| The One Ring http://www.one-ring.co.uk/ |
|
| WOTR houserules http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=19705 |
Page 8 of 9 |
| Author: | Slythar [ Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
I use the +1 to hit infantry rule for Easterling Kataphrats. Its pretty rare to see Calvary vs anything but infantry in the games I've played so its not that noticeable in comparison to lances. My Fixes All Calvary add 1 to their Defense in the shoot phase. I make all Rohan calvary formations without Lances 5 points cheaper. Easier/cheaper to make a swarm of them to hit and run. That's what they should be... annoying and harder to pick off. I don't mind them at that cost to get side shots with bows and some attention. |
|
| Author: | Xelee [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
Hi Slythar - just a difference of opinion re: WOTR, I know - but in a historical game cav should be relatively vulnerable to bow (unless a Cataphract!) so in general I think it is either the points or other abilities that need to tweak. I'm trying to avoid faction specific points tweaks. However - in your longer houserules version, I think that a Katafracts specific rule would be a very good and logical idea. The things were tanks and were developed to counter archers. |
|
| Author: | Draugluin [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
I just think the Kataphracts should have high defence. I also think that the Morgul Knights should be 40 pts instead of 35. That way you actually have a reason to field the EK. |
|
| Author: | Xelee [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
Yeah sometimes I long for the mechanical simplicity of Impetvs were you make them VBU 6 or 7 (ie they are tough, fight well, can even threaten formed inf from the front, and unlikely to suffer permanent damage from missile fire) and be done with it  I think Morgul Knights in WOTR are the right cost (vs inf etc) btw - basically + 1 def over shielded KOMT + terror for 5pts . I think that some other units cost too much. |
|
| Author: | IM A ENT!!! [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
Draugluin wrote: I would give all the Rohirrim +1 on the roll for an Earthshaking Charge, or maybe just auto pass that roll against infantry. I like the rule for it, but a 1/6 chance of it happening are too slim to make it really effective. I loved the scene in RotK (and TTT for that matter) where the Rohirrim cut through the legions of the Enemy like a hot knife through butter, and that isn't really represented in the game (except Theoden's Guard). yeh rohan realy arent what there meant to be. There stats are not impressive, they niether have good defense nor strength and to top it off there cavarly realy dont get any hting kool. i agree a they need somthing. perhaps rohan should get a + strength on the charge and or a 5+ roll for earth shaking charge, or even a 4+ unstoppable charge which for some reason is given to the dol amroth? |
|
| Author: | GothmogtheWerewolf [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
Xelee, I still think the Undying needs attention, I may rather take the Mouth personally anyway, the Unddying has no special rule in your new version as every hero has it, and since the Undying is already so much less popular than the others, you've pretty much completely written him off. Does noone have any love for the Undying? |
|
| Author: | Draugluin [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
Xelee wrote: Yeah sometimes I long for the mechanical simplicity of Impetvs were you make them VBU 6 or 7 (ie they are tough, fight well, can even threaten formed inf from the front, and unlikely to suffer permanent damage from missile fire) and be done with it I think Morgul Knights in WOTR are the right cost (vs inf etc) btw - basically + 1 def over shielded KOMT + terror for 5pts . I think that some other units cost too much. When compared to the Kata's, the MK have trade one strength for one defence, and gain lances AND terror. Compare to the SKoDA. The foot knights are 45, the mounted knights are 50 because they gain one defence and lances, whereas the BN and MK are the same cost, but the MK gain the same boosts that the SKoDA gained, but without the extra cost. |
|
| Author: | Telchar [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
@ Xelee. thanks for the compliment  @ Gothmog. What's so specifically bad about the Undying here? I think that, since the top notch Nazgul have been toned down a bit, he's become a bit more attractive. BTW: The Undying is the only named Nazgul whose model I'd ever buy (except the Witch-King, of course), because he actually looks somewhat Nazgully. @ Draugluin. Conclusion: Kataphracts are overcosted 
|
|
| Author: | GothmogtheWerewolf [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
@Telchar, because Xelee give the houserule that all heroes canmake Will of Iron without expoending might, and that is the Undying's rule, so essentially he doesn't have one anymore (THe mastery increase is worthless anyway as I'v eonly ever seen Evil Saruman cast more than 2 spells. Yes his model is good, and that's why he's going in my Angmar army, I have all the named models, even the ones I don't like. |
|
