To begin with, some of the factions are not meant to be competitive in the first place. I do not think that anyone actually believes that Numenor was conceived as a viable competitive option by the game developers? Furthermore alliances are fortunately or unfortunately an integral part of the game, thus an army should also be judged in accordance to how well it performs when allied with others; how valuable its units are to allies, etc. etc.

A point for Rohan: if one spams Helmingas and takes Erkenbrand, then suddenly his basic (relatively cheap) troops are S4, C5; a quite formidable sight to behold.

About High Elves: I thought the Noldorin Exiles are a capable unit. Maybe a High Elf player can enlighten us.

Alliances are indeed an integral part of the game, its what allows us to field those epic alliances in the game where rohan rides to gondor's aid or where haldir's elves help out at helms deep (in the film anyhow).

That said, lots of people like taking single faction armies for theme purposes or like to keep alliances strictly along those formed in the story. Others are quite happy to take a complete mix of everything, making up their own background for why these factions form or simply not caring.

The way you make your army themed or not is completely up to you but for the purposes of this discussion I needed something to divide up the factions into categories. I pretty much just wanted to know which forces people considered weakest before throwing in allies to tighten everything up.
Granted, Numinor was probably never designed to fight without elves but it would be pretty damn impressive seeing someone victorious with their single page of profiles. I believe that consists of Elendel, Isildor, Captains and well Numinorian warriors.

Perhaps it all boils down to the fewer units you have the less competitive you can be?
I do think that Numinor may be the exception though as most of the other factions have more than 3 heroes and one warrior class.

Also had forgotten to add wanderer's in the wild to the poll. Apparently by editing it I have reset the damn thing. Sorry
Current count was:
Numinor: 6
The Shire: 5
Rohan: 4
Rivendel: 3
Eastern Realms: 2
Iron Hills: 1
Mirkwood: 1
Lothlorion: 1
Angmar: 1
The forces of the Goblin king: 1

WOTR was indeed ridiculous, but I have already vented my anger else where. I wouldn't mind the warbands if they were at a max of 20 followers, or perhaps horde armies such as goblins could field more followers.

Armies like The Shire, Wanderes in the wild, and Numenor are not really meant to be competetive armies, they are there simply for the purposes of playing out thematic scenarios, or just bolstering current forces. Sure you could play an army of them, but I wouldn't include them in this poll simply because they are not designed to work as armies. Also Mirkwood and Lothlorien are one cohesive army.

Well I have to admit I have seen both the shire and a wose army from the wonderer's do pretty well on the board, woses are very easy to underestimate.
Its certainly looking like Numinor isn't really considered a faction due to the lack of options so perhaps its best to ignore it for now.

Mirkwood and Lothlorien I feel were combined to save having to write the entries for wood elves in the book twice but if people want to select them both in the poll they have the option to

I think that would be a wonderful idea, idk why GW didn't do that as its that way in 40k for example (squad size i mean).



High Elves were my initial army when the game started, so I still field them on occasion. They fare decently well, its really their lack of troop options that bite them. Everything whafrog mentioned is absolutely correct, they just haven't been updated to evolve with the game.

If anyone has played 40k for instance and you have that one faction that hasn't had a codex update for the new core rules in a LONG time then they are tipically less competetive, thats where the High Elves are. Sure they are good troops and now have a powerful cavalry unit but they are forced to very small numers of troops by the warband rules and the point costs of their effective heroes (beyond the sons of Elrond).

Look at any other major "faction" within LOTR and you have far more troop options. High Elves have plenty of heroes (again nearly all costing major points) but very few soldiers.

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

The Shire (obviously), and I also reckon Numenor is pretty rubbish. Sure, Numenor has decent warriors, but only two named heroes and not many options means they're not very good. They could probably use an update. As others have said, the High Elves have also been hit by the fact that they haven't been updated.

Arnor isn't a very strong army either, with their incredibly low Courage (especially if you consider they were supposed to fight Angmar).

I also think Harad isn't a particularly strong force (unless you bring a Mumak!). Their troops all have either spears or bows, which have in general been nerfed in terms of usefulness.

_________________
See my WIP thread here. viewtopic.php?f=50&t=25624

I don't know why people are mentioning High Elves or Numenor, both really solid armies with access to some of the best heroes in the game! Their issue, particularly with Numenor is that they have been unsupported by GW with expansions to their army lists. Despite this they have good solid troops that are skilled, reliable and well equipped! I would term both these armies as safe tactical bets.

