before the infantry gets to strike - it is an insanely strong unit. For 35 points I think that's cheap, especially given the price of infantry units and how many you can field.

I played several 5-wraith lists with MM at 1500 points and I have a record of about 40-50% wins, those two armies are very well matched in terms of playability and counters for each other as long as you build the correct list (ie. as Long as you have about 8 or more formations to counter the 5 Pall of Nights and a decent Might store in the main Blackshield ones to resist PoN). I don't usually use Ringwraith allies either - I prefer playing 1 Giant and more Wargs/Spiders or 2 Giants, because they require the Ringwraiths focus, because otherwise they have the ability to cause just too high damage for Morannons to handle. Mumak/Gothmog combo here or there is also a nice addition sometimes ;)
Author:  Xelee [ Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
I am much more afraid of Spiders, not to mention Druzhag's teleporting ones, than I am of Prowlers, that's for sure.

However, I feel the honour of the Gondor list has been a little sullied here - played properly, with a focus on keeping the mutual support between infantry blocks going, and enough discipline to prioritise the right targets, I think it has MM's measure. Still, my level of confidence in that is at about the level where I think heavy infantry is properly costed at 25pts afterall! :)

I think the Mumak and Gothmog (the only reason he isn't in every Evil list is that he tends to get overshadowed by options that are even more crazy) are fine additions to any Evil list, and this one in particular. In fact if Mumaks start popping up regularly here (I only know two people who have them), I am going to have to revisist the numbers on units like Trebuchets. People got wound up earlier about introducing allies to the discussion, but I just don't see how you can assess a list without looking at the lists people actually take... which inlcude allies.
Author:  Sacrilege83 [ Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
Well I played Wotr for the first time last month against misty mountains goblins. I would rate them a 4.5. They're definitely a strong army just because of their strength in numbers and their variety of strong monsters. And I find them to be underpriced, especially the god damn Gundabad Black Shields which have Str 4! Seriously, goblins with Str 4 while most elite elves and humans are only Str 3!?!

I have a question when it comes to playing against a horde army such as goblins. What should you draw your attention to first? The weakest formation which would be the archers, the elite companies, core companies, the formation that has the uber-hero, the monster, or treat them all equally? I'm rohan, not the greatest army, and no matter what faction you are chances are you will be outnumbered when facing MM goblins. IMO I think it's a mistake to engage all of the enemy formations at once because somewhere you'll be outnumbered. Next time I play my friend, I'm going to use my speed and spread out across the table and not engage entirely, make him give chase and isolate his troops somehow. After all Rohan cavalry are expert riders that can move and shoot. I'll focus on the weakest most vulnerable formation first and then hopefully thin his army out from there one formation at a time. Obviously this tactic would drag out the game for quite sometime, don't know if it will work until I try.
Author:  BlackMist [ Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
Xelee wrote:
However, I feel the honour of the Gondor list has been a little sullied here - played properly, with a focus on keeping the mutual support between infantry blocks going, and enough discipline to prioritise the right targets, I think it has MM's measure

Any army can if it is played properly, but a Moria army will almost always have more formations than a Gondor one and if it balances cavalry with infantry, then effectively it can lead to almost a mirror match (WoMT vs BS with Spiders/Wargs vs Knights on flanks), it would certainly be interesting to see two of those lists with maximised efficiency fight out against each other.

Sacrilege83 wrote:
I have a question when it comes to playing against a horde army such as goblins. What should you draw your attention to first?

It's difficult to answer without knowing what you have and what is in a MM list. Usually I would ignore stuff like Dragon/Balrog/Giant for a while unless you can focus all your magic on them and kill them outright in a turn or 2. If a player has goblin archers then sending a cav formation against them and calling a heroic combat with the ability to go straight for the flank of another formation can be a good idea - archers are usually the weak point in a Moria army... I tend not to use any :)
Just like with any army you need to focus everything you have on a given formation and destroy it. There is no point dealing multiple damage over several formations because effectively it doesn't affect the MM player. With a Rohan all cav you should be aiming to duelling and removing druzhag and durburz asap and removing might from the army. Once all Might is gone, you will be able to get charges when you need them more often. Also, think about investing your fortune points into Palantir - moving 2nd with an all-cav army is probably the most important thing ever.
Author:  Sacrilege83 [ Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
^^ Thanks for the advice. I also wonder what an elf army would do against a horde of goblins? A player has to figure out a way to divide and conquer an enemy MM army. The problem is that MM, like already mentioned before, is a very maneuverable army and there is not many that can out maneuver them. Their core goblin formations are Mv 8" and can move through difficult terrain with ease. I think if you're a small army that can't outrun the enemy, your best bet is to bunker up like "300" where your flanks and rears are protected if the table top your playing on provides you with impassable terrain features.
Author:  Xelee [ Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
BlackMist wrote:
Any army can if it is played properly, but a Moria army will almost always have more formations than a Gondor one and if it balances cavalry with infantry, then effectively it can lead to almost a mirror match (WoMT vs BS with Spiders/Wargs vs Knights on flanks), it would certainly be interesting to see two of those lists with maximised efficiency fight out against each other.

