Guest Post: Army Tiers in MESBG (with MinutemanKirk!)

Hey Reader!

The following is a guest post from MinutemanKirk, one of the regulars on the blog, who wrote a very interesting post on tiers of armies in the Lord of the Rings side of the MESBG house (so there are no rankings of armies from The Hobbit in this list). We found it very insightful, and wanted to share it with you all here.

If you have questions about it, you can comment below (as I'm sure Minuteman Kirk will be following along), or he mentioned to me that you can reach out to him directly for more thoughts. Feel free to reach out to us on our Facebook page and we'll connect you with him.

And now, with no further ado, a ranking system for the Armies of the Lord of the Rings, courtesy of MinutemanKirk!

Editor's Note: MinutemanKirk wrote this piece prior to the recent FAQ/Errata changes on alliances, and subsequent FAQ/Errata changes-to-the-changes on alliances. If anything, this discussion is more timely given the current community discussion on alliances and the role of players vs. game developers when it comes to setting army lists.

Introduction

Before I begin, as a guest contributor a little background about myself will be in order. I’ve been wargaming for almost 20 years, co-authored the most recent edition of an extensive 15mm historical rules set (Road To War), and am working to pursue a Master’s in wargaming/strategic studies. I was instantly hooked on the Lord of the Rings SBG since about 2004 while participating in my first game: a 2000-point battle that came down to a handful of Gondorian warriors trying to get that last frustrating wound on Sauron with the Ring (the Dark Lord was ultimately defeated). My gaming journey reached a high point last year when I was able to participate in the 2019 NOVA Open, an event that not only solidified my passion for wargaming on a larger scale, but also increased my awareness of concerns I have with MESBG in its current form. Those concerns are ultimately what led me to write this piece.

Let me also say this piece is not intended to be an angry bittervet rant by any means. I always enjoy participating in MESBG games (including the old War of the Ring rules set), and it takes a quite a lot to burn me out. Furthermore, I was overjoyed when GW announced it was refreshing the range and have been – thus far – thrilled with the new supplements (the terrain alone is phenomenal!). This article is meant to bring awareness from an experienced wargamer’s position on the current state of faction power in the game without getting overly nitty-gritty on any disagreements I have with some mechanics or rules of the game.

One further disclaimer: I will be looking almost exclusively at the Armies of the Lord of the Rings and not considering The Hobbit armies. As I do not own the book and have rarely played or seen armies from The Hobbit book, I am not qualified to give my opinion on the armies found there. Not to mention I don’t own the book because I think Peter Jackson should never have made them the way he did, but that’s another story… In any case, the overall concerns I address here can easily be applied to similar factions in the Hobbit by those familiar with those armies.

Premise

When you boil the book down there are three basic tiers of a faction’s strength: first-rate, second-rate, and third-rate.

First-rate would be considered factions that are strong due to troop selections, heroes, and special abilities which enable them to be brought in their own right without the need (an important distinction) for allies while still being generally competitive.

Second-rate would be considered factions that may have multiple troop selections with sufficient heroes or special abilities that make them powerful enough to bring on their own, but too weak to be successful in most games without bringing allies.

Third-rate are lists that are too small or lacking sufficient heroes, troop selections, and abilities to bring on their own and would generally be considered reserved solely for use with another faction.

This power ranking could be further subdivided between factions and subfactions. Subfactions would be considered groups like Dunland, Sons of Eorl, Black Numenoreans, and others of that variety. Typically, they are of a different race than the “lead” faction, cannot be brought in the same army list the lead faction, or are seriously different thematically with the lead faction.

Note that my definition of strength is the ability of an army to be competitive in both formal and informal formats against “general” army lists. Some factions are obviously better for “meta” competitive play, fighting specific factions (the new Dunland models against Rohan for instance), or for specific scenarios (who wants to fight Rivendell with Gil-Galad in Contest of Champions? Anyone?). My intention is not to provide a comprehensive list of scenarios where a faction would be stronger than others here or there (such an undertaking would be quite substantial), but rather, and again, looking at the general viability of any given faction.

