In Defense Of: Barliman Butterbur (and Bill the Pony)

Good morning gamers,

We're in our fifth post now in our "In Defense Of" series and today I'm addressing a model that I've used a few times in the past few months in part because I like the model, in part because I'm building a board for Bree, and in part because I refuse to believe that the model is worthless: it's Barliman Butterbur, probably the character I can relate to the most in the Lord of the Rings books.

"Want a pint?"

Barliman Butterbur was released in the Quest of the Ringbearer sourcebook and can be fielded in the Wanderers in the Wild list for 40pts. Functionally, he's 50pts, since he can pay 10pts to bring Bill the Pony in his warband. He (and Bill if he comes with him) are historical allies with the Fellowship and are convenient allies with most of the armies in the Armies of the Lord of the Rings book. But because of his profile (and possibly his cost), no one seems to think this guy is worth taking in matched play. Well, today I'm going to try to convince you otherwise - let's get stuck in!

Revisiting Play Styles Part 5: The Toolkit Playstyle

 Hey Reader!

Welcome back to the blog! Tiberius wrote a blog post recently about list building for beginners, based on a 2015 post I made talking about the seven list building play styles I noticed at the time. Last time we talked about the Reactionary Playstyle, and in today's post we are looking at the fifth playstyle: the toolkit army.

This playstyle is a bit unique in that it is more "high level" and theoretical, resulting in the possibility of integrating this mindset into other playstyles we've covered so far in this series (and others to come).

I.  The Toolkit Playstyle: "Tools for Everything"

The toolkit: some fast moving troops, numbers to hold
objectives, and about 33% archers

The Toolkit style sets out to cover several bases (if not all of the bases) so that it has a tool for everything. The most common bases are mobility (so you want a few cavalry/flying options to fill those needs), numbers (for holding objectives and keeping people off of your softer targets), ranged attackers (typically around 33%), answers for big heroes and/or monsters, etc.

If you've followed our Bare Necessities series you'll notice this playstyle, as Tiberius uses it heavily when building army lists, and for good reason: you don't find yourself without a tool when you need it, no matter what the scenario or opposing army is.

And since the Toolkit playstyle is very theoretical, it often pairs itself with another playstyle from this series. It's common to see Toolkit methodology applied to thematic lists, for example, to determine how many of a given model should be taken within the context of the theme. You tend to see it less in a Reactionary list (as a reactionary list may need to devote much of its resources specifically to models that will beat a specific threat that it doesn't have the bandwidth to cover all of its bases), but even then it could be there, depending on how many lists the reactionary list is being built to counter.

So with this in mind, let's look at how to maximize this approach.

II.  Maximizing the Toolkit Playstyle's Potential

Tiberius talks about this a bit in each of the Bare Necessities posts, mostly because there are typically decisions you need to make regarding which models you will choose for your army. Naturally if you have a small army with limited choices (The Trolls, Smaug, etc.) you don't have much to choose from, but there are a few armies where you have a wide range of options, and when you have to make choices on which models to field, the Toolkit approach is a helpful tool and litmus test. Do you have any fast attackers yet? No? Then you should add some. You don't have an answer yet for a big hero or a scary monster? Better look into one of those. Have three expensive heroes you'd like to field? Maybe drop one of them to make away for more numbers.

Within the Toolkit paradigm, though, there is a lot of freedom. While you want at least 30 models at 600+ points, for example, you can get there either by spamming the cheapest models in a faction (Mordor Orcs over Morannon Orcs or Black Numenoreans, for example) to free up points for a big hero or two, or you can go with slightly higher quality troops and take some second tier heroes in their place.

To this end, you will find that there are some troops that are better or worse at specific points limits than others for a toolkit army list. Elessar is good, but at lower points levels you can probably get away with Boromir or even Hurin to save you points, freeing up space for more infantry for objective grabbing, more horsemen for running people down, etc. The Witch-King is an excellent choice for Mordor, but at lower points levels maybe a Mordor Troll Chieftain will do the job serviceably, freeing up space for more archers.

You'll also discover that some models only really work in large numbers. The classic example of this is Black Numenoreans: a Terror-causing front line is excellent if it's the whole front line: if you only have 3-4 of these guys you won't really get a lot of value out of them, and you should probably just stick with orcs or uruk-hai of some kind instead.

