So, everyone has army bonuses now. Coincidentally, who "everyone" is has changed, with most of the lists seeing some pretty radical changes in terms of structure.

So who has benefited the most from these new changes and who has suffered the most?

Winner #1: Isengard
Isengard lost nothing; their list was not divided and they got a cool and fairly useful army bonus. Suffering 66% casualties before testing for breaking is handy, especially for a low-courage list. Could be a pain to count, though.

Hopefully, the new Bonus lists are like the Scorpian Sting bonus: an additional option to the Sourcebook armylists, not a fundamental change.

Then all are winners.

I don't see this a a change so much as I do a return to proper form for most lists. The Legions of Middle Earth had the right idea breaking down lists by time and theme. The whole Warbands era merging of lists was done mostly to streamline things for the Hobbit models being introduced.

That said, I think Rivendell and Goblin Town are in better spots than Isenguard from the Beta. Rivendell got all the perks of the new hobbit minis without losing any of Eregion's heavy hitters. On top of that they got a solid shooting buff when played solo, which is often the fashion, but the extra models are a boon regardless of having allies or no. Goblin Town also got the same thing as Rivendell in a way, with BotFA models being rolled into there list plus the ability to make even larger hordes when run sole. Both lists are set to get more versatile all around.

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

If the Bonus armylists really are the future of SBG--not simply an additional option to the current lists--then the game overall has lost versitility.

Arathorn, for example, will disappear from the table: who will ally in 12 Rangers if only four can have bows?

The Dead will rarely ever appear: who will ally in a warband that can only be led by a leader with one attack and no might?

As an additional option (like the current Scorpians Sting), the Bonus lists enrich the game with more versitility. If they are the future armylists. they limit that versitility.

What are you on about bruceqn, what versatility would the game at large lose from more exclusive army lists? Each list might lose general versatility as its roster shrinks but they then become specialist allies whose inclusion is worth weighing against the solo army bonus. What is gained by making these themed buffs like the scorpions sting if using the whole army list's roster deprives you of them anyhow? You gain the same rough effect either way but with the smaller lists you can organize ally restrictions more easily to keep people from chaining up OP combos.

But, yeah, the RotN can't even ally with anyone and still use basic troops because dropping weapons is not an excepted thing anymore. They need there old system back but then it turns into the question of "who wouldn't ally with them?" because of all the cheap bow and spear support.

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

Practically speaking, heroes and armies would disappear from use (I listed just two): that kind of restriction = loss of versatility.

Most of the army bonuses are fine--but not competitive and don't weigh enough for tournements. Crafting a good army has much less versatility when army lists fragment and options for heroes shrink.

I love the bonuses: if they remain optional additions to the sourcebook armylists, they add to versatility.

I think you have versatile and diverse confused. Just because something is not optimal competitively does not mean that it does not still constitute an option with which a player can deal with a given problem. There are no objectively bad models in the game just models whose intended role is seldom seen. People will get Arathorn when they want him to lead a force of RotN and when they want allied from the same they will bring RotN on horse or Dunedain, like how they are supposed to work in the lore. And they will get a warband of the Dead when they want the specific things the dead offer and when they can use the main force to counter the weaknesses of their ally's meager leader. You want spears and range support from an ally; Lothlorien and the Woses have that covered in spades.

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

It's worth noting that these are BONUSES, and there is nothing preventing you from running morannons allied with Easterlings and goblintown goblins. These bonuses are not restrictions on what can and can not be taken but rather rewards for sticking to a thematic for that existed within Middle Earth.

I would also speculate that iconic allies such as the last alliance, Gondor and Rohan etc might get their own bonuses in the fullness of time

That's nice. The same can be said for the Balrog, which I've never seen on the tables.

Many of us like pitting our strategy skills against better players—win or lose, all in good fun. When army diversity is trimmed, that directly affects versatility and cuts options. And fun.

Arnor is a Winner: IF the Additional Bonus lists are only that, and the sourcebook armylists remain largely the same.

Arnor is obviously a Loser if the Bonus lists are the future SBG armylists. No fighty heroes.

Perhaps the Arnor list will become just an ally option—but not the best one, as Minas Tirith has nearly the same troops with many more hero choices (for cheapness or power).

Fragmenting an army weakens it (Harad, Umbar, Far Harad); merging armylists (Rivendell & Elrond's Household) strengthens them through diversity, leading to versitility that creates options. And more fun.

ONI: “These bonuses are not restrictions...but rather rewards for sticking to a thematic...”

I hope they stay that way, and don't affect current sourcebook armylists (except through merging)—that would really enhance the game.

But what you really meant to say was that you are mad that you spent 300 pounds on an army built on the premise of bending space-time so that you could have Aragorn and his next of kin lead the soldiers of a nation that stopped existing hundreds of years before they were born. And now that it looks likes the celestial alignment has passed and you are stuck with time period appropriate heroes form a nation on the brink of destruction after hundreds of years of near constant war with terrors from beyond the vale of reality, which require careful tactics and foreign allies to be competitive, you can't hack it. Is that about right?

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

I did not mean to offend with the Balrog remark. I love the Tolkien universe; in nearly a decade, I've never seen a grossly unthemed army (like Isildur & Aragorn).

I just hope the Creators leave the players to decide.