WOTR Hobbit style: New War of the North Lists

Xelee · **Posted:** Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:57 pm

Hi guys, we've been playing around with some reworked lists for 'Hobbit Era' battles. This has been easier to keep track of than using Houserules and we've found it has allowed us to make certain troops (Elves, Spirits) work like they should. The Noldor list is the most finished and well tested so I've posted it up online. I think the Dol Guldur list still needs a little more work but is progressing well. Other lists for the immediate future is Rhovanion (currently a WIP) and something for the Orcs of Gundabad. We are leaving off the mirkwood Elves until we have seen them in the next movies. I think the Dwarven list works well as is (for this era) though historical stuff like the releases GW are doing for Erebor might be added using the stats I see others are posting elsewhere.

I can't figure out a way to embed the PDF on this forum (any suggestions?) so best I can think is to link to the blogpost, where I can embed using HTML: http://roughwotr.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/wotr-version-ii-series-war-of-north.html#more

The list is for Noldor of the Third Age and has new statlines for Glorfindel and The Twins, as well as the more heavily armoured and fearsome Noldor Cohorts and Warriors. I've also changed 'Guide Arrows' to give the effect for Longbows that we used to apply via houserule. Hope it's of use to some people

Hashut's Blessing · **Joined:** Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:41 pm **Posts:** 1279

Looking good, although you may need to make either the archers more expensive or foot soldiers cheaper - a longbow is much more useful than a glaive after all.

Also, you might want to check out the unit type of the Lancers' captain ;P

Otherwise, looks pretty solid. Glorfindel might need to be upped a little in price, IMO, but I could be wrong.

Xelee · **Posted:** Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:12 pm

Arrgh - still the typos crept in! lol Thanks for pointing it out.

You are right about the Glaives, I'll lower their points.

Glorfindel seems pretty comparable to the other 175-225pt heroes?

Draugluin · **Posted:** Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:41 am

Why would you remove magic from Glorfindel.

Xelee · **Posted:** Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:21 am

Well it isn't entirely removed. The new EPIC Glorfindel has magic.

It was a bit redundant on Monster Glorfindel, and logically having it would mean raising his cost a little. So I treated it a bit like those special rules (pathfinder etc) that GW gave Epics 'just in case' ie for no purpose (aside from Terror) and took out the spells to avoid the confusion it can cause sometimes.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:49 pm

How is it redundant? He can use magic as a monster, it's not like pathfinders, which is for fluff, it's actually something usable.

Xelee · **Posted:** Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:26 am

Hi Draughluin, as a backgrounder - part of the idea with these lists is to get something closer to (our take on, anyway) the source material. While overall I am very positive about what GW did with the WOTR rules - one thing I do not like is how ubiquitous magic is. Magic is nothing special in WOTR. So we are always looking for ways to edit it out as a big part of the problem is that magic is debased by being so commonplace. So not only does (one version of) Glorfindel not have spells - the shamans, storm callers, etc are now gone and 'Will of Iron' is more likely to negate spells.

This means that obviously you want to avoid having a spell casting statline 'just because'. The reason why one version of Glorfindel doesn't have this is that many of the spells in the Command list are actually redundant for him. Since I've also made him tougher AND cheaper - losing what minor spellcasting ability he had is good because 1. it is a lost capability (so justifies the reduced costing a little) 2. it helps keep a lid on GW's 'magic inflation'. I don't think it hurts either that the two versions of Glorfindel we now have are made more distinctive by this being yet another meaningful difference between them. Part of the 'redundancy' is that Epic Glorfindel is a far more useful spell caster than Monster Glorfindel ever was.

That explain it better? :gandalf:

Draugluin · **Posted:** Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:55 pm

I'm just saying that if you were going to remove magic from anybody via house rules, it wouldn't be Glorfindel. And if most of the spells are redundant, then giving him magic wouldn't increase his point cost that much, if at all. It just doesn't make sense why you would remove magic from one version but not the other. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

Xelee · **Posted:** Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:50 pm

Hi Draughlin, I'm not sure sure what else I can say to explain it - it was a combination of reasons, some of which you've addressed. Good thing there is no practical need to agree on the matter - if it's an issue then the benifit of an unofficial pdf list is that if you only have a few problems with it, it is easy to add magic back in via adding another line of text.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:54 pm

There's no need to patronize me. I understand why you did it, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't really make that much sense.

Xelee · **Posted:** Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:41 am

Draugluin, I wasn't patronising you.

WOTR Hobbit style: New War of the North Lists

Who is online