Hi Everyone,

I know the warband system has been getting a lot of love & hate. A lot of people generally like it, but you've got to admit there are some small mistakes here & there.
So let's see what we can come up with perhaps...

1st: The Problems:

1. The Warrior/Hero configuration sometimes balances out strangely:
- - -> Heroes can easily cost more than the warriors they're leading (e.g. Sauron can be in command of 12 Goblins & Bandobras Took in command of 12 Ents)

2. The Deployment, altough it makes the game quicker & more furious, can give a good shake on your strategies & puts quite a dip on artillery

There might be some other problems, but these seem like the main 2.

Now here are my personal suggestions:

1. Instead of a fixed model count, each warband leader can take as many warriors as up to double his point value
- - -> This way, a Gondor captain would allow you to take about 15 WoMT, you wouldn't be able to call in 12 Trolls because of 35pt goblin captains, and mighty leaders such as King Elessar, The Witch King on his mighty fellbeast & Mr Dark Lord himself would allow a player to bring numerous minions to the table

2. Instead of picking a warband & then rolling where it ends up, why not reverse it?
- - -> This would allow you to set up your artillery at the back of the board, but still make you put models up front (so that the game goes just as quick & furious)

What do my fellow OR'rs think? Do you think the warband rules need some little changes here & there? And if they do, what has to be changed & how?

K

ps: Sorry if this topic has come up before, haven't seen anything like this on the recent pages, but...

_________________
We must forgive our enemies...
But not before they are hanged

Mostly love, as far as I can tell. Yes, some people wish the alliances were more limited and rational like in LoME, but it doesn't really bother me because if I host a game or make an army it will be themed. Bandobras won't be leading any Ents in my games

You might have a point about artillery, but it might work better to have artillery and crew be their own warband, with better odds of letting the player control deployment (say, free pip up or down). Otherwise you're breaking something that works perfectly well for all other warbands.

You seem to be trying to fix artillery... but it's always been rubbish, so fixing it from super rubbish only brings it back to rubbish

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League

I like the principle, but personally I think GW should have just created a new stat, called Command (or something similar), for each Hero. The Command value would be how many models each Hero can take in his warband.

i.e., Boromir's Command value could be twenty; he can field twenty models in his warband. However, a minor Hero such as Beregond might only have a Command value of six.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

It's an interesting idea, but I can't imagine the balancing headaches for the profiles (Command would have to figure into point costs), and army creation would get really tedious. Like everything else about SBG, I love the current simplicity + effectiveness.

...though I have thought that maybe the Twins could take 18 warriors as a pair...

... just no!
Warbands is a beautiful system that works well.
Your system 1 actually doesn't allow a goblin captain to lead a troll with many other men which is crazy considering goblins are a horde army.
Your system 2 would be clunky. Most missions are defined by the way they force you set up this would remove some risk as I can stack warbands.

My only grudge is that the twins have to be in the same warband. I'd have said perhaps make them take identical warbands...
This would have boosted high elf potential from bleurgh into average.

.
House rules are just that House rules. So no one has to use them.
Warbands rules are based on a GW policy to sell miniatures. New rules for new models. If GW does not make a model there will be no new rules. If they work or or balance in some way it is a happy accident. for Games Work Shop.

Reaper already uses this idea in their game Warlord
For example-A sergeant can lead 10 warriors and a special model plus a solo model. You can see this works out to 12. A solo is a hero/monster that can not lead units. Solos are marked by a little icon in the army book.
A captain can lead 10 warriors and two specials plus a solo and two sergeants and their units. A Warlord can lead 12 warriors two specials, a solo and two captains and their units and sergeants. An example of a specials would be a medic or priest. A hero could be rated as a solo, sergeant, captain or a warlord.You may chose two sergeants before you must take a captain and two captains before you must take a warlord.
It is not chunky at all. In fact Warbands is a dumb downed version of another system already.

point made
The twins are fluff issue. I would consider then as one special choice for captains or above if I was using the Warlord army organization.

_________________
"the same as a duck you must be made of wood"

Alright,

To begin with, yes, mostly love, I know, it just didn't look nice in the sentence when I made the post.


Now:

Indeed, that would be awsome, but because it would require a lot of adapting & FAQ'ing, making it quite difficult for a house rule. That's why I went with 2x Pt value



Sorry, but the current warband system allows a 1000pt force to take 117 Goblins (23 Shields) + 1 Troll spread over 10 Captains, my proposal would allow for 140 (40 Shields) Goblins + 1 Troll spread over 7 Captains.
In addition, I personally am a bigger fan of a system that allows a goblin captain to command one troll as opposed to a system that allows him to command 12.


Indeed, the current deployment model is risky, which allows for more tension... But personally, I think it's an unnecessary amount of risk
What of an incompetent commander would allow his archer support to go up front, while his shock troops are drinking tea in the back.


I partly agree (still have a home for some quick reload ballista's), but the ever present question when it comes to house rules: should it be rubbish?


Agreed! But there's something else I personally really like about SBG: out of many, many wargaming systems, it is one of the few that, even though it's simple, maintains a great amount of (Tolkienesque) realism. These rules, are still simple, but don't fit the overal theme & realism of the game (... I'm not only talking about the fact that it's a different designer).
The 'previous rules' where (next to simplicity+effectiveness) mainly about creating & recreating scenes, this is is edging more towards the general 40k/WHF style: pick up minis, a codex & put them onto the table...

Hmm, got a slightly bit OTopic there...

