Also, this data led to some very interesting results after plugging it in to an excel sheet. Overall, the spread is pretty tight, with a median of 51% winning. However, the data does strongly suggest that the Hobbit armies are in fact more winning than LotR armies--an average of 53.6% winning for Hobbit to 48.2% winning for LotR. And Defense of the North really comes off as egregious here, with an astounding 62.5% winning rate for Legions from that supplement. Interestingly, there is very little difference between strictly normal armies and Legions: 50.3% for armies, and 51.0% for Legions. Thanks for putting all this information together!
I wonder if the significant difference between lotr and hobbit armies is down to hobbit armies being owned by more experienced players. New players typically start with lotr armies I guess.
Great comment! You obviously did the stats. A difference of +3.6% and -1.8% for Hobbit and Lord of the rings isn't bad at all. With the amount of data in there it is quite a meaningful result. Often times people complain about the Hobbit being stronger but I think this shows that is not the case to a large degree. Defence of the North is terrible with 62.5% they obviously didn't get those legendary legions right. Surprisingly the legion from defence of the north that I thought was the weakest on my first glance was the one that was the highest in the stats. Hopefully the rules writers take it as a learning for the next suplament. A lot of people also complain about legendary legions so to see them so balanced is great. Personally I am a massive fan of legendary legions overall but it does seem like there are some duds and some great ones rather than all being in the middle
@@ConquestCreations Most of the lists on the bottom of the ranking are LoTR armies with very low win rates for obvious reasons as well. Excluding those, the win % comparison between Hobbit and LoTR armies is much closer.
Very interesting video. But as you mention when talking about Arnor it is important to compare who plays that armies. Gondor with 48% win rate eg means that experienced players probably have a way higher win rate, because that army is played by many beginners (same with Mordor und Isengard), while some armies are only played by experienced players and a new one would never reach that win rate even closely
I think you are right about the win rates being skewed by the calibre of players using these lists. If you were gunna be really nerdy about this, it would be cool to see a revised list where you correct the win rate according to the calibre of its users. For example, divide the win rate of an army by the average win rate of its users other games. That would give a ‘strength index’ alongside the raw win rate of each army. There’s probs other better ways but that’s a quick and dirty one.
@@metascrub285 probs. I think the skewing happens at the less experienced end. Some Armies are easier to collect, more thematic or just more forgiving to use for noobs. The return of the king LL is a great example. Really simple and forgiving to use due to the high defence. Helps buffer errors or suboptimal movement.
I find it very impressive that the worst armies still win 44% of the time. Aside from the few armies that probably are skewed by better players, everyone has a pretty even chance of winning with most armies. This means, to me, that playing with an army that you like is a very reasonable choice.
I have to imagine the reason the Chief's Ruffians places so well is cause only the best players would be crazy enough to actually bring them to a tournament
Thanks for the comment, if you are thinking of getting into the game check out this video, rather than ranking them it's a description of their play style and has some good images ruclips.net/video/s62pfm7xyuY/видео.html
Great video as always. I was surprised by quite a few of the rankings, but i was overjoyed to see Helm's guard get placed so highly. in his LL Helm is just so freaking amazing, and my friends always dread having to face him across the table. that free might and free Heroic combat help him earn his points and of course your enemies usually freak out and over commit to try and stop him which allows the rest of helm's boys to get work done. you are of course correct that as the game's point level goes up his forces start to run out of steam. Helm cant be everywhere all at once.
I played over the weekend with Army of Thror and came 15th 4 wins 2 losses. I think that the army of Thror is an incredible army to play if you play to its strengths and defend heavily on its weaknesses. You are slow thats a fact, deploy as far forward as you possibly can and close the distance between you and the enemy. Try your hardest to get the charge you get 10+ throwing axes that will surprise you on the way in. Thror, Thrain and Thorin are perfect heroes utilize their abilities and you will do fine
Really interesting data, excellent work for putting it into a 47 min package. It's easy to discredit the ranking of any army with less than 40 to 50 or so games, yet still intriguing to see win to loss percentage. Some good trends you noticed regarding themes list choices and hero armies. It is comforting to know what our community is choosing to play. Might have to paint up my full metal warg army for next time you're up for Area 😂
That is true for 40k which is different for a few reasons. Mainly there are a lot more games of 40k played so with more data the statistics are more robust. In these statistics the armies with the highest number of games played were all around the 50% mark. The second major difference is that 40k has much fewer faction. Middle Earth has over 70 which is a lot more to keep track of.
