Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

tneva82 wrote:
Ah yes. The narrative formation of specific moment not include people in that time.

Lol at try-hards just wanting free bonuses

The Rangers were operating how long without their prisoners?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bobug wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Still salty that they haven't fixed the Rangers of Ithilien LL to not mandate Gollum, Sam, and Frodo.

Or at the very least, they should have made it a requirement that the Faramir and Friends box included them.

The original version of the legion didn't mandate them and was incredibly overpowered at games below around 700pts. There's method in the madness

Then when Faramir and Friends came out, they should have been included in the box.

End of discussion.

Cool story bro.

 Fergie0044 wrote:
Good changes all round I say. Surprised the Dragon Emperor LL didn't get a look in. Maybe its not as oppressive as I've heard?

I think the Dragon Emps not getting touched was quite an oversight. It's not as obnoxious as some laketown soups, but it's very good. He could use a points bump at least considering the utility he delivers, his fight bubble is huge, and the legion can put down a very silly number of fight 5, defence 6 bodies at 800 points.

Bobug wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Still salty that they haven't fixed the Rangers of Ithilien LL to not mandate Gollum, Sam, and Frodo.

Or at the very least, they should have made it a requirement that the Faramir and Friends box included them.

The original version of the legion didn't mandate them and was incredibly overpowered at games below around 700pts. There's method in the madness

And based on what I've read, since they are included they aren't seen competitively any more. 'Method' only if you count the term over correction. Which given its GW, we probably should by now.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/08/06/sunday-preview-celebrate-middle-earth-with-a-made-to-order-diorama/

Soon available to order the new diorama.

Only for a limited time, because it's a Made to Order.

Made to Order, but sounds like it will continue to be available beyond that as a Warhammer World exclusive?

That's strange. The announcement was already quite mysterious ("we can't tell you more right now") and now the only miniature for lotr this year is MTO only?
Something seems to be going on. Maybe the whole MESBG staff has been relocated to Legions or something.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
That's strange. The announcement was already quite mysterious ("we can't tell you more right now") and now the only miniature for lotr this year is MTO only?
Something seems to be going on. Maybe the whole MESBG staff has been relocated to Legions or something.

GW had to manage right with Embracer group. They are indeed working on new stuff (they recently announced they are looking for a 3d sculptor specifically for ME:SBG).
Surely their major efforts are now on Legions Imperialis and Tow (other GW games like Necromunda have received low support in the last months) but I am quite sure we'll see something new in the near future.

The fact that this is finally releasing and that they have a new sculptor says that they must finally be past the issue with embracer and licensing. So new stuff for the future fingers crossed.

 Dawnbringer wrote:


And based on what I've read, since they are included they aren't seen competitively any more. 'Method' only if you count the term over correction. Which given its GW, we probably should by now.

GW? You mean Jay Clare. He's active (along with the rest of the Middle-earth team) on Facebook and actively participates in the Middle-earth competitive scene, so you can talk to him directly.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

Bobug wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Still salty that they haven't fixed the Rangers of Ithilien LL to not mandate Gollum, Sam, and Frodo.

Or at the very least, they should have made it a requirement that the Faramir and Friends box included them.

The original version of the legion didn't mandate them and was incredibly overpowered at games below around 700pts. There's method in the madness

And based on what I've read, since they are included they aren't seen competitively any more. 'Method' only if you count the term over correction. Which given its GW, we probably should by now.

Is it really an over correction though? It wasn't like you couldn't build lists to win against it pre nerf but the least interesting and least fun armies to play is against pure shooting armies. Even if that LL was just a bit worse but still good enough to seriously compete at events it wouldn't be fun to play against. I think they nerfed it for the fun of the game as much as for balance reasons and thus they corrected it the right amount.

Even though I don't agree with all the decisions the mesbg team does and I have plenty of stuff to complain about in how they do their FAQ/Errata I think they have a very good approach to any nerfs they have made so far. They dont just focus on how powerful or balanced stuff is but also about theme and I suspect a bit about fun as well. It isn't like the rangers of ithilien LL is unplayable. There are many armies and LLs that are worse than it so even though it probably won't win any larger events you can still play them just fine at local tournaments and in normal games. We have one guy at our club that plays them regularly as they are and he isn't performing better or worse with that LL than he does with Minas Tirith in general.

I do think they could do just as Kanluwen wanted and remove the restriction on Gollum, Sam and Frodo if they also removed the bonus that rangers can ignore bow limit so they are forced to use non archer warriors in the list as well or had them pay an extra 2pts a model for the benefit of ignoring bow limit. Anyone who wants back the previous version just as it were and sees no problem with it is most likely a WAAC player and/or someone who even though they might not care about winning they care even less about the other player having a good time.

