I think most of the time player skill is much more important than the exact army list. Or at least, I know that a lot of good players would still beat me even if I had a "more optimal" list than they did, which is right! Some of the top tournament players have won with lots of different armies I think.

There are so many options possible that I'm sure all the good ones haven't yet been found only a couple of years into the new edition ... lots left to try!

Well, with my experience i have found out that armies do matter, and if one doesn't have enough might or enough model count or enough damage, they are doomed. For example, take 3 named ringwraiths on foot for an army made of just mordor orcs, and no-one will deal dmg in ur army list! So, there are objective things one needs to make an army good or bad, no matter what is their personal preference. But it is hard to see what is the optimal army without excessive testing and theory-crafting.

Don't get me wrong, I think army building is very important, but it's also so personalized that I don't think there's just one way to optimize it. You need a way to capture objectives, resist breaking, kill models, deal with opposing big hitters, deal with opposing spellcasters, control the movement phase, and probably more things that I can't think of right now. How you do all that is up to you, I really don't think there's a best or worst if you've checked all the boxes. There might be ways to improve an idea, but I still think that's subjective.

Speaking of objectively better lists, what are peoples thoughts on Gandalf the White? I've used him a couple times and had poor to adequate results with him so far. He seemed to have some use when up against enemy casters with his banish and fortify spirits. In general, however, I don't think his cost is equal to his toolkit. Haven't tried him with Shadowfax, could be a game changer for his damage output.

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

I've only had him used against me, but a spellcaster that good in an army with troops that solid, yes he's expensive but he can influence the game heavily. As with any spellcaster, much of his value depends on what your opponent has available to cast spells on. He can ravage a standard shieldwall quite comfortably with his easy Sorcerous Blast (and yes, Shadowfax makes him an absolute killer here), he shuts down heroes etc etc, the question just becomes about what else you have in the army. He is really expensive for what is essentially a powered up support hero, but he's a powered up support hero that can dominate the game.

That's a balance I can't quite figure out. I used to do very well and win tourneys by hording out as much as possible, never brought big heroes and always outnumbered my opponent. Then I shifted to taking bigger heroes and my policy is that I never take one; it's either two or none, one big hero is easy to focus on unless it's Sauron-tier. I don't do as well with these armies as I used to with my old hordes, so I don't have an answer to the Gandalf question. You should have something that can capitalize on his ability to dominate the table, whether it's another big expensive hero, or warriors and captains with more punch than usual, I don't know,

Uruk scouts vs fighting uruks & Berserkers vs Ferals?

So, fighting uruks have a bit higherdef, and pikes, so if u wantto melee only, iguess theyare superior. But scouts allow hit and run with decent bows, so could they have an above hand in some situations?

Berserks look like in the movie and have a cool background, while ferals look a bit gladiator type but definitely nothing like in the movies. So visual point of view berserks might be choice of many. But game wise ferals cheaper and 2 handed is quite risky so the only pro is basically that berserks higher courage? Which ones more competive?

Berserkers leading a pike block is a very popular (and scary) army. They get hand-and-a-half swords, so they can choose whether to fight single or two-handed. I want to say I've seen Ferals a few times, but I was just looking at their rules and saw that they have D4, so it must have been a while ago when they were still D5. Berserkers are definitely more popular because of the defence.

Uruk Crossbows are always a threat, I consider it the most dangerous shooting in the game. Uruk Scout bows are effective for what they do.

It's hard to compare those troop choices because they have different functions in the army. You have main troops for an infantry block, you have your 2A elites, and you have lightly armoured troops that have the option of moving 8". It's really circumstantial, but Isengard gives you a lot that you can play with

But aren't berserkers quite a pricy meatshield if enemy has bows?

Scouts vs. warriors is difficult.
I myself like the extra defence more than te mobility, but it depends on what the meta is and what the scenario is. There will be quite some times that the scouts will be usefuller, especially against strength 4 enemies (well, most of the time you will play against good forces, so strength 3 seems more likely to be on your enemy)

Feral vs. beserkers. I think, especially in the new rules, the berserkers will be better. They cost a bit more, but are difficulter to kill. And yes, it would be a pricy meatshield, that's true. I'm not sure if I would have a lot of them, I think (I don't play Isengard very often, so I'm not sure), that they are also good flankers, staying out of arrowfire and wrap around the corner. But I understand that with two pikes behind them, they will be a hard hitting power to play against in the center...

Berserkers get +1D against bowfire, and have a built in Fury save whenever they take a wound. I wouldn't be too worried about most ranged attacks against them. Or rather, they're less likely to drop than a standard Uruk Warrior.

I've faced them in a variety of roles: front line troops in a pike block, and sprinkled around the army for extra flavour. They're dangerous no matter how you use them.

As for Ferals, they're 2 points cheaper than Berserkers, but it looks like the difference in rules is worth more than 2 points. Hand-and-a-half sword, -1D (-2 against bows), -2C. It's unfortunate because it really goes against my philosophy that I talked about at the end of page 1, I hate "why take X when Y is always better?". It seems like, more often than not, you'll get more out of Berserkers than Ferals in the same role. I want someone to prove me wrong because I don't like the idea of an obsolete model.