Isengard and fiefdoms so low, very surprising. I own both factions and find both very solid and have great success with both. Otherwise anything below 100 games may just be one or two strong dedicated players submitting results constantly (like the arnor result for example, 30 games with 80% winrate really says nothing except there was one dude submitting the sheit out of his arnor games xD )
It would be really interesting to see the stats if there were 20,000 games recorded rather than just 5,000. There would certainly be a few armies that moved around a lot in the rankings
Apologies. I take the Grey Company so often, and also get smooshed. Mainly, as I tend to give so few fuchs as to winning, and just charge; die; and get first in the queue at the bar.
I'm curious what you guys think on AOLT being not competitive at the higher point level. Watched the Into the West earlier this week on them and I feel like after seeing it they seem like they would be terrible to face at any points for the most part. At first glance obviously not as threatening but some of the lists i've seen done up theyre pushing 60+ models. You can always ally in Gandalf, or Thor and the upgraded Grimhammers to give you either more control or hitting power/defense. Just curious on your thoughts/reasons at the higher points.
Hi CC, I am a new player to the game of mesbg. I just completed planning out my Mordor army list, please tell me what you think! Mordor 1000 points army list: Warband 1 (leader) Gothmog with shield and warg: 150 points Orc shaman with warg: 60 pt. 30 Morannon orcs with shields and spears: 240 pt. Warband 2 Gorbag with shield: 50 pt. Mordor Troll: 100 pt. 10 Morannon orcs with spears and shields: 90 pt. 24 Orc Trackers: 120 pt. Warband 3 Orc Captain with warg and shield: 55 pt. Warg rider with Banner: 37 pt. 7 warg riders with shield: 91 pt. Grand Total: 993 points.
@@fergie0044 Yeah I guess that’s decent. I’m keen to see a bit more diversity in troops if we get an Arnor and Angmar re-release. Still can’t decide if I think they look dorky or cool! I think it’s the turban helmet rim that’s holding it back 😂
It is because they have very good allies, khazad dum bringing khazard guard front line and arnor backline. Or Celeborn/ cirdan/ saruman the white to give aura of command with some elves/ wizard support. They are very good at hoarding out and not dying while heroes munch the opponent. I have a mate playing around with Glorfindell, cirdan, malbeth and arvendui. It is good so far! Terror and fearless with some f5 is strong!
I think one indicator is the rarity of the models for a long time. The people who played Arnor had either been playing since they were available or tracked them down when they were unavailable, so have either been playing a long time and/or are very dedicated players. Jay Clare, who wrote the current edition, won a tourney I was at in 2018 using the only Arnor army there.
Thanks for the comment, Angmar and the Dark Denizens of Mirkwood are a red alliance so it would have significant drawbacks due to that. I would recomend running Angmar as a pure list, they are one of the toughest out there. If you are more interested in running Mirkwood they can work as a pure list at lower points but struggle at bigger points. The good thing is they have heaps of good allies so you can drop the spider queen with her spiders into several lists.
The kingdom of moria is included in Kingdom of Khazad Dum given the similarity? As a dwarf player I would for sure prefer separation as one is very common at low points and the other at higher points and therefore performance could vary.
They are more or less the same Army. I don't understand why people always wants to divide them. It is like two diffrent heros,the rest is the same. Unless you want to allay them.
Its sad to see how some armies are way overpowered. Thought it would ve more balanced. I guess some armies, like mordor, rohan, gondor gets worse score because more noobs use those than rarer and newer LLs, so it is probably not that unbalanced after all. Any thoughts?
I don't think it's unbalanced at all. The statistics are not always a representation of how powerful an army is. Arnor is a great example of this. They objectively aren't that powerful. Mordor, Gondor, and Rohan were some of the most balanced army lists in the game Mordor had the most amount of games recorded and had a perfect 50% win rate
I think it is really about how good the players are whith there armys. Some are overpowerd but ja still Manager to win whith celeborn who is clearly not worth his points
Very interesting video. Thanks Jacob, ive now watched it 3 times.. Arnor- could that be through an alliance? their standard models are underrated. Fight 4, strength 3, Defence 6 for 8 points. shame they are out of print.
Whe alliances are formed with factions, can those be from legendary legions or must it be from the base armies? do you have a video on how alliances work, and good alliances combinations ? if not might be a good one for the future.
