Some of you may remember me from eons ago, I used to be very active on this site and TLA (before the original one closed down). I have never left the hobby. In fact I have always been actively playing this game, I just got too busy with work and other things to post here too often.
Has anyone played much of The Hobbit? Has anyone really played a game of LOTR using the Hobbit rules? After playing it for a month -easily over a dozen games - I have to say they are, quite honestly, very poorly done. I hate to rip on a game I have always loved - the only reason I play tabletop in many different forms - or to post a negative thread on any public forum, but this incarnation leaves itself absolutely undesirable as a game goes. Don't believe me? I apparently am not the only one disappointed though since I see so many threads in this section discussing how to change the core rules. Which, I never ever used to remember seeing this much vitriol on One Ring. In fact, it has always been sort of like The Shire of gaming sites to me, just a happy place, with good friends and warm conversations. But I have to join in since apparently the scouring of my shire is happening on here.
So, to start off, I have to say that the new bow rules made an already difficult shooting mechanic even worse. Throwing weapons almost never ever actually deliver a wound now. Orc archers are beyond a joke.
All the new weapon mechanics slow down the game to a grinding hault. It's obscene to wait and choose whether to use a weapon's ability, then after the Duel roll, wait until the other player rolls a dice, modifies a stat, then calculates a wound roll, then rolls a die. Luckily, we have the chart memorized, but still, it makes the game play so slowly. It's just too much. I honestly would prefer units comparing initiative, then hit, wound and save at this point over this cumbersome mechanic. To add insult to injury to this lack luster design, some weapon abilities are by far more useful than than other choices. And, since LOTR are not multipart kits, the weapons you get are the weapons you get. I can't give all my Warriors of Minas Tirith axes (though I'd like too). So I am stuck with what the model has as its gear. Which, if I had my way, everyone in Middle Earth would be running around with Axes because it is leagues better than the other weapon options.
Then we started playing with Monsters. After playing the game with the Hurl rules, we started calling it no longer LOTR, but Monster Bowl. Hurl is so powerful in fact there is absolutely no reason not to use it as the one and only monster attack every time, barring there is no one around to hurl the model at.
In every game we have played the Monster has hands down been the deciding factor. Hereos seem so feeble and useless compared to this awesome attack. In one game an Eagle hurled one Orc and killed 13 Orcs in one go. 13! This is on top of knocking down all the other models it failed to kill as well. Hurl, if done well roughly 4 -5 models, not to mention all the other secondary knock downs it causes from all the models it failed to kill. To add insult to injury, there is nothing in the rules that clarifies a massive issue with the Hurl rule, a glaringly important part of it that I can't believe there is no explanation at all about it! By the way its written: I can hurl a model at Aragon, just Aragorn and no one else in the fight if I can draw the line right. I can actually pick him off and not hit any of the other model's engaged. So now he's trapped, plus he suffers a strength 3 hit before the dice are even rolled in his own fight. Of course, after hitting Aragorn I will also usually be able to hit several other good models with the Hurl as well harming a handful of other warriors. Well this becomes tactic number one. If some hero that is particularly nasty is on the table, just keep your monsters far enough away from him and just keep endlessly chucking guys into his fight. Do this enough and you will eventually kill him, or keep him knocked down the entire game so he never does anything. Or, if you don't want to fight the fight and don't want to suffer a heroes higher strength combat, then just chuck a warrior into the fight. You get to wound their models at least though there is a chance you can kill your own, what's the cost of a few orcs compared to several good models and wounding some awesome hero. Now, when it comes to heroes - especially the really powerful ones, it is far easier to kill them by just picking him up and chucking him as far as Monster can than actually bother scoring wounds on him. Especially since, by Hurling him, you deal an obscene amount of damage to the rest of his force as well. It's like two for the price of one. After all, I can, by the way the rule is written, line up a row of orcs in base to base contact behind my mordor troll who now simply picks up Theoden on horseback and tosses him between his legs for 1d6+strength difference in inches, scoring 1 hit per model at the same strength as a standard Warrior of Rohan for every model he hits and ending with a strength hit equal to a Cave Troll, then force him to make a Thrown Rider check. Yes I can. Because no where does it say I can't do this. Grant it I have never done this - and never would - but it is highly possible to do it by the way the rule is written. Don't worry good players, your eagle can do this with Azog and Bulg to at the cost of a few good models. But really, isn't better than actually fighting Bulg? Because nowhere does it say Good can't do this either.
