Hi, I made a blog post about the past GT winners. Armylists include top 3s since 2009 and winners of the 2006, 2007 and 2008 GTs. If you're interested in tournaments, it might be useful:

http://venivididouble1.blogspot.com/201 ... story.html

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League

Nice, good for the newer player then they can see what they could be fighting.

Also nice battle reports on your blog.

_________________
"There are only 4 things you need in life: Lasagna, beer, a girlfriend and of course a gondor army."

Nice, good for the newer player then they can see what they could be fighting.

Also nice battle reports on your blog.

_________________
"There are only 4 things you need in life: Lasagna, beer, a girlfriend and of course a gondor army."

If we had the gold coin system working again, I'd give you one!

I think I had an older GT list of Vesa Nenye somewhere in my hard drive, I'll get back to you if I find it.

-- Pasi

I was just wondering about Vesa Nenye. Was he pretty much unbeatable? How much of his success was attributed to his multiple Spider Queens?

I was very surpised to see a Dragon in one of those lists (2011 GT, 3rd Place). I thought that monsters tend not to be that competitive.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

You mean 2009 General Elessar? Dragons can be outstanding if played right and they require a proper army with them - for example the Harad list is capable of outshooting some good armies and fares alright on its own if you can make your opponent to concentrate on the Dragon instead of your army. Monsters require a ton more practice to get right (4 Fell Beasts on 3rd at the 2007 and 2 FB with Mumak in 2011 are another 2 examples of their potential if played correctly).

Personally, having played against Vesa in 2007 and having watched a lot of his games until 2009, then getting feedback from other players, my opinion is that his winning was attributed mainly due to the fact that unlike the rest of the field he was choosing purely the most powergaming forces available. Until 2009 the LotR scene in UK wasn't overly competitive. Then in 2009 5 person team from Poland came (country with National League, 7 60+ person tournaments per year and several hundred registered players playing in smaller leagues) and took top 4 places. In that GT Vesa played against Poles in rounds 6, 7, 8 - won in round 6 against 2nd place finisher, drew with his opponent (4th place) at a big advantage in round 7 and got destroyed in round 8 (by the winner) by even more powergaming combo of Rohan Outriders / Gamling / Saruman and arguably the best Polish player of all time.

Don't get me wrong, Vesa is a really good player and I have a lot of respect for him, winning 5 times in a game where luck plays part is a massive achievement nonetheless, and I've had some really good talks about the game with him over the years and we keep in touch and talk once in a while, but at the moment the overall strength of the UK playing field is much higher than it was 4-5 years ago. He would still compete at the highest level, as proven by the fact that he was still going head to head against those 3 Polish players in 2009 and they play a bunch of tournaments every year, so I wish he comes back at some point to play again

The Spider Queens were only the phenomenon of 2007-2008 until they got 'fixed' to named heroes (although they still appear all the time in the best Mordor and Moria lists at GTs).

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League

Can't agree more with Blackmist. Vesa just took powergaming combo's every tournament against less experencied people with "normal" armies. Blackmist thinks Vesa can still play at highest level but I don't think that happens anymore. Vesa was a good player but his time has gone and his place is taken by far more experienced players that try to win without redicilous combo's. Yes blackmist I 'm pointing to you I think he can't come in the top 10 anymore because some combo's aren't working anymore and if you played the game not for a few years your tactical mind has gone.

I also play in tournament scene in the netherland and at some very high level's but I still want to come to Uk GT one time maybe next year. Because I think the level in the netherlands is lower then the level at UK GT. Although I played much against one of the guy's that finished 11'st at last GT. You know him Blackmist he is ar pharazon.

I still think that your army list is only 60% of a tournament it really depends on your tactical mind. Don't see this wrong ne list is better then a other but It's not everything.

I think one of the best way's to actually win games and tournaments is to know your enemy. I played with every army the last 6 years and almost every model in the game. If I now play against a army that I played in the past i know what I would fear myself and what the biggest weaknesses are.