To be clear, some factions will naturally be stronger – generally — than others due to inherent qualities. Khazad-Dum dwarves will never be as good at securing objectives as Rohan because they have no mounted units and dwarves move more slowly. But dwarves have the tradeoff of being incredibly difficult to kill and having great close combat stats as well as an incredibly powerful faction ability. Some players may like bringing dwarves for thematic play or because they plan to counter mobility through the use of shooting, be it bows or siege equipment, without considering them for the sole purpose of capturing objective. In any case, the player is able to use a first-rate faction with either Rohan or Khazad-Dum without the need for subfactions or allies. Yet that is not the case with all factions.

I understand the complexity of producing models based on demand and models based on gaming. A company does have to make money after all! The recent release of the Rohan At War supplement has proven a boon for GW, not just because Rohan is a popular faction based on influences from the movie and increasingly strong army lists, but also because of new units and terrain they released simultaneously. Indeed, I am greatly encouraged by GW’s choice of bringing Dunland from a third-rate subfaction to a least a second-rate, if not first-rate choice. This release was an excellent example of producing figures for both gaming and demand: Many players enjoy playing and wanted to purchase additional Rohan heroes and troops (demand), and some players wanted larger lists for existing factions or subfactions (Isenguard/Dunland). But with Dunland moving to a second (first?) rate faction all on their own, they have also created a new demand for them (I saw many social groups saying how the new Dunland models were sold out in a matter of hours). I hope that this success will encourage GW to continue that pattern of producing units to drive interest. In other words, GW can artificially create interest in unused or rarely used factions simply by improving the quality of those faction choices and the unique flavor they bring. That will have a trickledown effect on future tournaments as well in terms of variety. I remember seeing at least 10 or 12 Rivendell armies at the 2019 NOVA Open while also remembering seeing only a single Corsair army.

This brings me to the main crux of my concerns: there are currently large gaps in multiple factions that essentially prohibit players from wanting to collect the armies for competitive play (note: not *meta* play) while simultaneously encouraging players to purchase those armies (if only by virtue of being listed in the army book). I believe the new take on Legendary Legions has made great strides in addressing some of these imbalances as well as introducing new flavors (looking at you Dunland), but I am concerned that it may not be applied equally to all the remaining factions. I also realize some factions will never rise above their current level due to game design. The Fellowship being a prime example of a faction that cannot be expanded, but others are similarly constrained). Additionally, there is an argument to be made for choosing a faction because they have expansive army lists and others don’t. My intention is not to suggest all factions have equal ability to use pure faction lists with the same plethora of troop choices as say Mordor or Gondor, but rather that making small changes to existing factions, adding a small number of heroes or troop selections, or changing minor stats on a handful of units could bring a revival to multiple factions without breaking current game mechanics.

I should also note, that the following faction ranking is assumed for games of 600 points and over. The list changes dramatically for games in the 450 or less range as it severely limits the interaction of large units or heroes and rank-and-file units.

The Substance

Before I discuss in depth individual factions in need of an overhaul (one in particular), I should list where all the factions stand. Note this is in no particular order of strength, the last thing I want to do is say which faction is “best”!

First-Rate

• The Shire. This may now be a first-rate army with the recent hero additions, but I’m still skeptical of this being a true first-rate army without bringing some power units from allies. (I basically consider this a good version of Goblin Town minus a monster.)
• Numenor.
• Minas Tirith.
• The Fiefdoms. Ironically, a first-rate army composed of a whole bunch of second-rate armies
• The Dead of Dunharrow.
• Rohan.
• Rivendell.
• Lothlorien.
• Khazad-Dum.
• Barad-Dur.
• Angmar.
• Mordor.
• Moria.
• Isengard.
• The Serpent Horde.
• Far Harad.