The Shire is a plum example of an army at a tactical disadvantage in that it has no warriors or heroes with a fight above 3, and no spear support, oh and also it can field a maximum of 5, yes 5 companies! And to add insult to injury, its greatest hero can't strike blows if he wins a fight!

I find that High Elves are actually very competitive if you choose the right heroes and deployment and such all goes the right way.

Glorfindel on Asfaloth is more than worth his points, as he can mash anything. So are Elrond and Gil-Galad.

Elrond is a powerful prospect on the battlefield as he is both very scary and can do serious damage. He can nature's wrath anything that causes a problem and then walk in and finish them off. Some people think that he is over priced, but I think that he is not too bad.

Gil-Galad is capable of killing almost anything that is up to double his points, however, it is useful to have elrond or a high elf stormcaller around to compensate for his lack of fate. He has to make sure he wins the fight against monsters or he will be hurled away from the battle (noone wants to face him 2 turns in a row). He is able to hold his own with sauron in a duel and can even kill a Balrog, as he has more might to win the fight, and +1 means only 5/3 to wound a model about 3x his pts value. The twins are beasts, and have 3A unless mounted, and heavy armour is not amazing on them, as if one of them dies, the other one has D4 regardless of armour.

Gildor is good, as he is cheap (ish (for high elves)), but is very squishy due to low defence and fate, but his magic is quite effective and his upgrade is invaluable to wood elves, as they really need to be able to out-manoevre people to slaughter them in a battle.

However, if you are not taking Wood Elves, Erestor is a far better option IMO, as he has high defence and fate values and can re-roll failed To Wound rolls when not using his 2 Handed blade. However, both heroes have less might than a captain, but for 5 more points. Captains are very overpriced but still good in some situations as D6 or 7 can come in handy.

High Elves lack cheaper heroes and troop types. Troops like in the early stages of Third Age Total War campaigns would make them a much more viable option. Maybe elven rangers too?

Also, If they were given some 2A troops and pikes, they would be almost unstoppable. Elrond or Gil-Galad leading an Elven Phalanx would be really cool. Maybe that is why GW do not give us High Elf pikemen, as elves never used phalanxes.

If any one has any more questions about High Elves, feel free to ask.

Before someone accuses me of going off-topic and just doing a faction analysis, I was merely giving my opinions as answers to previous and future questions all in one go, and saying myself that High Elves are a good faction if played rightly.


Now, my opinion on Rohan.

I have a friend who frequently plays an all mounted Rohan force.
He often plays this force:
Eomer, KotP, Armoured horse
12 RoR

Captain of Rohan, Horse
12 RoR

It is very tough to beat as they are nigh impossible to catch and can shoot you to bits all day long. When they do charge, Eomer can wound High Elves and Uruk pikes/ crossbows on a 4+ (not good for such expensive troops) and so we get slaughtered at long range (100% bow limit at so few pts means elves have too few archers to do damage) and, when they charge, Eomer is a beast (He once Killed Gil-Galad in one turn) and each rider has 2As, even though they are only 3 or 4 pts more expensive than a high elf.

So, now you see my point. Rohan is amazing if all mounted and at low pts.

Infantry, however, not so good. However, Helmingas are amazing with shields and when supported by allied Wood Elves with spears, as S4 and F5 and 2As are amazing!

See? Any faction can be competitive and even overpowered if played in the right way and with the right army list.

I have never played against or with Numenor or the Shire, or the Wonderers in the Wild, so I cannot give opinions on them.

Thanks to anyone who can be bothered to read my ridiculously long post,

LordElrond

P.S. : Ifyou have any questions please ask

EDIT: In the end, I chose Numenor and the Shire in the poll becuase of the lack of warbands you can take for a swarm army and the high costs in £s for the cheapest troops in the game. Also, Numenor are very tactically disadvantaged although they have 2 heroes. Maybe they should have been in the same list as Arnor like Harad and Umbar are and like in TATW?

When people say Numenor is disadvantaged and all I think we need to define what it is we are talking about here. Are we

A) Speaking of EVERY single LOTR group that actually has some models to represent them?
-or-
B) Only speaking on forces GW actually made into a FACTION that could be concieved and played as such.

If A then of course Numenor has major disadvantages but its an unfair comparison because you have groups like the woses, army of the dead, and Ents/Eagles that are part of a larger "faction" in the SBG.