Hurl is so good, it is honestly stupid not to field as many Monsters as you can and just bowl as many infantry as you can in one go every time.
Sorry that was so long, but the rule is just terrible. Which is a shame, because I like the idea and Warmachine did it so well.
As for the rest, I can be far more brief: Heroic Strike was just not necessary in my opinion. It does, as many people have pointed out, just force heroes to save all might so they don't get absolutely stomped by this new rule (and it is there only hope to not being chucked by a Monster in the Monster Bowl sub phase). Not to mention that giving the points cost of models such as Gil-Galad, Evil can easily have more might on the table to use this power far more often and well...I think you see where the rest goes from there.
Then we get to the stats. The Elven Cavalry are obscenely priced for what they can do on a table (except the obvious, Good cavalry kites with Bows game). The Grim Hammerers are over-pointed for what they get. The 3 Trolls, in an actual points match game or even homebrew scenario, would be far too good if they weren't fighting a company of dwarves specifically designed to kill them. Then we get to the largest problem of the stats: the Many Blades rule. It is absolutely ridiculous an Orc with 2 attacks, one higher fight and strength is the same cost of a Warrior of Minas Tirith! Grant it, he is only defense 4, but in our play experience they easily slaughter, hand over fist, good forces of any kinds. Especially those poor, poor elves, you know the strongest most powerful race in middle earth. Then, to make the rule even worse they strangely lose this rule when mounted. A mount which costs the same as 2 Orc Hunters on Foot?! Really? Well the math becomes clear, why would you ever put them on a Warg...ever.
To make matters worse, all the problems of the old LOTR game continue to persist: Elves are still terrible. Cavalry are way to expensive for what you get out of them in a game and so they are relegated to collect dust or to be a kiting shooting army which is tiresome during play. Dwarves continue to be far too cheap for what they can do and the new axe rule gives them one hell of a boost. After all, a Dwarf can suffer a -3 defense because they start out, in general, defense 7. Dropping from a 6 to wound to a 5 to wound is only a .167% decrease where as most other axe wielders drop .33% when they suffer the -3. Yep, that seems about balanced,
.
In the end, I have to say, it seems almost like GW didn't play test these rules at all or they simply couldn't be bothered enough to go back and fix these glaringly bad rules choices. There is no other reason for this mess of a system.
What I recommend to players is to not even bother picking up The Hobbit rulebook if you own the old edition. Just use the old edition rules, for better or worse. If you are going to cross into the Hobbit, though it pains me to say it, cut Hurl from the monster's actions or go buy some ents, eagles, trolls. You will certainly need them in the arms race. If you want the new models, just find suitable proxies: Orc Hunters could have the same profile as an Uruk Hai Tracker, Grim Hammerers khazad guard. It is close enough.
I hate being this negative, but as a person working in the gaming industry, I can think of no other explanation for it. It just doesn't make sense.
LOTR was a fantastic game even though it had its problems. However, this edition not only make those problems worse, I imagine it will turn many gamers (especially new gamers) off to it. I just don't get it. I spent two years completely reworking and adapting 40K over to the LOTR engine and ended up making such a fun and enjoyable game many seriously die-hard 40k players (people who hated LOTR) now prefer it over 40K. So I just don't get why GW dropped the ball.
I am sorry for this post being negative. I just hate seeing something I love getting the Devlan Mud kicked out of it while it's already down. I just can't.
With all my complaints though, the only good part of this new game are the Dwarves and Goblin King. They really do have fun and interesting rules. I really liked what GW did with them.
Anyway, happy gaming,
Commoner
{ PORTAL }
Print view
Top
"Leave Sauron to me."
