|
|
Post by mrweasely on Aug 1, 2006 20:09:25 GMT 1
This house rule adds realism, and hampers Free Peoples Military Victories, especially in Mordor.
It affects shadow strongholds: it doesn't allow "through traffic" until all the defenders of a stronghold are eliminated.
Moria, Morannon, and Minas Morgul are Stopper Strongholds. Having an army inside blocks an opposing army from passing through.
When a Stopper Stronghold is besieged, place a marker with the besieging army indicating which region the besiegers came from. In the future, the besiegers may not move or retreat to any region that wasn't adjacent to one of the regions their army units came from.
If the defending army in the stronghold is eliminated, this restriction is removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goodgulf the Grey on Aug 1, 2006 20:23:56 GMT 1
This house rule makes a ton of thematic sense!
|
|
|
|
Post by animalmother on Jan 5, 2007 6:53:33 GMT 1
I agree, Mrweasely's Stopper Stronghold amendment makes perfect geographical sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by magicgeek on Mar 26, 2007 4:07:27 GMT 1
If you play the game long enough, eventually the FSP completely stall at the Blue boys get aggressive.
Only then will this seem even vaguely important.
How come Aragorn can walk up to Minas Morgul (or Morranon, or Moria) besiege them, and walk past into Gorgoroth?
Why can they leave a warden behind as a tax collector?
How come the enormous Black Gate can have a free toll collector installed as the army goes straight past to Barad Dur for the win?
How come Rivendell can attack Moria, and then go to Lorien without actually fighting anybody?
It just dont make sense.
The problem is that the game is designed (and rightly so) to demonstrate how the Shadow attack the Free. None of the Free strongholds have this problem, so it mostly works fine.
It just sucks that these enormous barriers to movement in Tolkiens universe just aren't in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by perry on Nov 14, 2007 22:42:31 GMT 1
I agree, Mrweasely's Stopper Stronghold amendment makes perfect geographical sense. A note though: Any thoughts on rules for defender retreats from a Stopper Stronghold... Is it valid for a defending army to Retreat out of a Siege Battle in a Stopper Stronghold? Or even Move out of a Siege? The typical example would be Minas Morgul units , faced with a FP invasion from Ithilien, where the Shadow army units wants to Retreat/Move into Gorgoroth. Your thoughts? I think allowing for army units to slip out of a Siege, is a violation of some basic principle of the game. However, since you have may more experience, I'd like to hear your thoughts... |
|
|
|
Post by Goodgulf the Grey on Nov 15, 2007 3:07:07 GMT 1
I'm not sure what "Retreats from a Stronghold" means...
When an attack is declared the defender (in a Stronghold region)has two options (1) Withdraw into the Stronghold or (2) fight a battle in the open. If they choose option (2) then after any round of combat is completed the defender may retreat to an adjacent region. (ie Minas Morgal to Gorgoroth).
However, if option (1) is chosen then there is no battle and the defender is placed in the stronghold box and the attacker is placed in the region. From this position the defender may not retreat. They may only stay in the stronghold or attack the besieging army in a field battle. If they attack then after one round of combat they may retreat.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on Nov 15, 2007 4:45:09 GMT 1
It has always bothered me that Minas Morgul and the fort at the top of the winding stair were in the same region. Minas Morgul was constructed to a specification similar to Minas Tirith, but I get the impression it was out of ballista range of the winding stair. Meanwhile, it would seem pretty trivial to defend a narrow stairway going up an 8000 foot mountain. Not to mention the castle and giant monster at the top would only add to the defense.
Why are these the same region?
|
|
|
|
Post by perry on Nov 15, 2007 8:36:22 GMT 1
I'm not sure what "Retreats from a Stronghold" means... The rules that you refer to in your answer, are the original Stronghold/Siege Rules. My Question was, wheter the Stopper Strongholds rule, should alter the original Siege rules in any other way, then the one change you mentioned (attacking armies may not pass through a Stopper Stronghold until defenders are eliminated)? The example would be if Minas Morgul was attacked from Ithilien. Would it not be logical, if Shadow units moving from Gorgoroth, could move into the Stronghold (thus reinforcing it)? Also, it would be logical for the Defenders in a Siege Battle in a Stopper Stronghold (minas morgul again) , to have the option to Retreat out of the Stronghold region, to Gorgoroth, thus abandoning it... However logical, I do kind of feel that this makes Stopper Strongholds very (too?) strong. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Aragorn on Nov 15, 2007 8:52:12 GMT 1
I think stopper strongholds are really good idea.
It makes perfect geographical sense and it more logical (example: elves are attacking Moria from Lorien, and shadow army can come from dunland in stronghold to help with siege).
I agree, Stopper Strongholds are too strong. Shadow is already stronger in military, and with this Shadow will be too strong (It will be very hard to take Moria, Morannon and Minas Morgul)
I think and Mount Gudabad can be stopper stronghold. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Goodgulf the Grey on Nov 15, 2007 15:59:21 GMT 1
Perry,
Okay, I understand your question better now. I would say that any rules allowing re-enforcing or retreating from Stopper Strongholds would make them too strong and virtually eliminate any FP chance of Military Victory. Your questions make some thematic sense too but I think they would tilt the game balance too far in the Shadow's favor for defending these Strongholds.
Lord Aragorn,
I wouldn't consider Mt Gundabad a Stopper Stronghold since armies should be able to move around the Northern edge of the Misty Mountains.
|
|