Alliances can only be formed from the army list. One of the purposes of Legendary legions is to create unique armies that might not be possible due to the alliance matrix such as Ugluks scouts which is a combo of Isengard and Mordor I don't have a video about it yet but I could do a video about list building and include the allies rules in it
I know these stats arent super "scientific" not big enough sample size, confounding factors of what top players find fun, build, expect to see other people play ect and there are absolutely obvious outliers here for sure but coming from other game systems anything over like 52% win rate is considerably stronger then others and anything hitting like 55 or above is broken. I think all of the lists people have been complaining about have enough games for the statistics to be at least indicative of their power levels if not conclusive about those win rates. I used to play relatively regularly if never a ton and I love the game and the models but I've taken a step back from the game because every time I sit down to plan for a tournament I look at models I have built and painted or would like to and start making lists I just get discouraged because I look at some of these match ups and they're basically unwinnable and by unwinnable I mean there are no situations or even scenarios where I have an advantage assuming my opponent is a competent player. Yes if winning was all that mattered I too could built and practice with one of these top lists but it isn't. I want to be able to win games with the models and armies I built and spent hours painting not be forced to make that choice and yes 56% isnt 100% but it feels like there used to be less of a gap in power levels. It very much feels like now there are lists that completely strangle large swaths of forces out of viability and thats a shame. Of all of the war games out there ME is maybe the closest to being a game where you can bring your favorite models, armies, show case them, roll dice and if you play well you will do well but it feels less and less that way as time goes on. Ready for a new addition or at least a major overhaul. For me at least the game state isnt in a particularly healthy or fun place :/
The main reason I said that was that in the regular warriors box it also comes with Numnorians so you get them in a strange ratio and you can't get sword and shield warriors so you must convert them
I love to see Azogs legion so low, as I hate Azog, but I think the reason why is simply how ridiculously weak it is to magic. I caster can just disable 250 points of the army, and a hero with strike can easily drop those monsters.
It depends on the players and how well they know the armies they are playing, a noob player losing with a good army will skewer the results. Also if players are at different levels of experience so these results are guides only. Interesting video though, enjoyed it
Thanks for the video. My only constructive criticism is that this list would be insightful if you simply removed armies that did not have a certain number of games played. I’m no statistician, so I’m not sure what number this should be (100?). Most of the top 10 is simply not relevant.
Arnor - my boooooooooiiiiiiiiiz! Bring on the supplement let’s boost this win percentage up to 90% baby! On a serious note I can confirm my win rate is much lower… because I’m a shit general
@@ConquestCreations Thanks. How would he do in matches with magic? With 'only' 3 will points won't he get shutdown easily? But those 4 attacks with f7 if you buy the 30p extra swords is really good. Then the extra attack for each opponent. Which makes him hit hard. Wich can be coutred tho by feeding him models at the time but that the issue for most heroes. Elendil counters both of these with unbending resolve and that tasty free heroic combat.
Where does vanilla Rohan fall on this list? Or is its absence a subtle commentary on the fact that it has so many Legions that it isn't played vanilla anymore? Haha.
Frankly I'd much rather see a user opinion based video like this with some room for controversy or discussion as opposed to taking blatantly misrepresented longshank's data.
If you would rather see a user opinion check out this video. I don't rank the armies but I sort them into a tier. ruclips.net/video/s62pfm7xyuY/видео.html
Naa, they are funn but they have some big problems. They are weak against shooting, have problems with realy big heros, only a few spears (unless you go mad with huskals). Also currage is strange with dunland, most not great but others are fearless 😂
Yeah that is the challenge of using the statistics is that certain things like that can happen! With my rating I would put Isengard in the middle of the ranking and Arnor in the bottom quarter
Dude u shouldnt have used those statistics because the less popular armies get bigger win rates so they are in the top although in table they suck. So this whole video ended up in the underdog tier because of those statistics...
Some photos to accompany each army would have gone a long way.
No
Yes
Maybe
I don’t know, can you repeat the question?
All of the above
Also, this data led to some very interesting results after plugging it in to an excel sheet. Overall, the spread is pretty tight, with a median of 51% winning. However, the data does strongly suggest that the Hobbit armies are in fact more winning than LotR armies--an average of 53.6% winning for Hobbit to 48.2% winning for LotR. And Defense of the North really comes off as egregious here, with an astounding 62.5% winning rate for Legions from that supplement. Interestingly, there is very little difference between strictly normal armies and Legions: 50.3% for armies, and 51.0% for Legions. Thanks for putting all this information together!