Of course, I was giving MM equal benefit generaliship wise there too - though there is at least one small structural blessing for Gondor in that matchup: MM has to take something [*]else[*] as common formations, while Gondor (or Mordor, for that matter) gets to take exactly what it wants. I honestly wouldn't be taking Cavalry vs MM

Instead of rehearsing the 'what ifs' though, I'll offer this instead: I think MM is yet another list where any numerical rating conceals the nature of the list a fair bit.

Truthfully, I have never faced a MM army based on Blackshields as core. Even the lists I ordinarily see posted here, and elsewhere, seldom start out that way. However, game-effectiveness wise, they probably all should just do that. Then the questions are: 1. how to afford-ably represent all those Backshields in a way that opponents and events will accept and 2. How to best structure the consequent common choice requirements.

If a Goblin list isn't focused around the Blackshields, then higher defense troops using heroic fights tend to chew through them quite efficiently and can generally arrange their own formations to not expose flanks. Even with shields, defense 5 is at a point where simple bow still works very well between rounds of CC. So it is just simple 'Romans vs Barbarians'. With Blackshields... then it it is quite a bit more complicated.
Author:  spuds4ever [ Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
Hmm... Interesting that Giant spiders are so highly rated as I had no trouble beating a full spiders list with Shelob, Druzag and a spider queen. My army wasn't even that great, Saruman, twins, 6 company regiment with glaives and 2 3 company formations of high elf archers with a captain. What I think is scary about MM is the versatality of their uber monsters such as the dragon and the Stone Giant as well as the ridiculously under-priced Gundabads and also underpriced epics. A list with Durburz, Druzag, a dragon or a couple of stone giants, some Morranons allied in as commons and maybe a few prowlers and a whole bunch of gundabads. THAT would be scary IMHO.
Author:  BlackMist [ Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
If you played an army made up of Giant Spiders no wonder that you'd annihilate it because they are not meant to be played as an army in itself. They are not frontal charge units. They are insanely good flankers, they suck as front liners. They will be especially bad if playing elves because all you have is D3 or 4 models in the spider army and elven arrows will take them out instantly. 3 formations of 6c Blackshields are what's used for frontal combat, or just anything else that can hold up while Spiders tear up the flanks after being shielded by summoned broodlings or just standing back behind blackshields as they approach. Spider Queen is worthless in WotR, unlike SBG where it is the most broken character in the game. Shelob isn't great either, Stone Giant is much better for his price.
Author:  Xelee [ Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
spuds4ever, that combination definitely would be scary and go a ways to helping with the commons issue - but I think at some stage people have to ask themselves if the confections they have come up with would reasonably have fought together! :) The allies rules do allow some units to wander very far from their homes.
Author:  Sacrilege83 [ Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
:galadriel: Topic of the Week :elrond:
Factions
ELVEN KINGDOMS

Alright another week, another topic. Strengths, weaknesses, strategies, troops, etc. And don't forget to give them a rating on 5 so I can post the average up on the OP.
Author:  HRM [ Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
Elves are tricky. They have great stats in some areas (Courage and Fight), but mediocre ones where it counts (Strength and Defense) - which is fitting for how Elves oughta be, I suppose, but absolute murder in a tabletop wargame where the bodies are flying off the table left right and center like WOTR. I find that even one round of above-average shooting can melt them off the board almost as fast as my all-mounted Rohirrim. The other massive drawback the Elves have is their astronomical point cost, which, again, is fitting for such an "elite" army... but combined with the low Strength and Defense issue makes the deck stacked quite high against you from the get-go.

Now, this is not to say that the Elves have no advantages. They're fast and manouvrable, they very rarely run away, and they all cause Terror. In addition, they have natural spellcasters (ie they don't have to ally in a 200-point Gandalf). Their Heroes are all fairly pricey, but I don't personally think any of them are necessarily OVERpriced except maybe Glorfindel. The twins are a fantastic concept, and Haldir is pretty damn good in my oinion.

Sucessful Elven armies all tend to look the same, though - very little variety in my experience. Their vaunted shooting really doesn't do much more than anyone elses to be honest, and as I stated above, they pay an awful lot of points for stats that don't mean as much as you'd like in a system where Defense 6 and up are be-all, end-all. I give them a 3.5 - terrible army for beginners, but OK in the hands of a REALLY good player.

Man, I can't believe I had no 'net for 6 months - I missed out on pontificating on my beloved Rohirrim! :sad:
Author:  Xelee [ Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
Actaully HRM - I don't doubt that quite a few people would appreciate something more positive abpout Rohan in the way of some notes on how you play them - if you are keen? It wouldn't have to be on this thread necessarily.

I'm just stuck on looking at them and seeing what a formation of Uruk Xbows and Saruman (or Seige Bows and Wraiths or...) can do to them in a couple of turns! Which is definitely focusing too much on the problem. :) A mate us up against me tommorrow night, and is game to give them a try non-houseruled - so I'd imagine he'd particulalry appreciate the advice.
Author:  General Elessar [ Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions: WotR Codex
Very well said HRM; you summed Elves up perfectly.
Page 5 of 9 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/