The One Ring
http://test.one-ring.co.uk/

Non Competitive Armies... What does this mean?
http://test.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=29308		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Lord Maedhros [ Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Non Competitive Armies... What does this mean?
So, in most of my recent Army lists that I posted, the general consensus was that they were "not competitive" and I should add such and such models to boost the competitiveness of the army...

Now bearing that in mind, I have been thinking... Why is a list of pure Galadhrim not competitive... I mean what denotes a competitive and a non competitive army... A Galadhrim Warrior is just as likely to roll a 6 as does an Uruk Hai, and should the Galadhrim roll equal he will win the fight... He is weaker you say? well if I drop to 50% all of a sudden my courage 5 is a great help... I would have to roll a 1 on one of the two dice required to take a courage test... In the case of say... So in my mind any army list is as competitive as another... Hunter orcs have 2 Attacks ad Strength 4, but only courage 2 and defense 4... so while they would make good shock troops, I cannot see them having any advantage over dwarves with Defense 8 and Fight 4, but only move of 5 inches...

Of course you could make a list of say

Alfrid, Wood elves with axes, and etc... But I am referring to "normal lists"
Example: Mirkwood Rangers allied with say Eagles, vs Galadhrim... the Galadhrim will outnumber the Rangers and have higher defense then the Rangers... The Rangers, will have more bows and more attacks, but if they loose in combat they are more likely to die...

So why is one army list more competitive then another?

Is Radagasts Alliance actually better the Moria? Sure an Eagle is a tough nut, but if it is attacked by its equal points value in Moria Goblins with Shield, that is 18 attacks against the eagles few... Sure if the eagles wins he can Hurl, Rend, Barge, or just try and wound... but there are more where the goblins came from...

So again I am referring to Army List vs Army List... not "I made this Army to win that Tournament" Lists....

Anyway, that was long :oops: How do you guys feel about this?
Author:  Barrel Rider [ Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Non Competitive Armies... What does this mean?
I think the general idea is that non-competitive lists are the more fun army lists (to play with and against) where-as competitive ones are power-built and not so fun (for either). But I'm not entirely sure myself because if someone wants to make a army list then who are we to say otherwise, its their army...
Author:  JamesR [ Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Non Competitive Armies... What does this mean?
Well in the example of your pure Galadrhim elites army you had no versatility what so ever. It's not a matter of inferior troops but a matter of limited options in what you can do.
If you are playing a straight death match you have very little options, and even less in the GW ones.

In all honesty your list would be easy to beat. Most experienced players would slaughter it because we know units strengths and weaknesses. And were those weaknesses exploited you could do nothing about it due to a lack of tactical flexibility.
That's what it means for a list to be competitive, how well can it adapt to situations that come up in the proverbial "rock-paper-scissors" of the table top
Author:  Hodush [ Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Non Competitive Armies... What does this mean?
Each army has their strengths and weaknesses, like the Dwarves and Hunter orcs you mention, which goes a long way in determining their play style. What makes them competitive or not to me is if they have versatility and options likes JamesR has said.

For an army to be able to compete (put up a decent fight) against an enemy that should have its number, it needs options. EG Uruk Hai should dispose of a Minas Tirith force on chance alone as its easier to wound, higher fight value, harder to take a wound. To be competitive, MT would need an option to counter or reduce the Uruk Hai's strengths. For them this would be cavalry most likely or big heroes.
Ranged weapons can be considered an option, but is not as effective as it used to be pre-hobbit, so people look to other things for that option. I guess the most common options are magic, monsters and cavalry. You either need to have those options or have a way of defeating those options.

So to give another example, Moria vs High Elves. The elves are likely to struggle as there could be so many goblins that even with good shooting, they are still quite likely to get caught and surrounded, in which case the numbers of Moria would be enough to overcome the fight value and good defence of the elves. Rivendell heroes are better than Moria ones, so the Moria player elects to take trolls or monsters to deal with either troops or the heroes. If the Rivendell player does nothing, there is a good chance they will lose to a single cave troll knocking them down, even though that has reduced the goblin numbers by taking it in the force.

