A few months ago I got in a discussion with my gaming group about how army sizes have changed, and I thought it was very interesting so I wanted to bring it over here.

Pre-Hobbit, so in LoME days and before, I couldn't be caught dead with a small army. My rule of thumb was that the army should have a model count approximately equal to 10% of the points limit. This meant that for 500 point games, I was aiming for 50 models, 70 for 700, etc.
And you know what? It worked for me! I won my fair share of tournaments, I could always see the look of fear in my opponents' eyes as they saw the elite horde of whateveriwasplaying come their way.

Since Warbands came out, granted the whole point was to stop people from playing elite hordes (the 1 Elf Captain + 70 Wood Elf lists come to mind) and bring the focus back to heroes, I would say it worked too well. Nowadays, I find myself incapable of pulling in the same kind of numbers. Even if the number of heroes didn't change (I was generally averaging around 13-14 warriors per hero before, not too huge a difference),

I just always find it necessary to take the big heroes, when I rarely ever took them before. Suddenly, I'm the guy taking a 30-odd model army to a 650 point tournament; an unforgivable sin in my teenage years. What has this done to my W/L record? Made it worse, even though, I would argue, I've gotten much better tactically than I was back in thoe old days. So why do I keep doing it? No idea.

Anyone else notice this sort of shift? What's your warrior/hero ratio like and what kind of heroes do you find yourself gravitating toward?

It certainly is interesting. First off, I loved the introduction of warbands, as I really despised those Legolas + 60 wood elves or shaman + 100 orcs/goblins armies. I think that warbands helped to put emphasis on the fact that this is a skirmish game at its core.

Now, it's clear that not every army aims to have the same numbers. At 600 points, Hobbits or Goblin Town are going for about 60-70, while Wood Elves or Dwarves are comfortable with 3 warbands, and there also some armies, like Rivendell Knights, that are fine with just one.
But one think that I see many people doing, which I think affects they win ratio badly, is that they but too big emphasis on taking big heroes, or that they just take too many of them. I love playing those cool characters, but I also realise that my 500 points Wood Elf force can't support both Celeborn and Galdriel, and Glorfindel, Gil-Galad and 18 elves is just a poor force.

Now,one the other hand, there also people that love going all-in on hordes, trying to include as many units as possible, which I also think is wrong. It's because there are now ways to kill a lot stuff in one blow, like hurl, channeled Nature's Wrath, or good old sorcerous blast.
For some time I tried different tactic, especially on lower points-levels - include a big monster, like Beorn, and then add in as much troops as possible (i.e. Laketown). This looks good on paper, but as it turns out, you can't really rely one model for you army to work; because when it chokes, fails to win a combat or something, your sub-optimal units simply can't make the job done.

But one think that I see many people doing, which I think affects they win ratio badly, is that they but too big emphasis on taking big heroes, or that they just take too many of them. I love playing those cool characters, but I also realise that my 500 points Wood Elf force can't support both Celeborn and Galdriel, and Glorfindel, Gil-Galad and 18 elves is just a poor force.
Now,one the other hand, there also people that love going all-in on hordes, trying to include as many units as possible, which I also think is wrong. It's because there are now ways to kill a lot stuff in one blow, like hurl, channeled Nature's Wrath, or good old sorcerous blast.

Yes! I agree. I often see people taking larger heroes and sometimes two even in a 450-600 point army and I think wow. How can you put for example a Gothmog and a Shagrat War leader in at 500 points. Or I see someone take a troll instead of a big hero at low costs. They end up having like 20 troops at 550 or 500....

Let's say it's a 400 point tourney: if I were to splash on a Beorn, yes, the remaining 200 points of my army will be sub-par, but at that points level, not many people are going to have an answer to that calibre of hero.

A strategy I've been trying to develop since I got back into the game two or three years ago, perhaps a big part of why my armies have gone from pure horde to big heroes (and not getting it is a big part of why I can't win anymore), is to establish local dominance. Maybe I don't need to take on all 50 of your models with all 30 of mine, if I can keep your hordes at bay while I take on chunks of your army at a time with my huge combat freaks, I will win. As long as that strategy doesn't click, I will continue to lose, but I think that's the justification for me.
So basically it comes down to ambition, an ambition to be able to have the best of both worlds. My upbringing in this game was as a horde player, and now I'm trying to continue playing like one even if my numbers advantage is negligible because I am dropping 60% of my points on heroes.