If B then Numenor, the Shire (because of Warband rules), and Ents/Eagles are not full-factions, think of these more like in WOTR where there are allyable groups that are not (according to the main rules) playable factions.

Edit: For myself I am speaking from the point of B, fully developed, playable factions such as : High Elves, Wood Elves, Dwarves, Rohan, Isengard, Mordor, Moria, Gondor.
Groups such as the Shire, Numenor, Dol Amroth, Ents/Eagles, Goblin Town are not fully developed factions in the GW game. (Arnor & Angmar are borderline for myself personally)

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

LordElrond, Great post mate. After identifying which factions were thought the weakest I was going to post a thread devoted to discussing their tactics and list building to make the most of them.
Certainly agree with both your thoughts on high elves and rohan, rohan in particular now being a missile based army.

James R, For the purposes of this thread column B, I've just gone along the categories in the source books, so Fiefdoms include army of the dead, Numinor is 4 choices, Mordor and Gondor have next to everything options wise. Dividing the categories further like in Legions would take forever to discuss and I really just wanted an idea of people's thoughts.

How do you mean a fully developed faction though?
Why are ent armies or great goblin armies not to be considered armies in their own right?
Is it just their lack of a selection of different heroes or warriors?

A lot of discussion here seems to be boiling down to, if you don't have new or elite classes of warriors you are un-competitive. While I agree that more options equals more versatility I don't necessarily think this is a nail in the competitive coffin.
Numinor is perhaps the most extreme example and then its mostly because there are very few special abilities it has. Decent fight value troops, a magic sword and magic ring, not much else.

In any case it appears that the least competitive armies are: Numinor, The Shire, Rohan, High Elves (very few votes but half this thread has been about them).

Sitting in the middle the odd vote has gone towards: The Iron Hills, The Wood elves, Harad, Angmar, The eastern kingdoms, Arnor and the Goblin King's army.

Presumably leaving: Isengard, Gondor, The Fiefdoms, Umbar, the wanderers in the wild, Moria and the armies of Azog as being thought of as the most competitive.


I think its probably best to start a new thread discussing the best ways of using the least well thought of armies. Would it be better to do one thread for all or have one for each faction?
Really looking forward to playing with Rohan and High Elves again to see how things have changed. Anyone else out there feel like readying an underdog army for a tourney?

Thanks, glad to have helped with all the time it took to write that post.


You could start a new one for each one, or use the Continuous Tactical Discussions thread or make one like it. Not sure which is best. What does everyone else think?




I feel like playing SBG and using my elves again but sadly I won't be able to as I'm going to Italy for two weeks on Thursday. Never been to a tournament. I'd like to though. Are there age restrictions on any of them?

For myself I think the thought of a "fully developed faction" comes from my previous experience with other strategy games. Mech Warrior Dark age/Age of Destruction, Star Wars Minis, 40k, Pirates (by Wizards I believe), Bolt Action. All these games had Complete Faction that had ample HQ and Troop choices to field large ranges of units, and they had sub-factions with only a few heroes/commanders and units. Numenor has 3 Command options, and 1 troop choice, clearly not enough for a stand-alone army. Ents have 1 troop and 1 HQ, Eagles have the same.

High Elves only make the cut for myself into a "full faction" because of the number of heroes with their 2 troop choices (and GW has focused on them so much in the past in articles etc).

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

As that Sage Wiseman Harry Hill says "There's only one way to find out, FIGHT!".

Seriously, some one try a points battle between the Shire and Numenor! I Know who my moneys on, and its not the Stumpies from Munchkin Town!

LordElrond I don't think tournaments have age restrictions, but it is always better to verify before going to one.

I think Angmar is a fully fledged faction, and I find it an extremely interesting one. Arnor is competitive but from what I am aware offers only a single viable playing style (Grey Company).

Only reason high elves came up so much is because 1 or 2 people said they were rubbish at the start and everyone else came to sing their praises because elves are a solid, solid, army, who actually have 5 troop types once you've taken Gil Galad and Gildor: Wood Elf warriors, Noldorian exiles, High Elf warriors, Rivendell Knights, and King's Guard.