_________________
"There are only 4 things you need in life: Lasagna, beer, a girlfriend and of course a gondor army."

Found Vesa's 2004 winning army lists, even the original web page:

http://www.puolenkuunpelit.com/tieto/lukusali/gw_turnaus_lotr_gt.htm

The army lists are in the first PDF. The documents contain his battle reports from the 2004 GT, but unfortunately in Finnish.

The beginning is quite funny; Vesa tells about how he got Alessio Cavatore to teach him LotR rules and initially kept losing all the time...

-- Pasi

Oh wow, that's some vintage find there, I didn't even play LotR back then! Thanks for the link

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League

You're welcome. Collecting history has always been important in my opinion, especially at the digital age, when things get lost so easily and permanently.

Considering Vesa's early success, he explains in the GT 2004 report that the main difference between his and others' armies was the amount of Might. He had many captain-level or medium heroes, leading to 8-9 Might per army when his opponents had usually only 4-5. Note, for example the Lurtz/Grishnakh/Sharku combo, all 3/1/1 heroes and not too expensive. He says in the report that typically he won the games the turn when his opponents were out of Might and he still had some to pull heroic actions. Of course, this was when we were in the RotK edition of the game, with only a limited selection of models compared to the later times.

-- Pasi

Yeah that makes sense. I remember reading his article in the White Dwarf around 2005 or 2006 when he was talking how important Might is in the game and how vital heroic moves, heroic combats or just winning combats and killing enemies through the help of Might can be. Before then my armies usually included 1 hero and a rabble of whatever I had, but after that I started focusing on a lot of Might and that really improved my winrate.

There's been many debates over the years on TLA (and I don't know whether on OR too, but I suppose so) about what's more important - numbers or Might? And a lot of people have argued that numbers were and I never seemed to agree with them. Might and Heroic Actions are essential part of the game, they are what makes the game so good, they are the key tactical choices a player makes during the game, and yet there are so many people arguing that tactics are all about manouvering your numbers and beating your opponent with tactics instead of using a lot of Might and making the game easier. Essentially for me and for a lot of other top GT players good enough store of disposable Might is essential for competitive gaming (by disposable I mean one that you can freely spend for Heroics. ie. If we have Legolas and a Captain, our total Might is 5, but disposable is only 2 because Legolas needs his Might for Ringwraith Sniping with his autohit, so he doesn't want to waste it on heroics. In my good force this year I had 8, out of which 5 was for Heroics and 3 just for Saruman's casting. In the evil I had just 4, but all 4 was for Heroics since neither the Golden King nor SL need Might for much else - using the disposable Might to burn the needed Might of enemy heroes was quite important).

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League

Great work blackmist it's a great read. This is turning into a very interesting thread.
When I use to play against my mate we would play a 400 point where I was taking a gondor army with faramir and fellowship boromir and he would Lurtz, Ugluk and an Uruk captain because we thought this was normal. We also didnt have heaps of models and he didn't have archers. Playing like this meant that we relied on our heros to carry the day which is what they are meant for. Also I got the BGIME which had battle reports with excessive amounts of heroes which was awesome. I remember a 500 point battle report where a bloke took Saruman, Grima, an Orc captain on foot and one mounted and an Uruk captain. Almost madness in this day and age. This was the time where you could have your gondorian shield wall support by elven archers with some riders of rohan led by gimli not needing to make alliances and have a hero from each army list because there wasn't a lome. Personally I go for heroes over numbers any day because as the old saying ' might makes right' and I totally agree.

_________________
Compulsorily acquired? You know what this means don't you, they're acquiring it compulsorily. - Darryl Kerrigan

I completely agree about the importance of Might. Before the time I had read that report, I used a couple of captains or maybe one M3 expensive hero, having normally 3-5 M. Going for cheap Might heroes like evil named captains (Lurtz & co) immediately improved my armies. Heroic moves/combats are so important in objective-based scenarios. Numbers are important, but not the only thing that matters.

-- Pasi

Yes , but that's why I think might is one of the most important features in the game. To be able to manouvre your forces as best as possible in combat you need to have might or else you are relying on winning priority and to me that's not tactical that's just hoping on some goood dice rolls. I think heroic move is one of the most used heroic action in the game and also the most important.