Second-Rate

• The Fellowship. A bit niche (you can never have more than 11 models!), but the only reason this isn’t a first-rate army is the total lack of troop selection.
• The Rangers. 
• Arnor.
• Fangorn. 
• The Misty Mountains. 
• The Easterlings.
• Variags of Khand.
• Corsairs of Umbar.

Third-Rate

• Wildmen of Druadan.
• Wanderers in the Wild.
• Sharkey’s Rogues.

Having listed where I believe each faction is, let us now consider how, or if, second and third-rate armies could be made competitive *without allies*. Some of them simply can’t be: Wanderers of the Wild might as well be called “everything else” (although why Murin and Drar aren’t in any dwarf list is beyond me…), The Fellowship, Wildmen, and Sharkey’s Rogues can really only be expanded or made competitive through alliances. The Misty Mountains and Fangorn are a bit niche due to being entirely comprised of monsters but with the new Fangorn heroes, GW seems to be trying to make them more interesting to take at least. For the time being though, they will be strongest when used as allies. This leaves the Rangers, Arnor, Easterlings, Corsairs, and Khand.

With the Legendary Legion, GW made the Rangers more competitive but, more importantly, demonstrated interest in expanding army choices while maintaining thematic elements. I doubt the Rangers will ever be a go-to faction due to a lack of basic warriors and expensive “heroic warriors”, but I am encouraged that GW brought them into the realm of playable factions.

Arnor’s lack of cavalry and a reliable killing hero currently keeps them from being highly competitive, but their current hero and faction abilities jive well with the rest of the army build through having courage buffs for low courage warriors. Even then, by trading courage for a higher fight yet still being one point cheaper than a similarly equipped warrior of Minas Tirith you still come out ahead (in my opinion). One easy way to make them competitive would be to introduce cavalry, and a combat-focused named hero, which would be relatively easy as there is sufficient history and scale of the Northern Kingdom to be able to insert a unique hero or two. Especially considering captains of Arnor are equal to named heroes from other factions, a couple of fight 6, three attack killing fellas or a bonus buffing their frontline infantry wouldn’t be a stretch.

In full disclosure, I’m an Easterling player. I owned a pack from way back when they were all metal and when A Shadow in the East dropped, I instantly purchased a full-fledged army. Easterlings are also relatively balanced when it comes to troop selections: a Minas Tirith copycat (minus the heroes, but more on that in a second), you have solid infantry backed with cavalry, banners, warpriests, access to a drum, and a couple of unique hero options through Dragon Knights. So why do they lack a presence in competitive games? A near total absence of reliable killing power.

Without multiple heroes who have staying power (Dragon Knights blow away if you sneeze on them), a lack of access to strength four warriors, and no ‘killing” upgrades for anything (i.e. no lances for cavalry), the Easterlings can have a hard time running up the kill count. Unlike Minas Tirith with access to multiple heroes capable of winning the game by themselves, the Easterlings are stuck with Amdur who, while terrific, isn’t all-powerful (especially with no way to get to defense 7). Now yes, a standard pike block can get you lots of dice especially when you have a banner around to help win the fight, but a near total lack of power units really hurts them as a faction. I understand if GW wouldn’t want to add more named heroes for a faction with such limited lore exposure, but I think they missed the boat with their inspiration of “Cataphracts.”

Historically, Cataphracts were a bane of infantry. The sheer weight from a rider armed with a lance (or other long pokey sticks before stirrups became a thing) combined with strategically placed heavy armor on the mount created a force that was all but impossible for infantry to resist. Yet instead of GW giving Cataphracts a higher base strength or some kind of charging rule, they decided to give them… a defense bonus. Only when in base contact. I don’t know how many games you have played with cavalry, but I haven’t played a single one where I can remember where 3+ cavalry models remain in base contact after the first turn of combat. Is it useful for countering heavy bow armies? Meh, arguably. But GW had (has) a tremendous opportunity for some historically-inspired and unique rules.

