I think your tactics are very nice
| The One Ring http://test.one-ring.co.uk/ |
|
| How Good defends against a Winged Nazgul? http://test.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=21278 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Slythar [ Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | How Good defends against a Winged Nazgul? |
"Our list of allies grows thin." - You know who These guys are tough to take down when they are shielded in. It usually takes alot of luck to take one down that just wants to fly around and cause havoc. I've got a few solutions but I'm wondering what others have tried. I'm considering 1500 point games. 1. Avenger Bow/Dwarf Ballista - They will kill it but smart player will just stay out of reach, swoop over the top and Strength From Corruption the thing when the time is right. So it can't really go without a guard of some sort. Maybe 2 companies of Citadel Longbows 6" back or a monster. Plus without a unit to draw the opponent in like Longbows or a Trebuchet it may fire once then go out of service. 2. Trebuchet - As above but then you have to build a lane for it to fire. I guess you could just not fire it and protect your flank with it... is that a good idea? I killed The WitchKing on Fellbeast with this in one shot but its was an oversight on his part, staying on the hill for all to see. 3. Archers - Definitely the best option I've used so far with might to adjust the roll on the H2K chart. Chances are the Winged Nazgul will be afar so rolling 6's and 5's (1 in 18 chance) to hit, so you'll need companies of four... not the most ideal size. Plus then you need 2 formations of them on either side. A good player will shield them and fly over the top and flank them after giving priority so now you need something to protect the flank/rear. I was thinking instead of a Trebuchet maybe a whole bunch of Rohan/Hobbit archers since they are so cheap. 4. A Hill/Tower - Makes things a whole lot easier and likely a non-issue with a Trebuchet or Longbows and a 360 degree view in a building. The thing with Defensive Terrain is if they have Siege aswell, then a Trebuchet would be a sitting duck. So maybe archers would be better in there, they can take a few licks. 5. 2 Eagles - This sounds like it will work but I've never tried it. If they get the charge that will be 20 attacks total hitting on 5's so 3 rolls on the chart should do it, losing an Eagle no doubt. I'm leaning towards this one in my next match. I was thinking Glorfindel but he can't do it alone. 6. Epic Challenge - I haven't tried this one either. I always forget about it. The first time I used it, it was a bad experience so I forgot about it. 7. Gandalf - Another one I haven't tried. Trying to getting the Beast in plain view would still be quite the task I could imagine. |
|
| Author: | jscottbowman [ Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How Good defends against a Winged Nazgul? |
Funny how people find difficulties either side of the rules - I usually have trouble keeping mine [winged nazgul] alive! Either shot down by archers or rangers, or Legolas, or Spelled to death by Galadriel and others... |
|
| Author: | Stormcrow [ Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How Good defends against a Winged Nazgul? |
Quote: I killed The WitchKing on Fellbeast with this in one shot but its was an oversight on his part, staying on the hill for all to see. Maybe they got it wrong but the guys in my local store said that large creatures (fell beasts, trolls, balrog etc) can always be seen over other units due to their size. What's your thoughts? Do you play differently? Also I too face the problem that I can never seem to keep my fell beast alive. Legolas' crippiling shot and epic shot give some serious damage or the enemy will manage to make contact with a formation containing a hero and call a duel which usually sees me off. |
|
| Author: | GothmogtheWerewolf [ Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How Good defends against a Winged Nazgul? |
Stormcrow wrote: Maybe they got it wrong but the guys in my local store said that large creatures (fell beasts, trolls, balrog etc) can always be seen over other units due to their size. What's your thoughts? Do you play differently? No they can't be seen over, a formations hight does not matteer, a mumak could hide behind spider broodlings if he wanted to. And yes fellbeasts aren't that hard to kill, more people have problems keeping them alive. Even when played very well, you're taking a big risk using a fell beast anyway so there's no need to go in with some master plan to defeat them, you'll find it comes very easily. The only exception is when they're using the battlehost and then they become problematic. |
|
| Author: | Hilbert [ Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How Good defends against a Winged Nazgul? |
I agree with Gothmog althought it would seems weird in reality but a game is a game. |
|
| Author: | ForgottenLore [ Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How Good defends against a Winged Nazgul? |
GothmogtheWerewolf wrote: No they can't be seen over, a formations hight does not matteer, a mumak could hide behind spider broodlings if he wanted to. Bad example. A mumak has a special rule that specifies that it counts as an elevated position and so can be seen over other formations. The point is valid for an other monster though, dragons, balrogs, fellbeasts, stone giants all can hide behind other things. |
|
| Author: | mastermanje [ Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How Good defends against a Winged Nazgul? |
I think your tactics are very nice
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|