Who else prefers the original LOTRSBG?

For general discussions on the Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game and its expansions.

Moderators: Rangers, Leaders

User avatar
Warrior
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:26 pm
Location: Retford, North Notts

Re: Who else prefers the original LOTRSBG?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 2:51 pm

I think there are good and bad points for both really, I like the new heroic actions that were introduced with the hobbit, heroic strike is a useful way to out fight a high level hero without needing to bring a wizard/wraith along for immobilise/transfix, and heroic channeling was a good way to tone down 'normal' magic and but still keep the more powerful versions of spells around as well.

I like the warbands system of 12 warriors per hero and I like the new standard scenarios, particularly in relation to deployment. All in all I think the rules changes for the Hobbit SBG were a subtle improvement, the game was great before, but now it is even better.

It is sadly true that ever since they brought out those 5 LOtr sourcebooks, hobby support for the game has fallen off a cliff, I remember excitedly building a Haradrim camp site when I first got the Battle of the Pelennor fields source book and later making some Gondor pavilions and trying (somewhat ham-fistedly) to copy the Easterling temple from shadow in the east. I still have many of those terrain pieces and use them in my games, despite the fact that they were home made almost a decade ago.
Spiney Norman, Former Standard Bearer of the Last Alliance

For the time will soon come when Hobbits will shape the fortunes of all.

Villager
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:43 am

Re: Who else prefers the original LOTRSBG?

Fri Dec 19, 2014 9:21 am

I got into LOTR in 2007, and I loved it. I took a long break from LOTR and I decided to finish my collection and start playing again this year. Things have changed, my rulebooks are not up to date, and I miss all the tutorials and articles GW used to have on their website. I searched for ages to find the Rohan watchtower templates I remember seeing on their website. It's sad that they have all but abandoned LOTR and I feel that with the last Hobbit movie released, they will slowly back away from LOTR altogether.

Villager
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 1:27 am

Re: Who else prefers the original LOTRSBG?

Sun May 22, 2016 12:05 am

An older thread I know but, there is a lot of good things about HSBG but I think far more negative. I am looking forward to MESBG and hope some of these issues get tackled.

What bothers me the most, and old sbg was not perfect either but far closer to lore...

These warbands basically break the lore outright by allowing all sorts of stupid choices when heroes and so on were never alive ( or even some units ), and essentially breaks down what was closer to army structures as how they would have been in the books and in ME etc with old sbg, into simply just little ohh ohh 12 man epic hero canon fodder units. I mean really guys all we see is people making lists with usually 12 warband guys when possible, so yea it's silly and turns SBG into a game only and more or less forces even in some situations, to work against theme and actual lore.

I can accept that SBG itself is in no way suited for the kinds of truly epic jaw dropping battles and armies that took place in ME, and for what sbg is it works very very well for "unknown warband heroes and troop skirmish battles", for sticking to lore currently it's utterly broken and silly, it really needs to get faq'ed in that department. That's not to say we can't do big battles either, we can and simply imagine swarms of fodder troops around that mini battle unit which is part of the grander army, it's just original sbg came far closer to that in army composition and sticking to the lore.

If this was anything but ME I would not care.

The flip side is we can actually take some themed builds that should have existed since the start, if GW had done it's research and considered those.

User avatar
Squire
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:27 am

Re: Who else prefers the original LOTRSBG?

Tue May 24, 2016 6:32 am

I prefer Lord of the Rings to the Hobbit.
But for the rules, I like everything from the new version except monsters probably get too much freedom in the way they can hurl things. Any point on the base seems really generous, models can end up on the other side of a large base and then go a very long way from where they started.
I would rather share one lifetime with you than face all the ages of this world alone.

Villager
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:20 pm

Re: Who else prefers the original LOTRSBG?

Fri Sep 02, 2016 1:34 pm

Forgive the necromancy here.