However, you can take an unbalanced army that's great at one thing but terrible at other key aspects, and as long as you only use it for what it can do well, you're golden. Therein lies the tactical challenge of an unbalanced army, in the wrong hands it will fall apart, in the right hands it is lethal. Again, though, the fact that I can't explain that in more depth shows how vague this subject is.

Going with the bigger heroes can make the game harder, is that because the list is weaker or because they're just not being used to their full effect? I guess that's the key question this post is raising.

I agree with you, but I'll just bring up a counterpoint for the sake of playing devil's advocate. Let's say it's a 400 point tourney: if I were to splash on a Beorn, yes, the remaining 200 points of my army will be sub-par, but at that points level, not many people are going to have an answer to that calibre of hero. Forget killing him, I don't know that many armies can even contain him. Now, as you rightfully point out in your next paragraph, that's a dangerous way to play, your entire game plan is "Beorn kills everything, everyone else makes sure they have really good seats to the show", the one roll he whiffs will be bad news. My point is, I can see the rationale to overloading on big heroes; it doesn't lead to balanced armies, but maybe you don't always want a balanced army.

Hilarious that you say that, I took pretty much that at 600 points today. Shagrat, Gothmog and a Shaman. Had something like 34 models in the army. Guess what? I lost due to not having enough models on the objective!
Part of that was poor deployment on my part, I had 9 Warg Riders that did nothing all game because I bottlenecked them, whereas the heroes did help me establish my local dominance that I wanted, it was too little too late by the time we called the game.

This is very interesting, I actually wanted to make a topic purely about the subject of big heroes, but now I see I don't need to.
I came into conclusion that big heroes are just not worth it anymore (and I'm speaking purely from the competitive point of view; I fully agree they are tons of fun to play with).
Basically, I'm talking about those fighty ones over around 130 points, so all the Glorfindels, Imrahils, Durins, Gothmogs. Yes, many of them are considered great, but if you go over all the lists that do best on the tournaments, you rarely find any of those characters in them. Some of the reasons are, I think:
- they are not effective. If you take 150 points worth of Uruk-Hai,it's very possible they will kill at leat as many points worth of opponent's army. If you take Glorfindel, he may slay some enemy hero, but if he fails to,he won't almost ever be able to pay his points back. I guess he doesn't need to, but still, he isn't nearly as effective as
- monsters. they are just so much better at killing multiple units. Hurl not only deals damage, but also knocks them prone, which makes line to line combat so much easier for your troops.
- Nazguls are now everywhere, and they are the worst nightmare of all the big heroes. Sap will, transfix, and your mighty characer is either dead or can't do anything. I think anyone who was the victim of this can say how bad it feels when this happens...
- Heroic Strike. Fight still matters on warriors, but it lost a lot of value on heroes. Now every 45 point hero with 3 might can take on even the biggest ones. And they always need to strike back, cause when you're surrounded by a bunch of guys with axes, you can't really rely on your opponent fluffing they heroic strike roll...

This is where, in my opinion, lower point cost heroes with a lot of might or good buffs for your troops gain a lot. Take them, and rely on your warriors and monsters to do the killing (which is, to be honest, much easier in evil than in good armies).
And, once again, all of this is only competitive talk. I agree that big heroes are very cool and enjoyable to play, especially those from the films.

Going with the bigger heroes can make the game harder, is that because the list is weaker or because they're just not being used to their full effect? I guess that's the key question this post is raising.

My though process was exactly the same. That said, I played around 6-7 games and it just doesn't work. Which is a shame.

Ill help argue for his opinion since I had the same haha.

I did bring Beorn. The rest I brought were hobbits. Unfortunately Beorn has a series of poor rolls. Although he almost killed the undying in two turns of combat, his poor rolls cost me the game. I needed to barge and go minimum two inches. I rolled a 1. So basically, though victory was in my hands, the hobbits fell to the orcs and all the bows and rocks could not kill em.