| Author: | Telchar [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
Why does everyone have such a problem with making Focus Rolls? I don't think I've ever failed one (  that continues into the next game...), and I'm not quite famous for my dice luck. But admittedly, I use Evil Saruman. (Exiccate, Dark Fury, Bolt of Fire = Dead Formation  )
|
|
| Author: | Draugluin [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
Telchar wrote: @ Draugluin. Conclusion: Kataphracts are overcosted No, conclusion is that the MK are undercosted. Comparing them to the other (comparable) cavalry, they should be at least 40 pts. |
|
| Author: | Xelee [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
GothmogtheWerewolf wrote: Xelee, I still think the Undying needs attention, I may rather take the Mouth personally anyway, the Unddying has no special rule in your new version as every hero has it, and since the Undying is already so much less popular than the others, you've pretty much completely written him off. Does noone have any love for the Undying? 1. He's a GW made up Nazgul so to me having him almost a generi-Gul with just the one rule (mastery boost - the rest apart from WK can only be mastery 2) isn't too much of a problem and 2. The Nazgul are clearly better statwise than the Mouth even with my changes. Better than that points margin suggests. Anyway, what happened to just playing the hero for theme/model rather than rules? Drauglin - I don't really 'have a dog in this fight' because I'm not looking to mod as many units as Slythar et al but I wouldn't use either Kats or SKODA as a baseline for comparison. Personally, I wouldn't take either in a competitive army. However, YMMV Telchar, my dirty secret is that I only really 'edit' the rules and alot of them are good suggestions made by others. The Elven Glaives one is another case of that. |
|
| Author: | GothmogtheWerewolf [ Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
As much as the Undying looks nice, and as much as he is better than the MoS, if they choice was between them in your houserules, I'd take the Mouth because hes cheaper. The mastery increase is pointless for me as i never manage more than 2 spells anyway (except once, but it'll never happen again), you should inmproves his special rule and then increase the pts value of all of them to 150pts. Just my opinion. Of course the Undyinhg has found his way into my WOTR Angmar army but thats beside the point.
|
|
| Author: | Draugluin [ Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
Just make him auto pass WoI tests or have a +1 modifier to it. |
|
| Author: | Xelee [ Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
IME most people pass their focus rolls somewhere between the frequency of Telchar and Gmtw but, again, YMMV 
|
|
| Author: | GothmogtheWerewolf [ Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
Xelee wrote: IME most people pass their focus rolls somewhere between the frequency of Telchar and Gmtw but, again, YMMV Thank you Xelee it's not my fault, my greatest success rate with d6 is for courage tests, i only once failed one, and it was at the most crucial time as the Spectrwes failed their AtD and the Tainted didn't have enough mtpts, and sothey were squashed by dwarves who were less than half the pts.Anyway, I think Draugluin's idea is a good one. |
|
| Author: | Constantine [ Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
Wouldn't Legolas' value greatly be reduced if all the Elves could strike before the equivalent enemy formations? Although I agree with the implementation of this Elven-wide rule I think an extra bonus for Legolas is appropriate. |
|
| Author: | Slythar [ Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
Legolas in an infantry formation of glaives would then strike first vs. Calvary. That's pretty deadly. |
|
| Author: | Dreadaxe [ Fri Jan 31, 2020 5:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
French translating of War of the Ring Houserules 2018 version by Jamie aka Xelee 
|
|
| Author: | Dreadaxe [ Fri Jan 31, 2020 5:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WOTR houserules |
Xelee wrote: The last thing you want with a system is for some armies/units to dominate and for the set of viable choices to be too narrow. I agree that you always get better/worse options in any point-buy system and it is not worth the effort to ‘fix’ absolutely everything. In fact people have suggested they might undertake this in the past (and I even made suggestions for how to modify one list) but the exercise founders due to the sheer effort involved. Also, it would be nice to just keep using our books and just insert one sheet of changes! I am happy to enter into discussion on the balance implications of specifics. But if you think that an alternative fix is better, please provide a specific rationale, so there is something to go on. With this idea I don't like this  I prefer that we decrease the power of the magic of high wizards to make the 100 pts of wizards n1 more interesting I would prefer a full CSM (Captain, Standardbearer and musician) which generates a power point for the captain at the start of the turn on 6+ (? 5+? 4+?) |
|
| Page 8 of 9 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|