_________________
We must forgive our enemies...
But not before they are hanged

This is very true and the heart of what I don't like. The rules are sales driven rather logical or balanced. New rules for new figures equal/ and or make the new units more powerful to generate sales. The space marines sell best so we will make them the most powerful to sell more.
The hobbit army does not sell because it is not powerful. There are no hobbit generic captains because GW does not make one rather than no need for one.
This kind of thing is very simple to fix with house rules.
Rules are cheep. I use WHA the Alamo,WHA Legends of the High Seas and WHA Legends of The Old West as part of my house rules. I could add others if need be. I also avoid many of the pit falls "40k/WHF style: pick up minis, a codex & put them onto the table " by playing only with painted miniatures.
I was happy to see the new supplements. I purchased them all. I will use them as a guide but I am not a mindless slave to Games Workshop.

_________________
"the same as a duck you must be made of wood"

I agree with cereal thief.

Why would you want a goblin army to take 140 goblins at 1,000pts? I don't think it's fair if they reach over 100 models.

A Goblin Captain should be able to command 1 Troll and 10-11 Orcs, same for Mordor Orcs. And with Isengard too. Then there's other monsters too, like Great Beasts which could on;y go in a wraith/similarly costed heroes' warband. And so on.

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

I just personally think it makes for a more interesting game, and one that includes a bit more realism.

Btw, I don't encourage a 140 goblin army, it's just that cereal thief said that my proposal is a bit crazy because goblins would not be able to be more of a horde army, which is not the case.


And I think it makes sense that only large forces can include big monsters like Great Beasts & Marauder Wargs

_________________
We must forgive our enemies...
But not before they are hanged

This would make certain heros useless and others great. For instance, being able to have Sauron lead an army of 100 Black Numenoreans, for only 1350 pts. (I only chose BN because they're 9 pts, it would be a much higher number with orcs) Then you would just fill in however many points you wanted with orc captains and orcs. Or the Balrog leading 160 goblins at 1200 pts. It would make more sense to require a certain hero (ie the most expensive) to be the overall commander and give him, and only him, a slightly larger warband.

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

This is all stuff you could do with LoME, and people then didn't take Sauron & tons of BN or a Balrog. Nor did anyone say that the system didn't work well for that reason.

You could also perhaps add the old LoME rule of a max. amount of miniatures/pt level, eg 500pts=50models max.

_________________
We must forgive our enemies...
But not before they are hanged

Rather than trying to fix warbands, which most people seem to be happy with, why not just play LoME games? Or use warbands, but come up with a new scenario, either generic or specific, that has the kind of deployment rules you want?

In which case, it's no longer Warbands and you might as well just play LoME like whafrog said.

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

As a friend of one of the games development team I disagree.
As a fan of the changes I disagree.
I like warbands and I think they were put in partially for money but you tell me why a BUISNESS shouldn't try to make money.
As a 40k player I disagree. There have been rules for models yet to be made even as recently as the necron codex. (though I know with necrons the models had been made but were just held back for a while to build excitement) Tyranid players have been waiting ages for models they are only just getting!

Just because GW no longer invites the outside world to view their processes how can anyone know if there is play testing and balance? I find warbands very balanced for most armies. The only real losers are high elves who are not very difficult to field as a pure high elf army (unless they let gildor have a warband of exiles in which case I might be able to make it work)

How does this sell more models?
I see this system actually selling the same as the old or even less as now you are less likely to just slam in a random super hero (e.g. my old high elf army had Elendil in it and my old evil army was harad with witchking and shadow lord, a decision a newbie in warbands wouldnt make and instead they would pack in cheaper models)
Maybe that is because I own so much gumph I don't know. I'm interested to hear your opinions on this

The only thing I would change about warbands is to have a minimum gap between them at deployment. Although that is actually a scenario rule rather then core to the warbands system.

I can see how it could drive sales, in the same way as allies in 40k. It is now much easier to say I'd like somes Dwarves so I'll pick up a box of warriors and a command box. But I don't see it as a bad thing as it makes it easier to add a few models you really want.

I am a fan of Capitalism. A business makes money by supplying a product people want. The control freaks at GW want to write rules to force people to buy what they want to sell. That is a very poor business model. They think it makes them money. It cost them opportunity.

If a member of "the team" speak out about about what they think they will be fired. So if I were you I would not mention you were friends with any of them.Some one at GW will pimp them out.
The development team works very hard to balance the rules under GW's policy and strict guide lines and rules. New rules for new models. If GW does not make a model there will be no new rules. That is the policy.

We do, but I agree with you about sending letters, snail mail, and photos to the GW CEO.
I have many friends who are game developers and game manufacturers, many are former GW employees, artist and sculptors and or independent retailers. GW self limiting policy is often some one else opportunity.

_________________
"the same as a duck you must be made of wood"

and I agree about the self limiting policy... and I really hope other people seriously step up with properly thought out systems, rulebooks and models.
I play infinity (a great system, great models) but the rule book is a nightmare!! It is as untidy as my house and hte pictures add ambiguity,

I often hear the argument that 'businesses are supposed to try to make money' in defence of businesses who raise their prices either too often or by too much.

Of course this is true as far as it goes, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't complain if prices are raised, especially without accompanying improvements in quality etc.

The system works on a general level because, as others have indicated, if you raise your prices too high, people stop buying your product.
I think problems occur when a business has something resembling a monopoly, which allows them to raise prices and run their business in a way that would not be feasible if there were direct competitors.

In the short run, raising prices will gain profits, but arguably in the long run it will be their downfall - at some point either another company will release similar products at cheaper prices, or people will turn to other kinds of products. IME many businesses begin with healthily _mixed_ intentions (i.e., yes to make a living but also for love of a thing or a desire to provide something fun/useful to others); when the business reaches a certain size, new people take over or the original people forget what they once knew.

Of course I'm not saying this has happened to GW - I am not well enough informed to make such a judgement; I'm just noticing a general and unfortunate tendency.

_________________
I go now to the swords and the siege,
That yet for a while rivers may run clean and birds build their nests,
Ere Night comes.