I wonder if the significant difference between lotr and hobbit armies is down to hobbit armies being owned by more experienced players. New players typically start with lotr armies I guess.
@@mr.nuggelton2754very good point
Great comment!
You obviously did the stats. A difference of +3.6% and -1.8% for Hobbit and Lord of the rings isn't bad at all. With the amount of data in there it is quite a meaningful result. Often times people complain about the Hobbit being stronger but I think this shows that is not the case to a large degree.
Defence of the North is terrible with 62.5% they obviously didn't get those legendary legions right. Surprisingly the legion from defence of the north that I thought was the weakest on my first glance was the one that was the highest in the stats. Hopefully the rules writers take it as a learning for the next suplament.
A lot of people also complain about legendary legions so to see them so balanced is great. Personally I am a massive fan of legendary legions overall but it does seem like there are some duds and some great ones rather than all being in the middle
@@mr.nuggelton2754down to the massive stat creep
@@ConquestCreations Most of the lists on the bottom of the ranking are LoTR armies with very low win rates for obvious reasons as well. Excluding those, the win % comparison between Hobbit and LoTR armies is much closer.
Very interesting video. But as you mention when talking about Arnor it is important to compare who plays that armies. Gondor with 48% win rate eg means that experienced players probably have a way higher win rate, because that army is played by many beginners (same with Mordor und Isengard), while some armies are only played by experienced players and a new one would never reach that win rate even closely
I think you are right about the win rates being skewed by the calibre of players using these lists. If you were gunna be really nerdy about this, it would be cool to see a revised list where you correct the win rate according to the calibre of its users. For example, divide the win rate of an army by the average win rate of its users other games. That would give a ‘strength index’ alongside the raw win rate of each army. There’s probs other better ways but that’s a quick and dirty one.
Let's be real good players are at least using mid tier armies or better.
@@metascrub285 probs. I think the skewing happens at the less experienced end. Some Armies are easier to collect, more thematic or just more forgiving to use for noobs. The return of the king LL is a great example. Really simple and forgiving to use due to the high defence. Helps buffer errors or suboptimal movement.
Thank you for taking the time to compile and present all of these statistics. This was a very interesting video.
I find it very impressive that the worst armies still win 44% of the time. Aside from the few armies that probably are skewed by better players, everyone has a pretty even chance of winning with most armies. This means, to me, that playing with an army that you like is a very reasonable choice.
UNDERDOG TIER AGAIN.
Don't be a coward, give us a 'trash tier'
Also Girion Dale is best Dale.
#justiceforDale
-Sean
I have to imagine the reason the Chief's Ruffians places so well is cause only the best players would be crazy enough to actually bring them to a tournament
Some of these like Dark Denizens are clearly allied lists. Spider Queen gets thrown into say Mordor all the time
Would have been nice to show photos of the factions for potential players thinking about getting into the hobby.
Thanks for the comment, if you are thinking of getting into the game check out this video, rather than ranking them it's a description of their play style and has some good images
ruclips.net/video/s62pfm7xyuY/видео.html
This is so funny I was watching him get into high 60s and thinking "did he just forget Arnor?"
Hahaha yeah you would have thought so!
Great video as always. I was surprised by quite a few of the rankings, but i was overjoyed to see Helm's guard get placed so highly. in his LL Helm is just so freaking amazing, and my friends always dread having to face him across the table. that free might and free Heroic combat help him earn his points and of course your enemies usually freak out and over commit to try and stop him which allows the rest of helm's boys to get work done. you are of course correct that as the game's point level goes up his forces start to run out of steam. Helm cant be everywhere all at once.
I mean Fight 5 troops are also realy good. So you don't only have problems with only Helm.
Great video! Would love to see a list for most competitive armies at different point levels. E.g.,: 500 points, 650, 800 and 1000 points
What? Where's Rohan? 🤣 Now I have to watch the video again ahahaha and it was a great video 👌 thanks Jacob 🙏
I played over the weekend with Army of Thror and came 15th 4 wins 2 losses. I think that the army of Thror is an incredible army to play if you play to its strengths and defend heavily on its weaknesses. You are slow thats a fact, deploy as far forward as you possibly can and close the distance between you and the enemy. Try your hardest to get the charge you get 10+ throwing axes that will surprise you on the way in. Thror, Thrain and Thorin are perfect heroes utilize their abilities and you will do fine
Really interesting data, excellent work for putting it into a 47 min package. It's easy to discredit the ranking of any army with less than 40 to 50 or so games, yet still intriguing to see win to loss percentage. Some good trends you noticed regarding themes list choices and hero armies. It is comforting to know what our community is choosing to play.