I think the game peaked with the One Ring rules, and warbands. The Hobbit stuff added unnecessary rules and power creep. In the old days troops mattered, but the Hobbit is now so hero/monster centric that troops just feel like a waste of time. Cannon fodder for the enemy heros and stuff for the monsters to throw.

New Weapon Strikes: Unnecessary, and they just take extra time to resolve. My old gaming group never used them, and though my new group does use them, they don’t seem to add anything to the game. Just another decision to make, and something else to keep track of with no benefit.

Brutal Power Attacks: I hate them. Since they were introduced, I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen monsters do something other than throwing. Yes, something needed to be done to get monsters back on the table. Yes, brutal power attacks has achieved this business objective. But somewhere around turn 3 of each game I just have the realization that I’m not having fun. And there’s no solution since showing up to a game without monsters is not really an option – throwing is just too important.

Spells: I love the tweaks.

New heroic actions: Awesome. I love the idea of a goblin captain having his lifetime achievement of outfighting some elf hero.

Hobbit profiles: Power creep. There’s too much emphasis on megaheros. I’d love to see a general rebalancing of the game and profiles with the new edition coming out. I doubt it’ll happen, but I’d love to see it.

Villager
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:27 pm

Re: Who else prefers the original LOTRSBG?

Fri Sep 02, 2016 5:33 pm

Being relatively new to playing these games I'm not sure which rules are "old" and "new". Most of the games we play are Grandad (me) and grandsons playing LOTR with the rules in a blue hardback book with a gold ring on the front, a couple of the army books and we really like them for battles. We use lots of figures because Grandad has a big collection.
Image

When we play skirmishes based on "The Hobbit - Escape from Goblin Town" we use those rules. The extra complications seem to suit the feel of little groups fighting each other. This is probably because we have what was in the box with only a few extra figures (mainly goblins).

So for battles we use "old rules" and for Hobbit/Heroic skirmishes we use "new rules". For no other reason than it suits the way we play games. The games are similar enough to allow some crossover of ideas.

User avatar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:15 am

Re: Who else prefers the original LOTRSBG?

Sat Sep 03, 2016 8:50 am

Hobbit profiles: Power creep. There’s too much emphasis on megaheros. I’d love to see a general rebalancing of the game and profiles with the new edition coming out. I doubt it’ll happen, but I’d love to see it.


Then you're in for some good news - you're getting something very similar to your request


Future plans involve a revised set of rules. Adam Troke stated that he is not concerned about massive changes as the rules by themselves are mostly sound.
Revisions will include special strikes as these are currently unbalanced and possibly magic. This is planned for next summer and will come under the heading “Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game” to demonstrate that the Hobbit and LOTR are using the same core rues.

A point that was raised was the power-level of the Hobbit profiles as compared to the Lord of the Rings profiles and Adam confirmed that the profiles have been balanced.


Read more here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9205

Villager
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:20 pm

Re: Who else prefers the original LOTRSBG?

Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:42 pm

I’ve seen the news and I’m very curious to see how it turns out. But I can’t fault GW for the power creep. They were tasked with making a game of the movie and they did just that. It’s not their fault the movie was cartoonish and awful (my opinion).

User avatar
Squire
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:27 am

Re: Who else prefers the original LOTRSBG?

Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:04 am

Rtifs2 wrote:I’ve seen the news and I’m very curious to see how it turns out. But I can’t fault GW for the power creep. They were tasked with making a game of the movie and they did just that. It’s not their fault the movie was cartoonish and awful (my opinion).



I liked them, but they were nothing near as good as the original lord of the rings trilogy.
I would rather share one lifetime with you than face all the ages of this world alone.

User avatar
Villager
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:58 pm

Re: Who else prefers the original LOTRSBG?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:08 am

Agreed.
LOTR: 3000pts ANGMAR, 1200 MINAS TIRITH, 2000 DWARFS, 12000 ELVES. I HAVE A PROBLEM... not enough models. :mrgreen:

PreviousNext
Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests