I could simply just named like shield of arnor just vs spirit type only ... but then the shield is general use and none assure you will use specially vs spirits in a game...
Of course at Balin´s tomb and along moria gandalf wont use any spells, thats why balance giving glamdring +1A to him (since hes trying to get minimal spells in not to get the balrog´s attencion...

I could make to choose 1 spell of each per game

shield of anor or mighty blast so you can´t use both in a row cause would drain the wizard 2 much (hes not fighting a balrog in standart games anyway)

OR I could change shield of arnor to the following maybe...


alternative 2 for shield of arnor:

Shield of Anor: range: 2" Dice Score: 2+
Everytime the caster or any friendly model is wounded while within this protective shield
,roll a D6, on a 1 the wound is not prevented, on a 2+ it will prevent the wound and
remove 1 will point of the caster´s will pool, if the caster rans out of will, the shield will disappear.
While the shield stands, the caster cannot move, enemy models cannot go inside the shield area,
friendly models cannot fight inside the shield. If the shield is casted with enemy models less
than 2" away of the caster, the shield will push them away the minimum requirement
(this may allow enemy models to fall off cliffs or move into terrain pieces).

Why this?
Well look at the necromancer fight... he failed to prevent the brute force and he let his shield failled twice, so bad roll of 1s to prevent the wound :P

He does seem to fail in close combat.

One attack seems right for him. Instead though, he should be allowed to re-roll his dice on the roll to win the fight. This does not turn him into a killing machine but does manage to keep him as a competent fighter and not easy meat for your average orc.

_________________
My old WIP thread - http://www.one-ring.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16246&start=0

That's a pretty good idea.

Alternatively, what about something simple and along the lines of the movement limitation of archers? Instead of movement though, if he doesn't use attempt to use magic in a go then he is less distracted and can concentrate on the fight so he would get 2 attacks?

If he used magic (successfully or not) then he would only get one attack.

I like that idea!

What kind of points increase do you think he should have for this? Is 30 too much?

Way to much. 5-10 is the appropriate increase for an attack

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

Remains the same points perhaps or just the extra 5 points. Because in that rule its either fight with 2 attacks or magic which means he is almost handicapped. Its not the traditional 2 Attacks so isn't worth the usual +10 points, it costs for the extra Attack.

_________________
Go The Glorf!
My W.I.P - viewtopic.php?f=50&t=28062

All magic arguments and stuff aside, hes got to have 2 attacks. Its incredibly stupid.....that he does all this stuff in the 2 journeys and has 1 attack.

Furthermore I think Legolas and Gimli should have 3 regardless of their rules.

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

Agreed. Legolas and Gimli aren't powerful enough either, but I'm never going to be able to convince my friend that they should all increase in power too.

In reality, Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas should be able to move while killing and never have to stop and never fail a roll. They are just insane.

But because this is a game, you can't just have Evil automatically lose just because the heroes are so awesome. So you have to have a way to defeat them, thus not 3 attacks all around.
I do think Gandalf should have better fight stats, but perhaps all wizards should be treated like Ring Wraiths and lose a will point if they are in a fight, That would balance it out as some people would probably not like the idea of Gandy being a double threat able to use all his powers to take out the enemy heroes then step up and slaughter your warriors in melee.

_________________
http://www.sithious.webs.com

I mean....honestly......hes over 150 pts......a good amount over.....if they gave him 2 attacks, rightfully so, I would not care a bit.

First off, thats just for Gandalf the Grey....he cant do a sorcerous blast unless he gets a 5+
Thats his most offensive power.

Now, if you get Gandalf the White, lol, hes another 50 points more.

You really think that people are going to still throw him into combat with 2 attacks? They still want him doing magic and helping other things. Anywa a guy with fight 5 and defense 5 will never be a combat beast. Hes not even beating out a captain of men with a shield.

2 attacks for his price in my opinion, very warranted.

As for what you said Sithious....its simple.....you give Legolas 1 more attack, you bump him up more points......if you do that, lets say his new made up profile costs 100.

Between Aragorn Legolas, and Gimli, youre paying around 365 points.....THATS INSANE. In a made up scenario, or straight fight to the last man, yeah, theyre gonna be tough. But you play any of the books scenarios, and their army will break around them.

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

This is an interesting topic, I would not be bothered if they upped his attacks to 2, but I would rather have a banner effect on him, also there is a way round his lack of attacks, that would be a horse

_________________
http://grungehog.blogspot.co.uk/

We all know how easy it is to make profile changes, in many ways you would think that the rulebook would just have Man, Elf, Hobbit, Dwarf, Orc etc base profiles and you can make what you want by adding to stats however you please (with racial caps and hero caps in place) it would be very easy to do and points balanced. But since they didn't and instead chose to make name specific profiles, that is why it becomes hard to add a attack and 5 points to a profile and call it fair.
Even though everyone agrees that 1 attack is 5 points for the hero in question, that is not where the problems would arise.
You would have first the people saying that Gimli and lego should have 3 attacks each.. then you would have the Boromir and Aragorn players saying that those better fighters need to have 4 attacks... then soon no evil model can win a fight against these hero's (it would be a long shot) without a uber hero also... it would just shake the whole tree and soon everyone would have profile adjustment suggestions for their favorites like Lurtz or the (sand)Wich King or Eomer... it would get out of hand if not done in a way that is Cannon to the GW rules that can't be argued further. Not to mention that after making a change to one Wizard, would not the others step forward wanting more for their points?