Might have to paint up my full metal warg army for next time you're up for Area 😂
Great vid! Some shocking ones and some less surprising ones at the top!
Awesome video! Already 1 minute i to it and I love it :D
Thanks for the comment!
Games workshop’s definition of a balanced/ideal faction has between a 45% and 55% win rate
That is true for 40k which is different for a few reasons. Mainly there are a lot more games of 40k played so with more data the statistics are more robust. In these statistics the armies with the highest number of games played were all around the 50% mark. The second major difference is that 40k has much fewer faction. Middle Earth has over 70 which is a lot more to keep track of.
Isengard and fiefdoms so low, very surprising. I own both factions and find both very solid and have great success with both. Otherwise anything below 100 games may just be one or two strong dedicated players submitting results constantly (like the arnor result for example, 30 games with 80% winrate really says nothing except there was one dude submitting the sheit out of his arnor games xD )
It would be really interesting to see the stats if there were 20,000 games recorded rather than just 5,000. There would certainly be a few armies that moved around a lot in the rankings
In general big armys are used more by less expirienced players wich pulls down the statistiks
Im 90% sure you dont need to take a mumak for grand army of thr south. Its must include a Royal Mumak OR Suladan (or both)
Grand army of the South must include a Mumak, the Royal Mumak would count for this but if you don't have the royal one you would need a regular
How to construct an army list for MESBG: for beginners-
ruclips.net/user/shortsiQ80ldvXt0g?feature=share
shout outs to me for dragging ironhills down with my 1/1/8
Someone has to do the lord work
Apologies. I take the Grey Company so often, and also get smooshed. Mainly, as I tend to give so few fuchs as to winning, and just charge; die; and get first in the queue at the bar.
This is not a bad way to play the game! The bar has never made me feel worse
I'm curious what you guys think on AOLT being not competitive at the higher point level. Watched the Into the West earlier this week on them and I feel like after seeing it they seem like they would be terrible to face at any points for the most part. At first glance obviously not as threatening but some of the lists i've seen done up theyre pushing 60+ models. You can always ally in Gandalf, or Thor and the upgraded Grimhammers to give you either more control or hitting power/defense. Just curious on your thoughts/reasons at the higher points.
Arnor won ArdaCon 2023??
Hi CC, I am a new player to the game of mesbg. I just completed planning out my Mordor army list, please tell me what you think!
Mordor 1000 points army list:
Warband 1 (leader)
Gothmog with shield and warg: 150 points
Orc shaman with warg: 60 pt.
30 Morannon orcs with shields and spears: 240 pt.
Warband 2
Gorbag with shield: 50 pt.
Mordor Troll: 100 pt.
10 Morannon orcs with spears and shields: 90 pt.
24 Orc Trackers: 120 pt.
Warband 3
Orc Captain with warg and shield: 55 pt.
Warg rider with Banner: 37 pt.
7 warg riders with shield: 91 pt.
Grand Total: 993 points.
That’s crazy about Arnor. Do you think part of that is that anyone playing AGAINST arnor simply isn’t familiar enough with it to beat it?
8pts for a basic warrior, F4 D6 and spear is good value. Never mind the 5+ save
@@fergie0044 Yeah I guess that’s decent. I’m keen to see a bit more diversity in troops if we get an Arnor and Angmar re-release. Still can’t decide if I think they look dorky or cool! I think it’s the turban helmet rim that’s holding it back 😂
It is because they have very good allies, khazad dum bringing khazard guard front line and arnor backline. Or Celeborn/ cirdan/ saruman the white to give aura of command with some elves/ wizard support. They are very good at hoarding out and not dying while heroes munch the opponent. I have a mate playing around with Glorfindell, cirdan, malbeth and arvendui. It is good so far! Terror and fearless with some f5 is strong!
I think one indicator is the rarity of the models for a long time. The people who played Arnor had either been playing since they were available or tracked them down when they were unavailable, so have either been playing a long time and/or are very dedicated players. Jay Clare, who wrote the current edition, won a tourney I was at in 2018 using the only Arnor army there.
