Featured Post

Sharkey's Rogues: A "Game Master" Army

Hey Reader! In preparation for the upcoming TMAT  Spring Zephyr Tournament , I've been playing around with Sharkey's Rogues, 1) beca...

Monday, March 18, 2024

Sharkey's Rogues: A "Game Master" Army


Hey Reader!

In preparation for the upcoming TMAT Spring Zephyr Tournament, I've been playing around with Sharkey's Rogues, 1) because I've owned the models for a while, 2) because I painted SO. MANY. of them, so I need to use them at some point, and 3) because a 350pt tournament is about the highest you can go before you're worried that you're being outclassed (450 is probably the highest I'd ever go, maybe 500), so when is this opportunity going to come up again? :P

But as I started practicing with them in earnest (and doing okay, actually), I realized why I enjoy playing them so much: it's a "Game Master" army, and as someone who has been a game master semi-professionally for roleplay games for over 10 years, it means I have the mindset to use them correctly. And that's what I wanted to chat about today.

Thursday, March 14, 2024

Literary Corner: What the Hobbit Films Did Better Than the Book

Good morning gamers,

Over the past month and a half, Centaur and I have been having a literary debate about whether The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings books or the films by Peter Jackson are better than each other. Rythbyrt has told me that there's a defense for saying that the Lord of the Rings trilogy of films might be better (at least in some ways) than The Lord of the Rings books. Centaur hotly disagrees. Last time, Centaur went first and argued for why The Hobbit book was better than the Jackson films . . . and today, I'm not exactly going to disagree with him, but rather, I'd like to focus on the things that the Jackson trilogy changed that actually improved on what was in the books (*gasp* *horror* *gasp*).

I think I agree with both Centaur and Rythbyrt that The Hobbit book is better than the films - on the whole. It's quite defendable to think that The Hobbit book is better than the Jackson films - and it's also defendable to think that the animated Rankin Bass classic film of The Hobbit is better than the Jackson trilogy - but there are things that I don't like in the book (or that just confuse me) that I think a departure in the films made them better. As such, I've moderated the title of this post from the stronger statement I made about The Lord of the Rings trilogy and will instead focus only how how I think The Hobbit films improved on the book. Let's start off with . . .

Reason #1: Distinct Dwarves

One of the things that Peter Jackson said he feared about The Hobbit in his production diaries is that there are so many Dwarves - fifteen lead protagonists is a lot (before you get into guys like Bard, Thranduil, and of course, Legolas - let's not forget about Legolas). If you read the book, most of the Dwarves are learned about in pairs - Balin and Dwalin are the best scouts and have longer beards than the others, Kili and Fili are the youngest and have the best eyesight, Oin and Gloin are the best at making fires, and Dori and Nori order more breakfast than the rest (though everyone likes food).

There are a few situations where a single Dwarf gains some renown away from the others - Dori is the strongest, Thorin is the most revered and probably the best in battle, and Bombur is, of course, the fattest (large enough for two - this comes up a LOT, much to his chagrin). The sad thing is that the other three Dwarves (Bifur, Bofur, and Ori) are basically just referenced in passing so that we don't forget that they're there. Ori is said to have had the best handwriting in The Fellowship of the Ring, but in The Hobbit, he's quite forgettable. 

Monday, March 11, 2024

Nemesis: How to Fight Against Elendil

Good morning gamers,

Last time, we looked at Gil-Galad and ways (with specific units/army building emphases) you can counter him with. Today, we're tackling the biggest hitter from Numenor: Elendil. While some of what we're going to talk about is copy-paste from Gil-Galad, there are a few rules that Elendil picks up (and a few that he drops) that makes his use (and his countering) different from Gil-Galad. Let's see what's so great about the greatest hero of men . . .

What Makes Elendil So Hated?

Elendil has a beastly combat profile - with F7, S5, and 3A with the option for a mount (if you're willing to do some conversion work, since Games Workshop never made a model for this guy), Elendil is about as punch as man-sized heroes come. While F7 isn't the F9 that we see on Gil-Galad, it's higher than any man-sized warrior is going to get and it's also higher than most heroes. Additionally, he carries Narsil, which is a Master-forged hand-and-a-half sword (so he can two-hand without suffering the To Wound penalty) that allows him to declare a free Heroic Combat each turn - if F7 wasn't enough to make you want to hit warriors with this guy, Narsil certainly incentivises it!

Photo Credit: Warhammer Community

On Defense, Elendil is no slouch, with D8 if you give him a shield (and aren't two-handing - otherwise he's D7) and has 3 Wounds/1 Fate, which is "fine" and expected for someone who died in the story. Elendil is the quintessential "a good offense is a good defense" character (well, him and Gulavhar, I guess), which means that once he gets into combat, it's very hard to pluck a wound off of him - especially if he's backed by a banner (for a reroll on one of those 4 dice he gets on the charge).