This is also where much people make mistakes and just burn their precious might. Mostly I don't use might to kill models only with legolas to kill ringwraith or with heroe's when someone is getting broken and i need to get him broken.

_________________
"There are only 4 things you need in life: Lasagna, beer, a girlfriend and of course a gondor army."

What a great point and discussion, thanks! I have been focussing on numbers and it's worked pretty well, but I can see the logic.

Oops, yeah.

I'd be interested in everyone's opinions on this: what percentage of winning is attributed to the general's skills, to the army, and to luck? I'm going for something like 65% general, 30% army, and 5% luck.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

I would say 85% of the competitive play is being able to create yourself an optimal army, only after that there comes all the rest.

But, since most good players know how to do that, then the edge in armybuilding after that point is about 15-20% in my opinion, rest depends on the skill. Luck is non-existent on high level of play, there's maybe 1% involvement, the rest is just your skill in using the army. I now have played 64 SBG UKGT matches and there was only 1 case I ever lost or drew the game at the GT and then complained about my bad luck - when in Constest of Champions winning 3-1 against Durin without any Will left, my Shadow Lord failed to cast transfix on 2 dice with 1 Might - rolled a double 1, Durin killed 2 models, game ended in a draw instead of a Major win, since my Champion was dead by then... In every single other draw or loss it was either my opponent outplaying me or my own stupidity that prevailed (you could argue that it was stupid of me to use just 2 dice instead of 3 though...).

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League

Completely agree with blackmist luck doesn't have a huge part in the game.

But the only time I had bad luck was throwing 20 1's with 20 dices! I only need to get on 5!

_________________
"There are only 4 things you need in life: Lasagna, beer, a girlfriend and of course a gondor army."

Interesting, I more often hear the general, not the army, is the key to winning.

When you say "optimal army", is that a very broad term or one that only applies to about a dozen army variants?

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

It applies to the optimal archetypal armies used, there's in fact maybe a dozen of them. For example:

Wood Elves: Legolas, Saruman and Wood Elves
Wood Elves: Legolas, Wood Elves & Grey Company
High Elves: Saruman, Twins and High Elves
Mordor: Spider Queen, Shadow Lord, Morannons & Orc Spearmen
Isengard: Saruman, Shadow Lord, Uruk Crossbows & Orcs
Harad: Shadow Lord, Golden King, Mass Harad & Corsairs
Gondor: Saruman, Gondor & Grey Company
Arnor: Arnor, Malbeth, Twins, Glorfindel
Moria: Spider Queen, Shadow Lord, Prowlers
Moria: Shade, Shadow Lord, Drum, Blackshields
Rohan: Saruman or Legolas, all infantry, Woses allies
Rohan: Saruman or Legolas, all infantry, Grey Company allies
And a few others...

These are the optimal archetypes, once you work out the standard builds then any changes you make are just details in fine-tuning, otherwise everybody uses almost the same armylists from the chosen factions because those are just the most optimal mathematically and give the greatest tactical edges.

Standard build = take the right heroes. Take the maximum numbers you can get. Max out on bows. Know what the army is supposed to do.

Then there's the current meta analysis - you look at the past tournaments and work out which of the best armies have been the most often used and make a counter army for that, example:

- In the 2010 GT there were 6 Wood Elf Armies in top 10. The most effective counter-army to Wood Elves is Harad, because it has the ability to outshoot Wood Elves while with Shadow Lord and it has D4 all around which is optimal against them. That and the addition of Corsairs and their throwing weapons makes Harad/Sair army the best counter-army to Wood Elves.

If you expect the meta to stay the same because of scenarios (it did stay the same) then you're best off taking the best counterarmy for the meta.

You don't *just win* a GT... it's a few years of hard work to get all the experience and relevant material for a properly build list... then there's the playing skill, which often is very similar to other players and you only can beat them by playing as good as you can and exploiting every mistake they make - and everybody makes mistakes, that's why the game isn't luck dependent - if everyone played perfectly then it would be based completely on luck. Essentially the skill is in not giving up your army edge and in exploiting enemy mistakes

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League