Would you say that there's a power split between The Hobbit armies and Lord of the Rings armies?

I'm wondering particularly with the release of the recent There And Back Again... book - I keep hearing that the units in there seem overpowered.

If my friends and I are wanting to retain a reasonable balance in our games, is it worth intentionally sticking to either one or the other?

I'm also wondering what the latest information is for updated source books and rule book - I've heard rumours of a big update due this summer. Does anyone know anything about that?

In short, yes - we saw power creep from the LOTR profiles to The Hobbit profiles.

Do you need to stick to one line or the other? Unless your intent is to build tournament competitive lists, I'd say no. There was power creep, but it's not like you're playing 2 different games. You'll have more fun painting and playing what you like, not necessarily what you think is "best."

Adam Troke advised in spring 2016 that there would be a new SBG ruleset and revised LOTR profiles, but there's no release date, to my knowledge. Hopefully there will be some rebalancing, as many LOTR profiles have simply fallen behind.

Firstly, let's be clear on the difference between powerful and overpowered. Although a profile like Azog's was initially regarded as way too powerful (and rather beyond what one would expect from an orc in the LotR era), his very high points cost means he is not usually considered to be overpowered. Some of the Hobbit-era profiles have become somewhat stronger than previous ones, but when priced accordingly, no power discrepancy occurs.

Looking at the various profiles and the top tables at tournaments, I wouldn't be too worried. The old Wood Elves may well be a stronger than new Mirkwood precisely for being significantly cheaper, Uruk-hai and Berserkers do what Gundabad Orcs and Berserkers do, but better, and while it remains to be seen how the Iron Hills impact the competitive scene, they retain several of the weaknesses Dwarves always had, in a more restrictive list. More importantly, there are huge differences in the supposed power level of old armies - an army of Dunlendings generally won't be able to compete with any of the other things on offer. Although not all the newer profiles will be perfectly balanced (let alone against particular opponents - that's just part of any game involving different types of armies), they fit in better than some of the ridiculously underpriced figures mostly included in the later LotR days. Watchers of Kârna, King's Champion, Erkenbrand, named Nazgûl...

*cough* New White Counsel Galadriel *cough*

_________________
"Draw your sword with a heavy heart, but swing it with a heavy hand"

Making the Lady of the Galadhrim profile all but redundant? Well, big deal, she's in the same list and you can use the same model.

All I'm saying is that it's a mixed bag, with some scary new additions, others rather less so, and that overall they're on the same spectrum of balance as the LotR era profiles - with additions both in the middle and on the extremes, just like plenty of variation in overcosted and undercosted models has existed in this game since it started over 15 years ago.

That's nice to hear. A lot of the feedback I'd been reading had been about the power creep of TaBA and I was concerned that if I wanted to bring armies from that book that it might affect how fun a game we could have if I was playing against older LotR armies.

I guess as with early-days AoS, a lot of the balancing aspects in a game can also be addressed by individual players. The basic list-building principle of AoS was "don't be an ass". With a little gaming experience in The Hobbit, I guess friendly and narrative players can self-regulate if units do get unbalanced.

I don’t think the warriors are overpowered. They have just become irrelevant because of the heroes. Granted the heroes are expensive, but their presence on the table changes the way the game is played. The only way to deal with them is with a mega-hero of your own. In the old LOTR era, you could have a legit army without big named heroes. Not so anymore.

One key difference is the amount of might on the table. The inflation of might, and free heroics in the BOFA profiles means that there are too many heroic actions taking place. There isn’t really much thought about when to do them. The going in expectation is that the key hero is always going to declare a heroic action in nearly every phase or will benefit from a free one. Even if he runs out of might, he can still benefit from other nearby heroes' actions. A lot of times I feel like the priority phase is redundant since the real priority roll is the roll to determine whose heroic goes first.

I agree with Coenus that the costing of models in The Hobbit range is generally pretty solid (there were a few misses, most of which seem to have been corrected in the TABA book), and that does help balance out the LOTR range v. The Hobbit range. Where I differ a bit in opinion, is that fans of LOTR (myself included) want to be able to play forces from that era, and the 2 key forces from that era, Minas Tirith and Rohan, aren't terribly competitive. That's a bit of a broad brushstroke, and there are of course exceptions, but we're not seeing those forces making tournament finals very often. I'm hoping that when we see new rules and profiles, we'll see some changes that make those forces a bit more competitive against The Hobbit range.

And while I disagree a bit with Tar-Minastir's note that the warriors have become irrelevant, I agree with his broader assertion that many of the hero profiles in The Hobbit have, IMO, become somewhat out of balance against the LOTR range. They're generally fine from a points cost standpoint, but they seem to offer some synergies that aren't available in the LOTR profiles, and when you compare the heroes of The Hobbit to the mightiest of LOTR heroes, there are instances where it just doesn't "fit". Compare Eomer (who is described on the Pelennor as being someone whom none could stand against) to say Thranduil or Dain. I'm just not sure that makes sense to me.