Before discussing some recommendations for rules, I need to explain what makes themed rules both interesting and balanced. First, a rule should be unique. The whole point of bringing certain troop types or heroes over others are because of unique rules they have. Second, in order for a unique rule to be balanced, it must have sufficient pros and cons. By con I don’t necessarily mean a debuff to the unit, rather it could be a rule with very limited application.

Some of the possibilities that would be historically relevant to Cataphracts would be combining the strength of the horse and rider when charging infantry, ignoring defensive bonuses for infantry when charging them (thus the target must rely on their natural defense), or just buffing them to strength four and giving them a “trample” type rule against infantry (think a mini-mumakil, which would also harmonize with Khand chariot alliances). This might require a point’s change to the units, but I’m okay with that. Any of these rules would give players reason to invest in the rather mediocre cavalry again (arguably the weakest hitting cavalry in the game), be unique among current rules, and not be game-breaking (only works on the charge and only while charging infantry. Maybe the lack of killing power will be addressed in a future Legendary Legions or through new unit profiles. 

To be sure, players could get some help from Khamul with a fell beast for killing power while remaining a “pure” faction, but without a faction rule change, profile change, or new kill-all-the-things special rule, the Easterlings will be relegated predominantly to reinforcements for other factions. Which is a real shame, because I think that not only are they a terrific looking army that many players would enjoy collecting, but also because I think it’s healthy from a gaming perspective to have a well-balanced (read: like Minas Tirith) evil army to choose from. And no, I’m not suggesting there aren’t other well-balanced armies, but there is a lack of such a balance of evil armies using men.

Did I spend extra time on the Easterlings? Yes. But the same principles – taking inspiration from historical sources or book cannon – can be applied to other factions needing a boost to make them competitive.

Corsairs I have seen played in tournaments with some success, and they have enough killing power, unique units, and fun rules to keep them entertaining to play even if you can’t reliably win games due to a lack of cavalry and low defense. However, Corsairs are also unique in that they can bring the Dark Marshall, Black Numenoreons, and Hasharin’s as part of their army list. Now does that make them a “pure” Corsair list as part of my criteria? Not exactly. However, the additional units the Corsairs can take fills many of the gaps a Corsair-only list would have and doesn’t require them to take allies (unlike say, the Easterlings and Khand despite how well they fit together). I’ve listed them here as a second-rate army from the perspective of playing as a Corsair-only list. I’m of the opinion that most of their problems disappear with the inclusion of the previously stated units.

Last but not least, Khand. I rather suspect their weaknesses are pretty obvious: unreliable infantry and cavalry due to lack of defense and wargear options, and no named heroes, spellcasters, and practically no wargear (not even a banner) to add flavor. But what they do have? Chariots. Those crazy fun units can win a game in a turn with some luck depending on opponents and your dice rolling. Khand makes a great army to bring with the Easterlings, as previously mentioned, to boost killing power. But like the Easterlings, I don’t expect Khand to be given a lot of new named heroes or units. I would love to see one named hero in a chariot with some fun rule to go with it, something affecting just chariots, but I’m not getting my hopes up. With the Dunland release though, perhaps GW has plans that could make them stand on their own feet.

Conclusion

The best and most profitable miniatures games are those that provide balanced, interesting, and unique capabilities for every army it produces figures for. That is not to say every army must be equally potent, but if a company produces figures that aren’t competitive on their own merits it does a great disservice to the community as a whole. I believe that many of the weaknesses currently seen in MESBG can be addressed relatively easily (even if it takes time as a result of sculpting and producing new figures), and a few quality of life changes could really improve everyone’s gaming experience.

I would also encourage GW not to be afraid of amending unit profiles and faction abilities through errata and, when the errata list gets too long, releasing another version of the rules. They already do this in other ranges like Warhammer, and while I dislike having to purchase rulebooks over and over again, this method has the tremendous advantage of allowing responsive changes to unbalanced game mechanics and factions. 

Speaking of quality of life changes, I'm still waiting for GW mounted versions of heroes/warriors, but that probably requires another blog post...