If you removed the "ignore bow limit", you defeat the purpose of the Legendary Legion...

In an ideal world, the restriction on Frodo, Sam, and Gollum would be removed and replaced with the two FW Ranger characters(who they always seem to forget exist) if there's a requirement of a "points tax".

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you removed the "ignore bow limit", you defeat the purpose of the Legendary Legion...

In an ideal world, the restriction on Frodo, Sam, and Gollum would be removed and replaced with the two FW Ranger characters(who they always seem to forget exist) if there's a requirement of a "points tax".

This shows you don't really know what you are talking about. The two FW ranger's are included in the Faramir rangers LL update that came with the profile for those two rangers. They are also not a "points tax" but a reason the Legendary Legion is so damn oppressive since it gives them an additional 2 heroes with bows and 12 more ranger slots that don't care about bow limits. It also gives them stalk unseen and removes stalk unseen from enemies if anyone would ever try to use woses, wood elves or mirkwood rangers to try to combat that broken Legendary Legion.

If the purpose is to be all bows then it needs a big fat downside to balance it out. A purpose isn't reason enough to be over powered and oppressive.

Serious question: can someone explain to me why that Orc list isn't considered an issue if Faramir's Rangers is?

I ask this as someone who hasn't played the game in a long time so I've likely missed the nuance of the linked list, but can you tell me why the Orc list is an issue?

Aside from the fact that 3 of it's 4 captains are magic users (is 3 shamans OP?), it doesn't seem to lean heavily into any one thing and if I'm honest seems reasonably balanced as far as it's individual elements go (again to someone who hasn't played in a long time). What about it is troublesome?

 Snrub wrote:
I ask this as someone who hasn't played the game in a long time so I've likely missed the nuance of the linked list, but can you tell me why the Orc list is an issue?

Aside from the fact that 3 of it's 4 captains are magic users (is 3 shamans OP?), it doesn't seem to lean heavily into any one thing and if I'm honest seems reasonably balanced as far as it's individual elements go (again to someone who hasn't played in a long time). What about it is troublesome?

It forces the game to play in the night fighting rules and goblins see in the dark, dramatically boosting their shooting and hard nerfing everyone else's

This is on top of goblins being just really easy to spam and they get quite good magic on top of the good magic from muzgur

Also bat swarms are super tricky and strong.

Like a moria beast list was already quite good.


Note that spammy lists tend to be the better lists in the game and have to face nerfs regularly to rein them in

 Kanluwen wrote:
Serious question: can someone explain to me why that Orc list isn't considered an issue if Faramir's Rangers is?

You mean the list that was recently nerfed right before this event and this is the nerfed list? AoL only placed well in the Masters event with 18 players and Kylie who won with it is publicly known as one of the best players in the world. In the open event with over 170 players AoL didn't even reach top 20 if I recall correctly (it was outside of the top 10). I ended up in third place and played against mostly players that ended up in the top 10 (1st & 4th-6th placings) and didn't see any AoL on those tables and no one there really talked about AoL. Some people were surprised Dragon Host didn't get a nerf though. AoL isn't really seen as a problem after the nerf.

Assault on Lothlorien can be harsh to face but even if they spam bows they are still only 1/3 bows rather than 100% on M5 models that hit on 5+(instead of 3+ like rangers) on 18" range (rather than 24" from rangers) and are also really bad in melee with F2 and D3 vs F4 and D4 on the rangers. It is a strong list but that is because how they combine lots of multiple profiles and use beasts with magic. Original Faramir's is just 100% bows and either you survive the bows and crush them or you get wiped out from way too many bows. One list is tough but at least interesting and one list is just the most boring list you can imagine to play against.

I stand firm in my opinion that anyone who thinks GW should go back to the buffed(the 2 additional Ranger Heroes Kanluwen didn't even know were allowed in the Legion) and pre nerfed Faramir's Rangers list is someone not worth listening to because they apparently only cares about their own enjoyment of the game and have 0 regards for anyone else in the community.

Klickor wrote:

I stand firm in my opinion that anyone who thinks GW should go back to the buffed(the 2 additional Ranger Heroes Kanluwen didn't even know were allowed in the Legion)

...lol?

Kanluwen wrote:If you removed the "ignore bow limit", you defeat the purpose of the Legendary Legion...

In an ideal world, the restriction on Frodo, Sam, and Gollum would be removed and replaced with the two FW Ranger characters(who they always seem to forget exist) if there's a requirement of a "points tax".