So though I and many agree about the Gandalf attack increase, it is very likely to never be implemented in a easy manner. We should however suggest it to GW and maybe by next supplement we can see something, Gandalf was pretty impressive at Dol Guldor and I cant wait to see him at the Battle of 5 armies.

_________________
http://www.sithious.webs.com

I understand what you're saying and I think it always should have been this simple....
Gandalf two attacks
Legolas and Gimli 3
Aragorn and Boromir fight 7

Then how do you beat them people say? Hmmmm???? Well aragorn is the cost of an evil hero plus a good warband and boromir would be too. In fact boromir of minis tirith already is.

They won't do much in a 400 pt game or less besides be a burden to their army with good players.
And at higher levels evil will vastly outnumber them.

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

2 attacks would be enough I think, maybe increasing to 3 on turns when he has not used any magic (concentrating all his efforts on fighting).

_________________
My (more regularly updated) painting blog:
https://www.facebook.com/Pindergorn/

I like the idea of giving him an extra attack. If they did up his attack though he would probably be an auto-include in my armies then at a decent point level at like 600 points. He could be very useful in many situations, and you could be a little less scared every time he got charged. Oh well I guess.

_________________
Who ever said swimming was easier then running never swam a 400 I.M.

Yeah, we saw gandalf rockin the sword play in lotr. And indeed, maybe tolkein saw gandalfas a great fighter, but unless you want a gandalf that costs as much as sauron to field (which in actuality would be very accurate since they are both maia), gandalf cant have a high A.

On top of that, gandalf is such a potent spell caster that he shouldn't be trying to cross swords with baddies. Personally, in my armies gandalf either transfixes people who are then slaughtered by a heavy hitter, or he knocks people over with sorcerous blast. I think gandalf is great the way he is!

Also, recall that, yes, gandalf fought, but not as much as one may think. In the mines he chilled out in the back protecting the hobbits, he wasnt present for amon hen, he used a lot of magic to fight the balrog, he showed up at the end of the battle of helm's deep and cast a few spells, he directed the fighting at minas tirith, and when he was engaged he usually used magic (with exception to the two or three orcs he pummeled in the film). Gandalf didn't do as much fighting as we give him credit for. He was kind of like dr. Who. He ran around a lot, but he didn't fight often.

Loving the DW analogy. Makes sense actually.

My only problem with Gandalf's magic is that it isn't reliable enough. Sure immobilise almost always works, but things like sorcerous blast just never works for me. I was having an unlucky game in Moria at the time but it worked like once and didn't damage anyone. I would be more ok with his 1 attack if his magic was a bit more reliable. He's an insanely powerful wizard and he's just firing blanks a lot of the time.

Maybe it's just my style of play. For me, when gandalf is utilizing resources to cast a spell, I ensure it casts. For starters I use *at least* 2 will and then, if I have to, I augment with might. Sure, it doesn't always fire, but I would say the casting accuracy rate is above 75%. Honestly, especially in a fellowship warband, gandalf's might should be used to ensure his spells are cast successfully. No one else in the warband can cast, so if you're going to cast a spell, you better ensure that it works. There are lots of other heroes who can use might to call for heroic actions, gorn and boromir to name a few.

As for src blast. I never count on it to kill anyone. I use it to knock people over. Especially when they are converging on me. Lotr sbg magic is not dragon ball z stuff. No one is punching holes in mountains with sorc blast. Magic in lotr sbg reflects tolkeins subtle view of magic. It exists, but not to rip holes in goblin ranks with pillars of fire. Sorc blast is used to best effect by rearranging to battlefield. Blast a goblin back, and in to, another goblin or two. That is the real strength of sorc blast. If it kills a baddy, more power to ya, but killing a baddy should not be the reason to fire a sorc blast.

Also, Gandalf should rarely be in the front fighting. If he is engaged in combat then your enemy is way too close. Gandalf should be very mobile, and hopefully, unengaged. Lastly, should he be engaged use your fate. If gandalf loses and takes a wound, don't wait to use fate. When a hero has 1 wound left and 3 fate, that is not good. Unused fate cant save a dead hero. Burn up that fate, fall back and transfix! I know you weren't looking for gandy advice, but it just kind of fell out. I hope you are able to become a gandalf using master!

That's actually really good advice. I'm always too apprehensive to use his will and might, so maybe I should be a little more liberal with it and stop expecting instant deaths.