So...We're Getting New Battlehosts!

 

Hey Reader!

In case you hadn't heard the news from last month, word on the street is that we're getting new battlehosts for Middle Earth! So I figured, might as well dredge up the old articles about potential new battlehosts for the Forces of Good and Forces of Evil that we made like 4 years ago, and see how well we did!

Now as a quick reminder, these articles were written back in 2022, when we were getting new supplements every other year, along with new sculpts, profiles, and heroes, and while the new edition has given us some new sculpts (new Rohan warriors/horses do look good!), it's not as common as it was back in those days that we get new kits. And since we haven't gotten any new battlehosts since then, technically the details are still mostly the same from these articles from yesteryear in terms of which kits might quickly become new ones for us.

So while these article are old, let's see how well they did!

Top 5 New Battlehosts for Forces of Evil

Hey Reader!

Just like in our last post, a quick caveat before we start: no, we don't have special knowledge about what is going to come down the line from GW, so don't take any of this as, "these are coming in the future," because we know absolutely nothing, :P

But like we mentioned before, I think these are helping to bring people into the hobby, and I think the more ways we can make joining the hobby and playing the game easier and simpler for people, the better it is for all of us.

And with Mordor and Isengard coming to the line (and excellent choices here: both of these are great), this is a great start as they are both iconic armies from the films and books. But what other factions would be good to add? Let's take a look.

We will consider three factors: ease of packaging (so plastic models will have an advantage over resin and metal models as they are going for all plastic battlehosts), popularity (as creating a battle host for, say, The Wildmen of Druadan, may not be worth the investment), and driving sales (it should help to sell models that aren't selling out on their own).

#5: Barad-Dur

Photo Courtesy of GamesWorkshop

So it's worth noting, as I mentioned in my discussion about the current battlehosts, that you can technically do this faction already with the Mordor one (and that's also why it's so low on this list), but hear me out as to why they should make this one a separate one.

First off, a plastic Sauron would just be great. Full stop. And with the Rings of Power show having wrapped up its first season, I think it's worthwhile for us to get a new Sauron. But that's also a big undertaking and would require some investment, which I'm not sure that the company would do.

Second issue is that, again they've already got one: why not just release a new Sauron model and call it a day? There's little reason to create a battlehost that is exactly like the Mordor one but with the heroes changed out, so I don't see them going this route, awesome as it would be.

So while it's definitely possible to make a Barad-Dur battlehost, and if they want one to stand opposite Rivendell, this is a good option. But unless they release a new plastic Sauron, I don't see this battlehost happening.

Top 5 New Battlehosts for Forces of Good

Hey Reader!

Quick caveat before we start: no, we don't have special knowledge about what is going to come down the line from GW, so don't take any of this as, "these are coming in the future" please!!! We love the team, we trust the team, and we don't want to get in trouble, :P

That being said, I think these would also help to bring people into the hobby, and I think the more ways we can make joining the hobby and playing the game easier and simpler for people the better, and battlehosts will undoubtedly help get new players into the game.

And with Minas Tirith and Rohan coming to the line, this is a great start as they are both iconic armies from the films and books. But what other factions would be good to add? Let's take a look.

We will consider three factors: ease of packaging (so plastic models will have an advantage over resin and metal models), popularity (as creating a battle host for, say, Sharkey's Rogues, may not be worth the investment), and driving sales (it should help to sell models that aren't selling out on their own).

#5: The Fiefdoms

Fiefdoms is slowly coming together!

Now this would be an AWESOME battlehost: a group of six knights led by Imrahil supported by a mix of Lossarnachs, Clansmen, Men-at-Arms, and some rangers? This would be incredible and beautiful and just everything that you'd love to see from a battlehost. And with them combining the sets for Lossarnachs and Clansmen, this is easier than ever before. 

But this is also the issue: this is a lot of non-plastic minis in a single set, and there's no living way that this makes a good profit for GW. So while I think it would be among the most attractive of the battlehosts (and even a seasoned player like me would buy it, just because the savings on it would be too good to pass up), it's also one of the reasons it will probably never happen. So I place it here.

Ranking the New Battlehost Boxes (After The Rules Release)!

Good morning gamers,

When the new Battlehost boxes were announced back in August, Centaur wrote an article that evaluated which would win if they were pitted together. On September 7, 2022, we got the free-to-download "Quick Rules" for the main rules and these Battlehosts and I wanted to both comment on these documents and see how these truncated rules change the ranking of the Battlehosts (in my opinion). Let's dig in!

