my comment there:The problems with SBG are several:1. Lack of customization. We gamers want ownership of our forces. We want to be represented. This need for identification applies to both an available hero in the game and the army wide as a whole. With 40k or fantasy you may play a particular faction but there is plenty of room to make your own SM chapter or temple city. One of the consequence of this lack of customization is that once the buzz from by the movie fades, interests in the game wanes.2. In my opinion the game favors Good too much. This is evidence by a much greater availability of good heroes (see #1), as well as the average of higher fight values and might for good. Higher strength or defense just do not mitigate against having a lower fight.3. The game plays as a war game, a contest of warriors, but the fight just is not decisive enough and takes too long. It is much easier to inflict a kill with 40k and FB. It is also faster when you can roll multiple dice at a time. SBG is best as small scale role playing scenario driven game where the ebb a flow of strike, parry, advance, step back all make it very cinematic but this is does not make it a good war game. A consequence of indecisive fight are frequent ties for a 600 points game in 2 hours. Ties are especially no good for campaign games. WotR tried to rectify this but still have problems with #1 and #2 while coming into direct competition with fantasy battle which does the same for larger battles.SBG would be more successful to follow the model of 40k. 40k is a skirmish game that provides for customizable hero and squad organization that rolls together for shooting and fighting. This is what WotR should have became.
Well let me respond:1-Nothing can really be done by GW since they are bound by licensing agreements and all models must be approved. Although green stuff and weapons swaps can be done.2 and 3-I have to disagree, the game is pretty balanced, for example evil has 9 wraiths(f5) that have some pretty bad ass special rules, just look at kahmul, as long as he wins combats he can cast spells or at the dimmerlaik who nullifies might. It is not about killing the hero, it is about breaking the force and meeting the victory conditions for the scenario. To break a force one has to be able to surround/flank the enemy. In most cases one needs to just get more dice to roll if you have a lower/equal fight value in order to win combat and inflict wounds. People complain about shooting, but if there are so many open lanes for shooting then the table is not set up correctly. We should always play on a 4x4 table with at least 7 pieces of terrain, and yes a hill does count as in the way if it obscures part of the model.
1. Allow options to add might, will, and fate would be one place to start. For wore allow selection of power would be a place to start.2. More attacks cannot offset lower fight.3. Fights are still too indecisive regarding kills
That would change the entire game, besides, look at the witch king or a generic wraith were one can add M/W/F no one really plays them.More attack can, up to a point and without the use of might make a large difference. AvB which is attacks vs attacks.1v1A has higher fight value A wins B wins 58.33% 41.67%B has higher fight value A wins B wins 41.67% 58.33%1v2A has higher fight value A wins B wins 42.13% 57.87%B has higher fight value A wins B wins 25.46% 74.54%2v2A has higher fight value A wins B wins 61.03% 38.97%B has higher fight value A wins B wins 38.97% 61.03%1v3A has higher fight value A wins B wins 34.03% 65.97%B has higher fight value A wins B wins 17.36% 82.64%2v3A has higher fight value A wins B wins 52.84% 47.16%B has higher fight value A wins B wins 28.07% 71.93%Bringing more numbers helps even the odds vs higher fight.
A higher fight than BA rolls a 6: auto win. this is a huge problem because in a game involving roll offs, one side needs no bother to roll at all. A wins 1 in 6.A rolls a 1: can still win!the odds don't tell you how the game feel
Btw I always max out on first might second fate and third will.But I was talking about customizable un-named heroes
Those stats take into account ties going to the higher fight value btw. But not banner rerolls, which would in effect add another "attack".
Also, most civs with higher fight values have to pay a lot more for higher defense ( high elves for example and not taking into account heroes) and even fewer have access to strength 4. So when you bring your black gaurd they have staying power vs elves/rangers because they are d6. No you do not win as many fights because you usually have only 1 dice to roll while they roll 2 because they usually bring support. Your fountain gaurd do better because they usually are supporting each other vs a lower fight value.
again, it is a loser arrangement when you don't even bother to roll.winning fights matter more than having high defense or strength. however, the attempt to balance against higher fight results in decreased kills. which drags the game out.
I would have to say that winning fights is just part of the equation. Roughly, you would have to multiply the number of wins x %chance of wounding to get an idea of how many kills you score per turn and do a simular calculation for your opponent. So, e.g. it is much easier to attack mirkwood elves with D3, because when you do win the fight, you are 3x more likely to kill them, than they are likely to kill a Def 6 morannon who costs the same point value. In a head to head match, odds are, Morannons would win killing 2x as many models as the elves would in a 10 warrior against 10 warrior match up.