That said, in general I have always believed that good is generally underpowered, the fluff barriers are more prominent when trying to build an army, and no 'dirty tricks' like fury, shades, or super op uniuts like Reavers are available to good. Also most good models have these sort of 'added' abilities or stats that you will never need but still end up paying extra for; examples include the wood elf sentinel's bow, if bows were optional people could make whole armies of sentinels, 2 attack wood elves that can cast sick ass spells. The throwing weapons on iron guards are also widely unnecessary, i'd rather pay 12 points for just the strength 4 dwarf with two attacks. Evil on the other hand have units like watchers of karna who only cost 9 points, have like 3 special rules that are obviously not factored into the points cost AND 2 attacks.



Yeah I am actually trying to work out how I can make a mildly competitive army based on Gandalf's defence of Minas Tirith at the battle of Pellenor Fields. The army is for the Longbottom Carnival in London next month, in which oaths have been replaced by 'carnival traits' that boost the efficiency of a single unnamed hero, hence why I am fielding a king of men in place of someone like Cirion. Here is it's current incarnation:

Gandalf the White on Shadowfaxmachine
Pippin, Knight of the Citadel

King of Men (had spare points, he will be representing some noble from minas tirith)
7 WoMT with spear and shield
4 rangers of gondor with spear

Malbeth (representing the people from the house of healing)
8 Warriors of arnor
4 rangers of arnor with spear

Grimbold
12 helmingas with shield

750pts exactly. I know the Arnor contingent doesn't 'fit in' but it will look in place considering all my wariros of arnor are converted minas tirith chaps, and I think the justification that Malbeth and his mates represent the guys from the houses of healing in Minas Tirith. Yeah I know Grimbold wasn't in the walls but whatever, I have spent over a third of my points on Magneto on a horse, I NEED something mildly competitive

@LordElrond: There are no age restrictions at these events, there has been a young chap of about 13-15 (I think) who everyone treats as an equal at both the community tournaments I have been to. That said, it is totally reasonable to not feel comfortable in an environment with uni students and grown men intensely rolling dice all over the place, but everyone who plays the game shares the same enthusiasm for LoTR so I wouldn't be concerned. If you find an event near you try and get yourself to it! Here is the link to the UK community championship:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/472128942815892/662811470414304/?notif_t=group_comment_reply

I think high elves are competitive in higher points games, like 1000 where they can have their bigger heroes without too much penalty to numbers.

The reverse can be said about numenor, I have seen them do quite well at lower points cost, about 500 points. The list I saw had Ellendil, Isildur, 24 warriors 1/3 bows, 1/3 spears, 1/3 normal and one banner. The two heroes did very well, because large spell casters were not very common at so low points, so they would only be immobilized once or twice a game, and when they weren't they would slaughter soldiers, Isildur was on a horse and would go behind the battle line with the ring and wreak havoc while Ellendil would heroic fight everything often slaying 2-4 models a turn. It was a battle of attrition more often than not, but the strength of the heroes proved too great most of the time.

Anyway I didn't mean to reopen the high elf thing, but I wanted to put my opinion in.

_________________
Fight! Fight to the last man!

If this was to be our end then I would have them make SUCH AN END as to be worthy of remembrance

Numenor and the High elves both suffer the same problem in that they have not had anything added or any rules updated since they were first released, whilst the dwarves (for some reason) got pretty much all the attention for good forces , whilst evil has generally had a lot more added.
However, that does not mean they are that bad, yes the numenorians are an under dog, but that's mainly as their is no hero with a cost between Isildur and his father, Elendil I would say was 10-20pts over costed and they have only one troop choice, with high elves until recently being the only other army in this condition, who have by far some of the far more powerful heros, but got screwed over with storm callers (seriously, Strengthen will? I don't think I have ever known that to be used, renew would have been in keeping yet far more usefull).
I would say that Numenorians are a proper army, and I would point to the fact I've been using a last alliance list and the only army I have real problems with are dwarves.

[quote="Zarathustra Suicuine"]Numenor and the High elves both suffer the same problem in that they have not had anything added or any rules updated since they were first released, whilst the dwarves (for some reason) got pretty much all the attention for good forces , whilst evil has generally had a lot more added.

Actually the High Elves have had quite a few heroes released, off the top of my head:
Gildor Inglorian, Elrond Master of Rivendell, Elladan and Elrohir, Arwen, Cirdan, High Elf Storm Caller, Erestor and 2 versions of Glorfindel, Lindir and the Rivendell Knight Captain.

So in what way can we say that they are undeveloped on the hero front having access to at least 15 hero profiles?

OK they have had only two further troop types made available "Noldorian exiles" and "Knights of Rivendell", which are all excellent elite troops, but very rounded and in no way under powered!