Yes, because that definitely seems like someone who is unaware of being allowed in the Legendary Legion and not someone suggesting that they replace the weird mandatory caveat on Frodo, Sam, and Gollum with the two FW Ranger characters becoming mandatory?

I'm not sure if it's a language thing(your flag is showing as Norway), but for the record:
My suggestion had nothing to do with "adding" Anborn and Mablung to the list. I know they're there. I have them.

My suggestion was to replace the mandatory Frodo, Sam, and Gollum with making them mandatory. Hell, they could even make them mandatory in joining Faramir or Madril's groups.

There's a lot of ways to go which wouldn't simply be mandating the three characters that are literally meant to be optional so you can represent some of the scenes from the film.

and pre nerfed Faramir's Rangers list is someone not worth listening to because they apparently only cares about their own enjoyment of the game and have 0 regards for anyone else in the community.

Or maybe it's someone who doesn't understand why there's such a hate-on for Faramir's. It's not like they're the only bow heavy list, right?

But how are the 2 extra ranger heroes that buff all your rangers and allows you to take even more rangers a "point tax" when the first thing you should do is start with them in the list? I thought you didn't know they were allowed in the list since you said they should be a point tax and that they somehow were forgotten. They are part of the actual problem with the list so they can't be a solution to the list and if they were forgotten it would have been better.

A point tax is to take something worse to lower the power of a list. None of the ranger heroes are a point tax in faramirs rangers except on very low points. They allow that list to be oppressive in an even larger point span thanks to the extra ranger heroes.

"Maybe we should nerf the Dragon Host by forcing all 18 warriors in the Dragon Emperor's warband be Black Dragons and have one of them also be a cavalry model with a drum! That sounds like the perfect point tax to tackle DE being underpriced!!" "Or maybe we should nerf the Witch King by FORCING him to take 3 might and Crown of Morgul every game, thus wasting points even if they are the best upgrades for him 100% of the time. Cause now players are forced into a point tax the model is nerfed!" What stupid logic is this?

They were the most extreme bow heavy list in the game and still are, but thankfully they have been nerfed so not oppressive. You can't get that many bows with any other list in the game. Maybe pure moria goblin or shire lists can get close but those are way worse bows on way worse models. Most actual bow heavy lists have about half the number of bows than what Faramir's Rangers still can field.

What made the Ranger LL such a problem was the fact that it was bringing so many accurate bows to the table in a game that isn't designed for this level of shooting superiority.

When the opponent's experience is watching as they get 40k Tau'd off the board as they push their models towards a standing (or worse: retreating) gunline just makes for a negative play experience while also being quite oppressive.

The Rangers still do work with the hobbit tax, as a ringbearer is a valuable tool to pair with Faramir, but they have been toned down in a way that prevents them from abusing lower-point brackets where you can't bring a lot of answers to shooting and where each death to shooting weighs even more on the boardstate.

---- Back to current events:

The Assault on Lothlorien LL has a similar issue with shooting superiority, but that is one strength of many behind the AOL list. It's been slightly nerfed, but still seems quite strong.

The changes in this FAQ overall are good. The Heroic Defense change is interesting to say the least, but Strength 4 is common enough that models like the Bears are still taking nat 6s anyways.

Interesting that the DE LL didn't get hit with anything, but time will tell how the other three lists getting hit will influence the next round of adjustments.

RIP: Razgush breaking the rules.

Klickor wrote:
But how are the 2 extra ranger heroes that buff all your rangers and allows you to take even more rangers a "point tax" when the first thing you should do is start with them in the list? I thought you didn't know they were allowed in the list since you said they should be a point tax and that they somehow were forgotten. They are part of the actual problem with the list so they can't be a solution to the list and if they were forgotten it would have been better.

Sure they can.

A point tax is to take something worse to lower the power of a list. None of the ranger heroes are a point tax in faramirs rangers except on very low points. They allow that list to be oppressive in an even larger point span thanks to the extra ranger heroes.

A point tax can be a lot of things.

"Maybe we should nerf the Dragon Host by forcing all 18 warriors in the Dragon Emperor's warband be Black Dragons and have one of them also be a cavalry model with a drum! That sounds like the perfect point tax to tackle DE being underpriced!!" "Or maybe we should nerf the Witch King by FORCING him to take 3 might and Crown of Morgul every game, thus wasting points even if they are the best upgrades for him 100% of the time. Cause now players are forced into a point tax the model is nerfed!" What stupid logic is this?

Probably the same stupid logic that turns the three models that are printed IN TWO SEPARATE ITERATIONS OF THE LEGENDARY LEGION as "optional, but if taken can't lead anyone" then forced into being mandatory?

