Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

One of my friends has for a long time said that lotr sbg is a good game but the way he experiences it is getting hyped (probably because of watching a movie) and then abandoning the game after a few weeks of playing it. I don't yet know how I will see the game in the long run because I only have limited amount of matches played.

But from pretty much game #2 and onward I've noticed that you cannot play this game like 40k where you play a balanced scenario from the rulebook, where everything is controlled and the terrain and opposing armies are random. Maybe it's because of the movies but I feel like those pitched battle deployment+fight to the last man matches lack character and depth. Now I'm not saying I dislike those kind of games or force some kind of narrative because I truly enjoy every and any occasion I get to play this game (I'm lucky to have a couple friends who play too).

I've tried to look for scenarios and they're often favoring the evil side, of course. This is one of the aspects that you don't find in those standardized points match games.

So how do I make a game feel like the greatest battle of our time? Or that a heroic move by boromir saves the fellowship from certain death in an ambush. I do understand that epic moments often come down to dice rolls and I accept it.

So let's make a list of things that can "build" this kind of meaningful feeling. Don't think of these as absolutes, just theoretical discussion - something to stay away from 40k/whfb style standardized and fair matches.

-painted terrain
-painted models
-setting the table so that the game doesn't devolve into a single massed combat
-if there's a lot of cavalry, limit their usefulness and increase the need to play them tactically by placing area difficult terrain
-avoid powerful heroes such as Imrahil, Gothmog and wizards so they're not too emphasized on and don't solo entire warbands and in the case of wizards reduce the amount of transfix spam. this is more about playstyle rather than limiting the options.
-defend/escape missions for both good and evil
-hopeless last stands
-scenario specific special rules such as climbing trees, night fighting, buildings, reserves, wildlife (ie attacking trees). one thing i'd really like to see is pushing enemies in a river which happens often in the battles in the books. or pushing enemies off a cliff like in the movie 300. 1v1 fights and pushing the losing enemy 1" doesn't quite cut it. this would probably include some kind of morale tests like in 40k.
-defending archers firing volleys over friendly models with reduced accuracy, maybe with flaming ammunition in some rare cases
-i'd also like to see specialized units to separate a warband of, say, uruk-hai from another by giving them a mission like holding a front, sapper missions
-music
-rough round/time limits when trying to achieve on objective aka the longer you take, the more enemies/modifiers there will be


The most important thing is imagination in the end.

Some of those things have existed in previous versions of the rules. For example, when an enemy was forced to Back Away over a drop, they could choose to either count as Trapped or take the fall and any relevant Falling damage. Similarly, there were rules for rivers and lakes and swimming that I don't recall making the cut to the Hobbit book. There were actually a lot more terrain rules, including the ability to climb trees (and other scaleable surfaces) and even at one point (possibly in a supplement) various weather conditions.

Volley Fire used to be a thing exatcly like you mention, a group of 6 or more (I think) archer in base contact with at least 1 other with the same weapon could fire at up to double range, at any model that a friendly model could see, only hit on 6s and hits were randomly allocated in a 14cm diameter from the target area. It was fun, but could slow things down when both sides were doing it every turn.

I'd copy them out verbatim for you but I'm a long way from my collection of Battle Games in Middle Earth magazines (where most of this stuff was detailed), if you can track down some issues of that you might find some good ideas.

Yeah I've still to dig up all those rules artifacts from the internet. I find it kind of relieving that there used to be these kind of rules.

The thing nobody wants is (unnecessary) depth to the game only to painfully slow it down.

 Zaephyr wrote:
But from pretty much game #2 and onward I've noticed that you cannot play this game like 40k where you play a balanced scenario from the rulebook, where everything is controlled and the terrain and opposing armies are random.

I'm note sure why you think you can't play like this? You can do a simple "points-match" game, using one of the generic scenarios from the game just like you could 40K.

I've tried to look for scenarios and they're often favoring the evil side, of course. This is one of the aspects that you don't find in those standardized points match games.

Note sure where you are finding these unbalanced scenarios? Obviously, perfect balance is an impossible goal but I've found most of the published scenarios relatively balanced. Unfortunatly, the sources for many of these scenarios (White Dwarf, the Army Books, Campaign Books, and the older Sourcebooks) are all OOP.

So how do I make a game feel like the greatest battle of our time?

You probably need to look at the War of the Rings rules for that. The standard Strategy Battle Game is a skirmish level game best played with up to 30-40 miniatures or so, not exactly the "greatest battle of our time". The SBG is more isolated skirmished or key points within larger battles.

Or that a heroic move by boromir saves the fellowship from certain death in an ambush. I do understand that epic moments often come down to dice rolls and I accept it.

There is a written scenario for the "Breaking of the Fellowship" where Boromir dies protecting the Hobbits. I don't recall off hand were it was published but if you are interested I can check when I get home. There are lots of published scenarios based on events from the books or the movies if that is what interestes you.

-setting the table so that the game doesn't devolve into a single massed combat

I find this is usually an issue of having enough terrain on the table. IMO this game really benefits from lots of terrain. Consider trying for at least 50% coverage as a starting point.

-if there's a lot of cavalry, limit their usefulness and increase the need to play them tactically by placing area difficult terrain

I've never found cavalry to be that overpowered compared to infantry, but YMMV. Also, terrain and defensive positions will help control cavalry.

-defend/escape missions for both good and evil
-hopeless last stands

Things like Gandalf's stand on the bridge in Moria, Boromir's fight on Amon Hen, the last battle of Arvedui in Fornost all fall in this catagory (and are all published scenarios for the game). They generally involve protecting certain characters, or allowing certain characters to escape, rather than actually beating the opponent.

-scenario specific special rules such as climbing trees, night fighting, buildings, reserves, wildlife (ie attacking trees). one thing i'd really like to see is pushing enemies in a river which happens often in the battles in the books. or pushing enemies off a cliff like in the movie 300. 1v1 fights and pushing the losing enemy 1" doesn't quite cut it. this would probably include some kind of morale tests like in 40k.

Some of these are (or were) in the game. Others are perfectly appropriate for scenario-specific rules.

-defending archers firing volleys over friendly models with reduced accuracy, maybe with flaming ammunition in some rare cases

Something like this used to be possible, but was nerfed in the Hobbit version of the rules due to the belief it made archers too powerful.

-i'd also like to see specialized units to separate a warband of, say, uruk-hai from another by giving them a mission like holding a front, sapper missions

There is nothing stopping you from doing this in the rules.

-rough round/time limits when trying to achieve on objective aka the longer you take, the more enemies/modifiers there will be

Again, an appropriate scenario special rule.