Does any of this lessen my enthusiasm for the game, or mean that I won't be playing Rohan or Minas Tirith? No. But it would seem to make sense that two of the great realms of the War of the Ring should have a chance to make a tournament top table a bit more frequently.

A lot of it has to do with the movies.

The warriors of Minas Tirith are easily cut down by the orcs in Osgiliath and on the walls of Minas Tirith. That's why Morranon Orcs and Warriors of Minas Tirith have the same point cost, even though the Morannons dominate the str 3 WoMT, and that's why a Uruk-hai is so much superior to a Warrior of Rohan. The first trilogy put a lot of focus on the heroes saving the day and it's reflected in game.

Now look at the Hobbit movies. Azog and Bolg are killing machines. Thorins Company effortlessly slaughter Goblin Town. Thranduil and Dain kill the Gundabad Orcs like they are nothing. In the battle of Azanulbizar flashback the Gundabad Orcs rout the Warriors of Erebor. It's not really GW's fault because the SBG is based on the movies, and so it has to follow the movies. Also, they need to sell the new models, and who would buy them if they weren't better than some of the old range?

That certainly plays a role too - Peter Jackson and team felt the need to top the combat prowess of the heroes and size of the monsters in the Hobbit trilogy, which the game designers then simply copied in the rules - I'm glad they later removed e.g. F7 3 Attack Legolas from the game again, but based on the movies it could be justified.

A final point I'd like to make is the simple fact that LotR-era profiles are up for a revision soon. If the new Middle-earth team wants the game to have stronger monsters, cheaper heroic actions, more special rules, etc., they could so far only have included those updates in the latest Hobbit book. If that leaves some LotR profiles looking a bit dated, it's because they are: back then, a hero with just a higher Fight value and an extra point of Might was an interesting enough choice over a captain, it was only later, when the range grew and grew, that more original and thus appealing options became available (simply because the previous design space was exhausted). For example, there will no doubt be some heroes and troops who'll gain the Burly rule, but they could hardly have gotten it before its introduction in the Hobbit rules (although a few similar effects did of course exist, but none as a widespread generic rule).

it is also worth noting that no pure hobbit era army has won a 100 GBHL event (except Jay's laketown hoard which had Gandalf and Saruman in). LotR armies are still the predominant winners overall.
Most of the TABA armies have serious weaknesses. Azog's Legion, as an example, has no ranged weapons outside of the catapult troll so really struggles against any sort of concentrated bow fire.

_________________
12th GBHL 2013.
13th GBHL 2014
9th GBHL 2015


Mid Sussex Wargamers

Agreed. I find the mega heroes not fun to play with or against and they are like they are cause the movies went full george lucas style prequels but like several people have pointed out the army lists themselves aren't really overpowered or better then the older ones and actually the really strong lists from the lotr are still probably the best. The really good ones being armies that were already well equipped to deal with huuuge heroes or monsters. I think it kind of wrecks casual games because if you just walk up to each other and fight Azog or bolg or thranduil or thorin will chop through your whole army.
I am glad they are going to revist LOTR but I hope down the line they tone down the hobbit stuff too. My two cents.

_________________
Cheers,

P

Honestly the new models aren't really overpowered. Just a bit more gimmicky and have more options and more well rounded.

But I for one won't lie they do it to sell models. It's that simple.

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

The GT was won by Lotr teams and from what I saw there was no obvious advantage with hobbit forces.

Also Minas Tirith is still very competitive (won the GT) and I think the same can be said for Rohan.

I agree that the hobbit stuff can seem better from it being gimmicky but in reality I think it is pretty well balanced and it is how you use your team that is more important.

@Teacups- What was your Minas Tirith force? I've been trying to find a good Gondor list, and haven't quite hit it yet.

I forfeited the right to complain about some of the new Hobbit profiles based on what LOTR list I play. I used to complain about all the new heroes with Burly and a two-handed weapon... Then my friend pointed out I run 15 Abrakhan Guard at a time.

I do not know what the Minas Tirith force was that won the tournament, but mine uses Saruman the Wise along with the standard stuff (warriors of MT and rangers with spears). At higher points I can add in a combat hero for damage. The real stars of Minas Tirith are damrod and beregond as they allow you more numbers and the ability to run better models.

I actually just think it is name of calling it Burly that makes you think they get it more. There are quite a lot of profiles from Lotr that have a rule meaning they don't get a -1 penalty, it just isn't called Burly.

OK - I'll retract my "MT and Rohan have fallen behind" comment. Won't be the first time I was wrong.

I personally find MT more viable than Rohan, but that's partly due to the nature that cavalry is generally more challenging to play, and less forgiving if you make a mistake. I like MT's cheap heroes and their access to a solid variety of troops. I wish they had GtW in their list, and thus access to magic, as otherwise, they're pretty magic weak. I think certain matchups are also very difficult for them, particularly S4 F4 forces (e.g. Isengard). There's a small part of me that wants to raise my eyebrow over seeing so many other forces with lots of F4, when MT base troops are only F3, as I don't think it fits with the narrative, but it's costed correctly, so overall - it's not a huge issue.