They were the most extreme bow heavy list in the game and still are, but thankfully they have been nerfed so not oppressive. You can't get that many bows with any other list in the game. Maybe pure moria goblin or shire lists can get close but those are way worse bows on way worse models. Most actual bow heavy lists have about half the number of bows than what Faramir's Rangers still can field.

Whaaaaaaat, a bow themed list can be bow heavy?

It seems you're more interested in taking shots at me than actually discussing things. Enjoy ignore!

But should a bow heavy list obliterate D4 armies and if lucky completely wipe them in this game?

If so, should only Faramir's Rangers be able to do that our should we remove bow limit on more lists like Serpent Horde or Rivendell (besides knights with Elrond) so bow themed lists can be bow themed and win easily from range? They are after all bow themed.

Should shooting be changed from a tool that help dictate where and when engagement happens to the deciding factor in most games? Either you play all bows yourself or you play with IH Ballista, Shadowlord, Cirdan, Gandalf or Galadrield or even worse you play all elf archers with Galadriel/Cirdan and just win the game. Would be pretty thematic to have 30+ elf bows backed up by one of the most powerful elves in the third age. They would also crush Faramir's Rangers so hard they would see even less play than what they currently does.

Klickor wrote:
Should shooting be changed from a tool that help dictate where and when engagement happens to the deciding factor in most games?

Why not? I've never understood this aversion to shooting LOTR players seem to have. Why should shooting be forced into a secondary role and melee get to always be the deciding factor? If there's a bow limit why isn't there also a melee weapon limit?

Rather than imposing arbitrary limits on how many ranged weapons you can include or requiring specific tax characters even if they aren't appropriate for the story the goal should be to fix the core rules so that both options are relevant and interesting. Fix the terrain rules to prevent gunlines from dominating, give quality ranged units an appropriate cost, etc.

The terrain rules are already quite lenient and strong against shooting, you can essentially receive multiple armour saves before even having the roll to wound resolved.

I think artificially limiting the bows is just the trade off for the type of game this is. If you want a shooting game you can look elsewhere, or just suck it up and deal with the limitations you're dealt. Having played a lot of 40k in the past I'm happy with how MESBG plays as it at least allows counterplay and doesn't involve multiple games where you just get deleted by amazing strategies like no-los-anti-everything shooting.

I thought the idea of the bow limit was more to stop very dull games where armies lined up just inside maximum range, ideally in cover and spent many turns shooting to no real impact

essentially to force people to get close

to be fair the scenarios usually do a decent job of punishing someone who sits still but at least its a way of setting armies to at least pay some attention to the background

Shooting games are also the slowest games and quite impractical if you want to do tournaments. It is less lethal than melee most of the time and if there is a lot of terrain the game slows to a crawl.

It is also a bit of a noob trap due to how the scenarios work and how some lists can easily counter shooting lists.

Game works great with shooting being mostly just supplemental and an additional tool to use rather than the main way armies deal damage. How you use it and when you use it adds more skill to it as well rather than just point it at something and delete it (The Isengard LL with Ballistas that was closest to this got nerfed to prevent this non interactive game play). Its when lines start to meet and you have to use your heroes and their resources the more interesting and skill intensive parts of the game begin.

The game just isn't made around shooting being equal to or superior to melee and if anyone would want that then they should look at a different game because this game would need a huge redesign to work like that.

I play Elves and Isengard, two of the most dominant factions when it comes to shooting, and I don't think more shooting would have a positive impact at all. It just doesn't fit into the game and shooting being supplemental also is more realistic considering the tech level seen in Lord of the Rings (book and movies). Bows historically couldn't defeat entire armies even if they were important weapons of war so any game that tries to be at least somewhat "realistic" should follow that. Just because WFB could allow low tech armies win with shooting alone didn't mean that it was a good idea to have that be an option. No one liked playing against it either.

The MeSBg system does fairly well in representing warband warfare from the early Middle Ages in northern/NW Europe (upon which Tolkien based LotR militarily). But it does fall apart when it comes to ranged aspect of that warfare, which is why GW had to arbitrarily limit access to bows.

If one removes this band-aid, the system would need a retooling to make ranged warfare work correctly.

invariably the problem in skirmish games with dangerous ranged weapons is the board size, models can move through a weapons range with far fewer incoming shots than would ever actually happen

Bit gimmicky? But Warriors of the Dead are back, in a blue translucent plastic.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/11/20/the-armies-of-the-dead-fulfil-their-oath-in-new-translucent-plastic-kits/

Interesting. Just need to base and the army is done. More interested in the terrain bundle however.