If this wasn't enough, he has the Unbending Resolve special rule, which grants him two free dice when resisting magical powers - even if he runs out of Will. This makes targeting him with magic (especially spells that just barely go off on a low difficulty) very difficult to cast on him. With 3 Will in his store (that he can regain on a natural 6) and 3 Might that don't have to be used if he's just declaring Heroic Combats, it's not hard for him to shrug off the worst magic in the game (well, almost - more on this later).

Monday, March 4, 2024

Nemesis: How to Fight Against Gil-Galad

Good morning gamers,

We're back in our Nemesis series for the next few months and we're going to be focusing on the heroes who fought for or against the Last Alliance for most of the next few posts. Our journey begins with one of the nastiest Elven heroes in the game: Gil-Galad. Back when Heroic Strike wasn't a thing, having a F9 hero was pretty sweet, but even in an age where Strike exists, having a F9 hero is guaranteed to make your opponent cough up some Might (and being guaranteed to get to the all-desired F10 is a nice option). So what makes this guy so hard to deal with? And what tools can you use to fight against him? Let's dig in and find out!

What Makes Gil-Galad So Hated?

Like most combat heroes, we need to start by looking at Gil-Galad's offensive profile. He's one of four heroes who is innately F9-10 (and by far the cheapest - his rivals are the Balrog and the Dark Lord Sauron) and with 3 Attacks, a reroll to his dueling and wounding rolls with the Lord of the West special rule, Aiglos (a spear that confers +1 To Wound without any penalties), and a mount (your stock-standard horse for 10pts), it's not hard to get a lot of damage out of this guy.

Photo Credit: Warhammer Community

The pairing of Fight 9 and the Blood and Glory special rule make him particularly dangerous against heroes, most of whom will have to declare a Heroic Strike (if they even have that option) to tie or beat his Fight Value and if he manages to kill the hero (not hard if he can knock the model prone while on the charge or if he's got some help in trapping the target), he gets a Might point back. Striking from F9 can be unnecessary, but if you're going to get the Might point back, it's probably worth doing anyway.

If Gil-Galad was all that was potent or dangerous in his list, he'd probably be okay - but the Rivendell list is loaded with options to make Gil-Galad work at basically any points level. There are some Rivendell heroes that confer no penalties at all to your army building - Elrond and Glorfindel are pricey heroes, but they make excellent wing-men for Gil-Galad (especially Elrond, since he might be able to help you win you priority on a close roll with his Foresight points or knock foes near Gil-Galad prone with Wrath of Bruinen). If you're looking for more budget-restricted killing power, a mounted High Elf Captain or Erestor are excellent choices for 85-100pts. Most players who face Rivendell fear Cirdan with Gil-Galad, since shooting Gil-Galad and charging all those Elves they brought gets harder. Oh, and any Terror you invested in is a lot harder to preserve unless you have Sap Will in your army.

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Literary Corner: Why The Hobbit Is Better than the Films

Hey Reader!

So, as you might recall from our discussion about The Lord of the Rings movies and books, this year we're doing some literary study and comparing the books and movies tied to Tolkien's legendarium, and this week I'm kicking us off with a look at The Hobbit. In our last discussion on the Lord of the Rings trilogy I largely agreed with Tiberius's thoughts: the movies are pretty good adaptations and do a lot of things really well.

Today's post is not going to be as understanding to the Hobbit movies, though admittedly I have toned back a lot of my rhetoric because 1) people do like the movies, and I don't want to rain too hard on their parade, and 2) because I really am trying to cut back on being salty about most things in life, so I have to practice somewhere, :P

Like last time, this is not intended to be exhaustive: I've kept myself to five overarching reasons, but you can definitely add more in the comments if you wish. But as someone who had the equivalent of a Literature minor in college, has spent a lot of time specifically studying faerie literature and Tolkien's works, and even wrote a high school course on The Hobbit and its themes, it will surprise no one when I tell you that I have thoughts on this.

I think the Lord of the Rings movies are decent adaptations of the books: it's not a 1:1 recreation, but it does try to remain faithful to the themes and (generally) character arcs in the original text. I do not think the Hobbit movies are faithful adaptations of the source material, as a lot of what they do in them takes away from the central themes of the story, and overly complicate what should be a deeply resonant story for all of us who have ever felt like we weren't quite "home" yet, and are still searching for that place in our hearts (if not our physical bodies). And as a literary person, I really don't like it when themes aren't properly adapted from the source material.

So let's get started.