The Downloadable Rules

Photo Credit: Warhammer Community

First off, we need to view the main rules supplement - great job, Middle-Earth team, for distilling the bare basics of the rules into 14 pages. :)  These rules don't have everything in them, but instead focus on what's relevant to the Battlehosts themselves (a subset of the magical powers, no specialized heroic actions, a subset of the war gear, and a very short list of special rules). By drilling down into "just what's in the boxes", you avoid the overwhelming nature of diving straight into the game (where Mumaks, siege weapons, other monsters, the Ring, and countless special rules/magical powers/wargear options abound).

Many of the profiles (as we'll see) got truncated too - this not only makes it so that the main rules content can be reduced to avoid talking about niche rules, but it also makes it so that the rules for each model are streamlined a lot more (and didn't keep rules that are great for theme, but would never be used in battlehost play). The design team didn't skip magic entirely (which I think may have been a good idea - I never teach people how to play with magic in the first game because it changes how the game is played), but rather limited what kinds of spells can be used in this quick-and-dirty version of SBG. And I don't mind that (though some profiles REALLY changed with this truncation - more on that later).

But there was also a rules change (to simplify things) from the normal game: cavalry get their charge bonuses regardless of who they charge (read, you can't turn off someone's cavalry charge bonuses just by counter-charging them with cavalry). Suddenly any cavalry model looks really good (even if all the cavalry in these Battlehost are only F3). I don't think this changed too much for me, but I'm curious to see if this could be implemented in the normal game whenever a rules rewrite happens (comment below about whether you think this is a good idea or not).

But I do have one critique of this: they provided a single scenario for you to play and the game ends when one side is wiped out. In my experience playing MESBG, playing to the last man is actually an UNFUN experience (especially if there's no way your 2 Orcs are going to be able to kill Gandalf and a half dozen Warriors of Minas Tirith). This is easily remedied by the stragglers running away (the Courage stats aren't great in any of these boxes) or a player choosing to quit the game early, but I'd rather that they introduce the concept of a quarter point instead of "killing all the guys." But hey, if that's the only critique, that's not bad.

Okay, let's get into the Battlehost rules!

Ranking the 4 New Battle Hosts!

All images taken from the Warhammer Community article

Hey Reader!

You all know I love a good (and ultimately pointless) ranking post, and seeing as we got four new battle hosts dropping shortly to an online store/physical GW or retailer store near you, it seemed like a good idea to do an overly pedantic ranking of these four new armies to see which is "the best."

Now I should start off by saying that 1) I'm a huge fan of this concept, as it's an easy way for someone to start the game with useful core portions of their respective army and then they can build from there based on their fancy, and 2) that literally none of these can be fully played as-is because of the hero-to-warrior ratio, so I want to note before we begin that I think all of these are awesome, I will definitely consider buying a few of them, and that (in classic Centaur fashion) there will be caveats for the ranking below that will show the mindset I'm using to assess the lists, so if you disagree with those you're probably going to think the ranking is trash, :P

Of course, who am I kidding: some of you are going to think the rankings are trash anyway, but oh well.

So in the way of explaining our criteria for the ranking, I need to express the following caveats for how we approached the comparison.

First, I'm looking at the four battle hosts against each other, not against some nebulous army or legendary legion that could be fielded against them. Since a lot of army concepts rely on a wide range of synergies between warriors and heroes, it goes beyond the spirit of the battle host - a hero (or a hero pair, in two cases) and two boxes of warriors - to compare them to a complex or diversified list. So we will be comparing the four battle hosts to each other only for the purpose of this ranking. If more are released, and if you all enjoy this post, I'll gladly rerank with the new releases as they come out!

Second, we are assuming that the battle hosts face each other on a variety of scenarios, so just because, for example, one battle host is overwhelmingly F3 and another is overwhelmingly F4, that doesn't necessarily mean that the F4 army will win out. It may slant close calls in their direction as melee prowess tends to help in winning matches, but it's not the only factor we are considering.

And finally, I openly admit that with the addition of a second hero a lot of the rankings change. I'll note more on this in the conclusion, but suffice it to say, none of these boxes are "optimized" for competitive play right out of the box. And as I'll note below, I think that's the point, and it's brilliant.

We will be evaluating the strengths of the hero, warriors, and their ability to perform well against the other hosts that are arrayed against them. So with no further ado, let's look at the incredible box set that comes in at last place, only because one of them has to.