The One Ring
http://one-ring.co.uk/

Continuous Tactical Discussions
http://one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4352		 Page 41 of 44
Author:  whafrog [ Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
eorlen wrote:
im clueless on the use of grey company and RotN but yeah theres my 2 cents, and probably the most simple tactic possible


These are in the Ruin of Arnor sourcebook. You could use them in the same way.
Author:  Gildor Inglorion [ Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
Just curious... does anyone use mounted Rangers of the North when fielding Grey Company?
Author:  spuds4ever [ Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
Gildor Inglorion wrote:
Just curious... does anyone use mounted Rangers of the North when fielding Grey Company?


Looking at a lot of succesful GT lists, yes, they are often put on horses and if they were sold by GW, they'd sell like hotcakes but having to convert valuable metal models puts a lot of players off the idea.
Author:  RangerofTheNorth [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
been more than a week but I'll chime in on Rangers :) I use them regularly in my Minas Tirith force which consists of all spear models and a few fountain guard to shore up the center. If im facing a weak opposing army I'll put the Rangers as the front rank to help win the fights and use the WOMT supporting them from behind to boost the D6's. Ive played the Grey Company list 1x and it was horrendously effective, course a lot of that was owed to good dice rolls but the no bow limits and everyone have a spear was just nasty. Not the most durable when they loose the fight but they can really put the stomp on some Mordor Orcs and at least tie with Morrannons, and Uruks
Author:  RangerofTheNorth [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
Whats bothering me lately is the purpose of taking Swordsmen, for any race. What is the point when you can take a spearmen with shield and do a better job. Sure it costs more to build an all spear force but what do you guys think? I havent fielded a swordsmen for Gondor, or Elves or Orcs in a long time. Uruks, you are kind of stuck taking them but thats the way the army is designed you actually would want them in most cases as the front wall for your pikes.
Author:  The Horde Lord [ Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
RangerofTheNorth wrote:
Whats bothering me lately is the purpose of taking Swordsmen, for any race. What is the point when you can take a spearmen with shield and do a better job. Sure it costs more to build an all spear force but what do you guys think? I havent fielded a swordsmen for Gondor, or Elves or Orcs in a long time. Uruks, you are kind of stuck taking them but thats the way the army is designed you actually would want them in most cases as the front wall for your pikes.


Well, you could view it as a point saver. If you remove the spear from your front line you could probably squeese in a few extra guys.
Author:  RangerofTheNorth [ Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
The Horde Lord wrote:
RangerofTheNorth wrote:
Whats bothering me lately is the purpose of taking Swordsmen, for any race. What is the point when you can take a spearmen with shield and do a better job. Sure it costs more to build an all spear force but what do you guys think? I havent fielded a swordsmen for Gondor, or Elves or Orcs in a long time. Uruks, you are kind of stuck taking them but thats the way the army is designed you actually would want them in most cases as the front wall for your pikes.


Well, you could view it as a point saver. If you remove the spear from your front line you could probably squeese in a few extra guys.


see thats what I thought but 1 pt? im usually short by 7 or so, so if I dropped 2 spears from my normal list I could take another swordsmen, but loose the spears...not a win win for me. Dont get me wrong I display them and for huge games I drag out the swordsmen to boost my numbers but for 300pt and 500 pt games I'll never use them. I love that no-matter what happens on my side there will always be someone who can support the other.
Author:  whafrog [ Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
If you look at the latest Galadhrim PDF it seems GW might agree...you can take a shield, but then your elf blade becomes a hand weapon, so you might as well exchange it for a spear.
Author:  Mor-galad of Greenwood [ Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
The elf blade is part of the base profile for the Galadhrim warrior but it does not become a hand weapon; it can still be used as a two-handed weapon.
Author:  fritskuhntm [ Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
Mor-galad of Greenwood wrote:
The elf blade is part of the base profile for the Galadhrim warrior but it does not become a hand weapon; it can still be used as a two-handed weapon.

elven-blades cannot be used as 2handed weapon if the model also carry's a shield
Author:  SuicidalMarsbar [ Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
No one is posting a new Question for the discussion, so i will: What do you think of the betrayer? Do you think he could ever be used as effectively as the other named ringwraiths? Do you think his poison rule should be extended to other models such as giant spiders?

Discuss!
Author:  Pindergorn [ Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
SuicidalMarsbar wrote:
No one is posting a new Question for the discussion, so i will: What do you think of the betrayer? Do you think he could ever be used as effectively as the other named ringwraiths? Do you think his poison rule should be extended to other models such as giant spiders?

Discuss!


I've not used or faced him before but...

Isn't he a Haradrim Ringwraith? Extending his rule to non-Haradrim models with poison would detract from the theme. A better idea might be let him grant posion (the basic kind i.e. 1) to models which don't normally get poison e.g. Corsairs, Haradrim spears.
Author:  GothmogtheWerewolf [ Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
The Betrayer could be used with Serpent Riders for a cavalry poison attack squad?
Author:  Hilbert [ Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
That would be very useful... 8)
Author:  Raggbur [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
To answer your question, no, I don't think he's worth it. Go for tDM, The Undying, maybe tSL, or the Dwimmerlaik. But no, not this guy if you want an effective list
Author:  GothmogtheWerewolf [ Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
Raggbur wrote:
To answer your question, no, I don't think he's worth it. Go for tDM, The Undying, maybe tSL, or the Dwimmerlaik. But no, not this guy if you want an effective list


Maybe the Shadow Lord?, have you not heard, he's the best one in SBG.

EDIT IN RESPONSE TO RAGGBUR'S REPLY BELOW:I know you said the Shadow Lord was a good idea, just wondering about the word maybe, ity should bee definately
Author:  Raggbur [ Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
I said the Shadow Lord (tSL, sorry if that wasn't clear)
Author:  Rozinante [ Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
I am considering a list to make The Betrayer worth it. He could make Watchers of Karna so lethal. S2 bows mostly need to roll a 5 or 6 to wound. A reroll on 1 and 2 would mean that half of all missed rolls get a reroll. With accurracy of 3+, they are the Wood Elves of Harad, except with 2 real attacks instead of throwing daggers. Cheapest 2 attack elites in the game. With WoK as archers and Serpent Riders replacing normal Raiders, Betrayer helps his army do their job. I will test play this theory before investing in all that metal. Meanwhile, anyone actually used a Betrayer or fought one?
Author:  lorderkenbrand [ Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
The Betrayer is definitely worth considering! He's not worth leaving at the back with the archers though, get him near to or possibly into combat. He is a great team player, but if you want a hero hunter, the Knight of Umbar is the way to go.
Author:  Alexander [ Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Continuous Tactical Discussions
All I can say is PHALANX, PHALANX, PHALANX I find the best way is to have at least one solid phalanx of heavily armoured troops in your army. Then fill the 33% or your bow allowance any spare points then goes into cavalry provided you have a cavalry choice to take. Use your bowmen to pick off any units that could easily get behind your phalanx, use your cavalry to pick off warmachines and archers so they don't take apart your phalanx from afar. All enemy infantry will then have no choice but to face your Phalanx head on and if your cavalry end up surviving long enough the enemy will also have to worry about becoming trapped in between a hammer and anvil with bowmen firing at any unengaged models.
Page 41 of 44 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/