Hi everyone, sorry if this has been covered in the past and I just couldn't find it. I know the all hero army is considered to to be very hard to win with, I but was wondering what the perceived wisdom is on the lowest practical ratio of warriors to heroes.

I've a Gondor list based around Faramir and the Rangers of Ithilien. It seems that my heroes always do well (I know; that's why they're called heroes...) while my warriors achieve little. Comparing the army lists; my opponent's (mostly Uruks and haradrim) warriors seem to have the advantage with str 4 uruks and merchant guard, 50% bow limit with poisoned arrows and half trolls, etc. My guys are simply survivable, with elites that just get fight 4, and maybe an elf bow (with shoot 4+) or a two handed weapon (mixed blessing) when I use fiefdoms allies. The strength of Gondor seems to be in it's heroes, including a good number of cheap might 3 chaps such as Cirion, Madril and Forlong.

I'm planning to try an army based around small war bands led by cheaper named characters, each with about six appropriate warriors. I'll take as many of these as I can fit into 500 points, with mounted Faramir and 2 or 3 Knights and maybe a banner somewhere.

Has anyone tried a similar list or concept; is 6:1 too low a ratio to stop my heroes being overwhelmed or should I not do things by halves and try 3:1?

I really think you should do 12:1 excluding independants.

My impression is that going half-way gives you the worst of each type of play. Heroes are expensive, and the best heroes moreso. Diluting your heroes with warriors means you're stuck with the same number of lower level heroes that die quicker. For combat it really comes down to the dice pool: 3 dice is the sweet spot for winning fights and requires less Might, giving a 42% chance of rolling at least one 6. If you have a 2 attack captain he will have to use Might more often to win (unless he has a special rule like Rumil). Even if your cheap captain has a couple spears to support, these are easily removed and have to fight on their own once you get into melee. Fate is also critical: having 3 wounds + 3 Fate means you're much more survivable.

This is one of the reasons the Twins are so popular: each has 3 attacks and extra Fate, but they cost about the same as a regular 2A captain.

If you have lower level heroes with a few warriors, your heroes are still going to be surrounded and trapped. You need the 3 dice to avoid losing, and the extra wounds and fate to survive a fight loss.

How'd you get 42%? It's 50% even, 1/6+1/6+1/6=3/6=1/2. The point still stands though, and you have to factor in the fight values as well. Faramir with his 2 attacks at fight 5 is pretty good, but a DK can easily beat him, his extra attack making him more likely to win, while Amdur's extra fight AND reroll meaning he'll win alot against Faramir. Both those opponents won't have anything against using might to win or to wound, as they can just regain it. Now, Boromir against them would be able to win everytime. I think that Boromir or the White Tower is rather overpriced, but still very powerful.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

Common mistake. If that were true, every time you rolled 6 dice, you'd get one of *each* number, never mind the 6. Here's a site that explains it well:

http://www.edcollins.com/backgammon/diceprob.htm

Basically, you multiply the chance of a single die *not* being a 6 (i.e.: 5/6ths of the time), times the number of dice (3), so:
5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 58% (approx). That's the chance of *not* rolling a 6, so the chance of rolling a 6 = 100 - 58 = 42%

I would have thought it variable on points and what you are willing to use.
A mounted Faramir and some Knights can punch a hole with an Heroic combat but its cause of the extra attacks. Lance = Death

Either 1 Hero per 10-12 Warriors (or as near as possible) or all Hero, do not go in between, you will almost certainly loose.

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

Unfortunately, having experimented with both types, I do agree with the others who have already commented. Now I don't advocate cramming the warbands full, unless you can, but it is better to have either many heroes, or to have a number of warriors to back your heroes up. Either one must have the warriors to cover for the heroes while the heroes do the cutting, with a few warriors pitching in, or have so many heroes that the enemy is hard-pressed to stop all of them, if used rightly. And at 500pts, you will have difficulty doing the latter.

_________________
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”

Cheers for the input guys, it would appear that the consensus is that with 1:6 my heroes would still be overwhelmed and that the concept wouldn't work. Also, I have to admit I hadn't considered being outmatched by enemy heroes at this low points level, that probably would stop this army in it's tracks.

I think I'm going to try a full on hero only army for my next game, just to see if it's fun and to use all my favorite models at once!

Looking forward to hearing about it! Good luck!

_________________
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”