Ive also played 400 or 450 with Beorn against Rohan and been very successful but it all depends.......

This is very interesting, I actually wanted to make a topic purely about the subject of big heroes, but now I see I don't need to.
I came into conclusion that big heroes are just not worth it anymore (and I'm speaking purely from the competitive point of view; I fully agree they are tons of fun to play with).
Basically, I'm talking about those fighty ones over around 130 points, so all the Glorfindels, Imrahils, Durins, Gothmogs. Yes, many of them are considered great, but if you go over all the lists that do best on the tournaments, you rarely find any of those characters in them. Some of the reasons are, I think:
- they are not effective. If you take 150 points worth of Uruk-Hai,it's very possible they will kill at leat as many points worth of opponent's army. If you take Glorfindel, he may slay some enemy hero, but if he fails to,he won't almost ever be able to pay his points back. I guess he doesn't need to, but still, he isn't nearly as effective as
- monsters. they are just so much better at killing multiple units. Hurl not only deals damage, but also knocks them prone, which makes line to line combat so much easier for your troops.
- Nazguls are now everywhere, and they are the worst nightmare of all the big heroes. Sap will, transfix, and your mighty characer is either dead or can't do anything. I think anyone who was the victim of this can say how bad it feels when this happens...
- Heroic Strike. Fight still matters on warriors, but it lost a lot of value on heroes. Now every 45 point hero with 3 might can take on even the biggest ones. And they always need to strike back, cause when you're surrounded by a bunch of guys with axes, you can't really rely on your opponent fluffing they heroic strike roll...

This is where, in my opinion, lower point cost heroes with a lot of might or good buffs for your troops gain a lot. Take them, and rely on your warriors and monsters to do the killing (which is, to be honest, much easier in evil than in good armies).
And, once again, all of this is only competitive talk. I agree that big heroes are very cool and enjoyable to play, especially those from the films.

Your points are all very true. Im confident taking a 45 point hero like Gorbag or Grinnah or even a more expensive Erkenbrand and taking them against Boromirs and Isildurs because I can heroic strike for 3 turns and make them blow might and whatnot.
Nazgul I use in almost every single evil army. I love em and I use em like theres no tomorrow.
Monsters are where its at. My group sometimes laughs at me because Im all about trolls and monsters. My collection might not be huge like some peoples' but I have:
Troll Chief
3 Mordor Trolls(and parts to make one more including isengard troll)
4 cave trolls(and parts to make 2 or more)
Goblin King(a hidden gem of a unit
Dweller in the Dark)
Beorn
Treebeard
Fell Beasts
and maybe another one or two. They are devastating.

Hah great. Let me ask, do you play with Gothmog often?

And yeah that will do it man. Gothmog with shield and warg is pricey, and Shagrat costs a decent amount.

I stress to my friends who ask for tips....deployment can kill. That alone can win or lose a game.

The answer to that question is both, actually.

If you take say an Azog, Gil Galad, Elrond, Aragorn, etc then you have a ton less troops than a counter part for them like say Fimbul, Legolas, or a Boromir of Gondor. But it also depends on the scenario. If your leader dies and it helps the enemy, you may want to be more careful, or make sure hes got good defense. Either way the game will be harder if you are outnumbered thats no lie.

Is the list weaker? Almost certainly more of the time. Unless you have elites. A good example of a mix is Isengard. Saruman and Grima with elites works well because you have two attack models. I wouldnt consider that an argument against bigger lists. The idea of this game to me is whoever can stack more dice to win a fight has a better chance and numbers do that.

Is the list always weaker? No, not always, but often yes.
Are they being used to their full effect? Also often no.

At games where you play 600 points or less whats the point of playing Bolg? You will get to 10 kills maybe sure....but if you do likely your army has already gotten close to breaking him.
How about Beorn at 600? Better hope they dont have trolls or a spellcaster.....it just depends on scenario but I would say most gamers think about how to maximize numbers every time when building a list.