As you can see, the Rivendell player needs to decide some way to deal with the monsters, or goblins. "Veteran" gamers can tell the weaknesses of a list, be it numbers, might, defence, courage etc and think about how many different ways it could be exploited. When you have a list that can't be exploited very easily, then it's competitive.

Max Crossbows Uruk Hai is a competitive list as it has good defence, strong attack, decent numbers and ok heroes so it can deal with a wide array of armies. Its small weaknesses are its susceptibility to magic, monsters and mega heroes, so the Uruk player can focus on dealing with these threats knowing that they should be ok with the rest of the battle while they do so.

The main reason it is competitive though is the damage output of the crossbows, either real or imagined. Its a risky move to charge towards the crossbows, so people generally steer clear as much as possible which allows the Uruk player the time to think and make good choice on how to engage. They have the "option" to make better decisions than most other armies.

I hope this was a little helpful.
Author:  LordoftheBrownRing [ Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Non Competitive Armies... What does this mean?
Quote:
Most armies I play with would swarm you to death.

Whether I have Harad and a ton of bows, Mordor and loads of Morannons, Hunter Orcs who will run up an cut you to pieces, or Isengard crossbows, youre going to have an issue.

Id literally shoot you with half of those armies till you had to come to me......


and the other two, the hunters and mordor, have so many numbers.

With Mordor I can get 39 troops easily with 9 might. And thats some left over.

With Hunter Orcs I can get 42 models with 2-3 attacks each and have 11 might.

It might work, but youve got to be playing a specific army. Youre almost always going to break first.


Thats what I posted in your 500 pt Galadhrim army but it goes the same for a 750 or 1000 Galadhrim only you'd make.

I dont care if your bows hit amazingly, your defense was 5 all around the board, and your courage is 5.

Harad would out shoot you, Hunter Orcs would out attack you, Moria would out number you, Isengard can tie or outshoot you, and also has a better defense AND Strength.

And these are just bad guys.

If at 1000 you threw in an Ent or some cavalry or an allied warband of someone it might work. Right now those armies are a one trick pony.

I could in my head already based on my army choice from the above^(I play evil mostly) break down which parts of your army Id attack and where based on force and scenario.

Even if your tactically better than me how do you handle 16-25 crossbow shots per round? Or 30+ Haradrim bows? How about 100+ Moria Goblins? How about 60+ Hunter Orcs AND a the two best of the Three Trolls?

Read again what JamesR said because thats the truth. No matter what terrain you had or scenario it was, youd be at a disadvantage. Your shielding and pike support only go so far when by turn four Ive already wrapped around and trapped half of your army, or shot like 10-15 of your units to death before combat.
Author:  Bernardo [ Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Non Competitive Armies... What does this mean?
Galadhrim can be competitive, but only if you allow thranduil in there.
Author:  JamesR [ Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Non Competitive Armies... What does this mean?
Bernardo wrote:
Galadhrim can be competitive, but only if you allow thranduil in there.


He does add a lot but Galadriel, Celeborn, Haldir and Rumil are all good in their own right. And they keep the Galadrhim theme
Author:  LordElrond [ Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Non Competitive Armies... What does this mean?
High elves with only the big 4 are very competitive but get trashed by monster heavy armies if the enemy has eagles (can fly around your elf lords) or lots of monsters (the monsters can be spread out so that not all of them will be fighting heroes). Basically, if Gil-Galad or the twins get to a monster, that monster is mincemeat instantly most of the time, but if the monsters avoid your big heroes and win a fight against a warrior, then they can hurl the warrior into your heroes and BAM!!! #BOSH!!! Gil-Galad cannot strike blows in the next combat phase and can only move 3" and has no chance of catching even a lumbering troll chieftain. But mounted heroes lose their horses too, and Glorfindel never wants to lose Asfaloth!!!

In short, if your heroes get into combat with the monsters, you win, and if they don't, you lose.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/