We’re there any factions or legions that had 0 game time?
All of them were represented but some armies could see the table a lot more. Sharkey's rouges and their legendary legion were the least played
Hi there, love the channel, thinking of getting into this myself, how do you think an angmar/mirkwood combination would go?
Thanks for the comment, Angmar and the Dark Denizens of Mirkwood are a red alliance so it would have significant drawbacks due to that. I would recomend running Angmar as a pure list, they are one of the toughest out there.
If you are more interested in running Mirkwood they can work as a pure list at lower points but struggle at bigger points. The good thing is they have heaps of good allies so you can drop the spider queen with her spiders into several lists.
How is a faction ranked/counted if it included any allies? By leader or most points spend?
Exelent video!!! 👏💪🍻
Am I crazy or did basic Rohan not feature at all? Is everyone just playing one of their many LLs?
i think i missed it as well?
They did nerf assault on Lothlorien recently, how it would it holdup now? Assault on helm’s deep got the re-rolls nerfed too.
The kingdom of moria is included in Kingdom of Khazad Dum given the similarity? As a dwarf player I would for sure prefer separation as one is very common at low points and the other at higher points and therefore performance could vary.
They are more or less the same Army. I don't understand why people always wants to divide them. It is like two diffrent heros,the rest is the same.
Unless you want to allay them.
@@grimgrauman7650 As said, one low points and one high points... could be that at low points Balin is better than at high points Durin...
@@kj4411 At 650 point list, would you go balin or durin?
@@jamit500 that's a tricky. Personally 700 is my limit to switch. 650 could be ok but 600 still balin.
This makes me feel better about all my defeats!
Its sad to see how some armies are way overpowered. Thought it would ve more balanced. I guess some armies, like mordor, rohan, gondor gets worse score because more noobs use those than rarer and newer LLs, so it is probably not that unbalanced after all.
Any thoughts?
I don't think it's unbalanced at all. The statistics are not always a representation of how powerful an army is. Arnor is a great example of this. They objectively aren't that powerful.
Mordor, Gondor, and Rohan were some of the most balanced army lists in the game Mordor had the most amount of games recorded and had a perfect 50% win rate
I think it is really about how good the players are whith there armys. Some are overpowerd but ja still Manager to win whith celeborn who is clearly not worth his points
Very interesting video. Thanks Jacob, ive now watched it 3 times.. Arnor- could that be through an alliance? their standard models are underrated. Fight 4, strength 3, Defence 6 for 8 points. shame they are out of print.
Nice, some interesting surprises there
I totally agree, some were expected but for the most part very different than what I would have guessed
Whe alliances are formed with factions, can those be from legendary legions or must it be from the base armies?
do you have a video on how alliances work, and good alliances combinations ?
if not might be a good one for the future.
Alliances can only be formed from the army list. One of the purposes of Legendary legions is to create unique armies that might not be possible due to the alliance matrix such as Ugluks scouts which is a combo of Isengard and Mordor
I don't have a video about it yet but I could do a video about list building and include the allies rules in it
41:22 a small typo: “Defenrers” of Erebor.
I know these stats arent super "scientific" not big enough sample size, confounding factors of what top players find fun, build, expect to see other people play ect and there are absolutely obvious outliers here for sure but coming from other game systems anything over like 52% win rate is considerably stronger then others and anything hitting like 55 or above is broken. I think all of the lists people have been complaining about have enough games for the statistics to be at least indicative of their power levels if not conclusive about those win rates.
I used to play relatively regularly if never a ton and I love the game and the models but I've taken a step back from the game because every time I sit down to plan for a tournament I look at models I have built and painted or would like to and start making lists I just get discouraged because I look at some of these match ups and they're basically unwinnable and by unwinnable I mean there are no situations or even scenarios where I have an advantage assuming my opponent is a competent player. Yes if winning was all that mattered I too could built and practice with one of these top lists but it isn't. I want to be able to win games with the models and armies I built and spent hours painting not be forced to make that choice and yes 56% isnt 100% but it feels like there used to be less of a gap in power levels. It very much feels like now there are lists that completely strangle large swaths of forces out of viability and thats a shame.
Of all of the war games out there ME is maybe the closest to being a game where you can bring your favorite models, armies, show case them, roll dice and if you play well you will do well but it feels less and less that way as time goes on. Ready for a new addition or at least a major overhaul. For me at least the game state isnt in a particularly healthy or fun place :/
Ughhh he's so gorgeeooous
Why is rivendell difficult to collect? Nearly everything is available + alternative models
The main reason I said that was that in the regular warriors box it also comes with Numnorians so you get them in a strange ratio and you can't get sword and shield warriors so you must convert them
I love to see Azogs legion so low, as I hate Azog, but I think the reason why is simply how ridiculously weak it is to magic. I caster can just disable 250 points of the army, and a hero with strike can easily drop those monsters.
Would be good
To hear your own top 10
It depends on the players and how well they know the armies they are playing, a noob player losing with a good army will skewer the results. Also if players are at different levels of experience so these results are guides only. Interesting video though, enjoyed it
Seems dwarves are mostly in the low 40%. Need a competitive edge , almost never see them in tournaments.
Was Rohan even ranked? I didn’t see them..
i've missed Rohan?
Cant believe my Iron hills is that low
Was regular Moria mentioned or did I miss it?
It was like 51% with 500-600 games or smth
i wish someone really explained minas tirith more
Thanks for the video. My only constructive criticism is that this list would be insightful if you simply removed armies that did not have a certain number of games played. I’m no statistician, so I’m not sure what number this should be (100?). Most of the top 10 is simply not relevant.
Arnor - my boooooooooiiiiiiiiiz! Bring on the supplement let’s boost this win percentage up to 90% baby! On a serious note I can confirm my win rate is much lower… because I’m a shit general
Khazad Dum?
Time to buff my beloved Iron Hills I guess 🌚
What tier would halls of Thranduil be?
Solidly in the top tier. thranduil so so good that he is almost untouchable. That combined with sentinels and a horde if fight 6 is hard to beat
@@ConquestCreations Thanks. How would he do in matches with magic? With 'only' 3 will points won't he get shutdown easily?
But those 4 attacks with f7 if you buy the 30p extra swords is really good. Then the extra attack for each opponent. Which makes him hit hard.
Wich can be coutred tho by feeding him models at the time but that the issue for most heroes.
Elendil counters both of these with unbending resolve and that tasty free heroic combat.
@ConquestCreations How do you get a horde with Thranduil's halls? Maybe I missed something, but I thought their models were high in point cost.
Where does vanilla Rohan fall on this list? Or is its absence a subtle commentary on the fact that it has so many Legions that it isn't played vanilla anymore? Haha.
I realy think nobody plays vanilla Rohan😂
Sharkey's Rogues, not Rouges.
Goblin town enjoyer 👌
Very interesting stuff! Turns out most of my favourite armies are rubbish 😂
what about arnor?
oh it's first
Arnor just backed this up by winning Ardacon, the world's biggest tournament
@@ConquestCreations I've played Arnor once before, but I just don't like Malbeth the seer.
More videos!!!
No
Frankly I'd much rather see a user opinion based video like this with some room for controversy or discussion as opposed to taking blatantly misrepresented longshank's data.
If you would rather see a user opinion check out this video. I don't rank the armies but I sort them into a tier.
ruclips.net/video/s62pfm7xyuY/видео.html
Greetings from Germany. Don't check our Data at T3, because like no one enters the correct armies.
Ah good old 69th place :)
Spell check dude, otherwise great meta summary.
Surprised my dunland is so low:( I think they are much better!
Naa, they are funn but they have some big problems. They are weak against shooting, have problems with realy big heros, only a few spears (unless you go mad with huskals). Also currage is strange with dunland, most not great but others are fearless 😂
@@grimgrauman7650 yeah I get it, I like them from 650 down
Isengart has the problem of being very well liked by a lot of people and easy accessible thus many people play em.
And Arnor is just good at beating one of the most played armies, namely Angmar and is super solid at 400pts.
Yeah that is the challenge of using the statistics is that certain things like that can happen!
With my rating I would put Isengard in the middle of the ranking and Arnor in the bottom quarter
Hobbits are doodoo
You're the problem not the hobbits
HOBBITS ARE TRASH TIERRRRRR
Is this a challenge?
Dude u shouldnt have used those statistics because the less popular armies get bigger win rates so they are in the top although in table they suck. So this whole video ended up in the underdog tier because of those statistics...
I wonder if that's why he gave an analysis for each army rather than just talking about statistics.
Underdog tier comment.