But this is also true for a number of other factions. What should your breakdown be of models in a Fiefdoms list? The Toolkit list says 33% Blackvale Archers, at least 4 Knights of Dol Amroth, Imrahil (as long as it's 500 points or higher you have the space to take him, and you should because he's so integral to this army) and 1-2 other heroes (because thankfully your heroes are pretty cheap), and then flesh out with ranks of infantry to bulk out your numbers. The Toolkit paradigm helps to streamline the list building process by setting benchmarks for you to meet.

III.  Factions to Consider 

Some factions play better with specific playstyles, and the Toolkit playstyle really only works with fully fleshed out factions. So don't expect a Toolkit list to work well with small hero-only armies in the main (there are exceptions), armies like Numenor that don't have cavalry options or a wide range of warrior selections. But there are some that have a wide range of tools at their disposal, and those are the ones we recommend you use.

• Mordor: Wow, so many options. Multiple cavalry, multiple monsters, multiple siege weapons, access to archers with a 4+ Shoot (which is very good for a Forces of Evil army), a wide range of heroes including heroes on monstrous mounts, oh - and a wide range of historical allies in case you feel like using non-Mordor models to supplement your needs. You have a lot of tools at your disposal with this faction.
• Rohan: With a variety of cavalry, access to 3+ Shooting for very cheap, a wide range of useful heroes providing an insane number of bonuses, there are so many ways to run Rohan effectively. Some will say, "just got all mounted," but the Toolkit playstyle looks at the list and sees a lot of options from the infantry options. Easy access to S5 troops if you Piercing Strike, potentially access to spears if you take the right legendary legion, plenty of numbers thanks to cheap infantry, and bodyguard with F4 D6, so if you want a durable "anvil" for your cavalry to be the "hammer" against the enemy battle line, you have access to that. So lots of options, far more than most people assume.
• Azog's Legion: While this list doesn't have cavalry it does have war bats, which are an excellent replacement. It has access to big monsters and elite infantry, plus several beastly heroes to round out the offensive capability. It doesn't have archers, sure, but those catapult trolls are quite nice and do a decent bit of damage. So while your list will look different from your typical Toolkit list, it does do a good job of covering your bases.
• Iron Hills: What can I say - good heroes (especially if you do the Champions of Erebor, but also true in just a straight Iron Hills list), good ranged options, cavalry that hit like a truck (including a chariot), a brutal frontline with the F4 S4 D7-8 combo with spears, and while you are paying for elite troops, so your numbers won't be massive, they are surprisingly high for an elite army as dwarves are well costed. Now granted it may require all the riches of Erebor to buy the models, but if you're looking for an army with a lot of options, this is a good choice.
• The Fellowship: Okay, here me out: you can actually cover a lot of bases here, admittedly with a maximum of like 10 models, but hear me out. You've got archers with Legolas, Aragorn, plus five throwing weapons. You've got access to Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Arwen on horses, which is pretty good mounted numbers for F5-6 heroes. You've got a ton of attacks, a torrent of Might, access to a ringbearer, and two spellcasters. Elven-made weapons abound in this army list, you've got durable frontliners if you need to hold off a warband or two, and good responses to enemy archery and spellcasting. So yes - as crazy as it sounds, while not hitting all of the benchmarks (numbers, mostly), you'd be surprised how many of them the Fellowship can meet, and with a lot of killers in this list, thinning out enemy numbers is a doable task.

And there are more - Angmar, the Serpent Horde, Minas Tirith, etc. Fleshed out factions that have the depth to cover many bases are quite common in this game, and the Toolkit playstyle craves that. So find a list that you like, make sure they have access to cavalry and archery (as those are the most common missing items in a faction), and then find a way to cover as many bases as possible with your list.

Conclusion

Toolkit lists aren't my style, but I can see why people like them: you don't ever feel like you're completely out of options when you walk into a fight. And if that appeals to you, consider using the Toolkit paradigm to help you build your army list.

Next time we'll be talking about the Min/Max army, which is quite common in every region, and often associated with the top table players. Until next time, you know where to find me,

Watching the stars,

Centaur

"We watch the skies for the great tides of evil or change that are sometimes marked there." ~ Firenze, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

In Defense Of: Merry and Pippin

Good morning gamers,

Today we're viewing two characters that I've been using since I started playing MESBG (back when it was LOTR SBG): Meriadoc Brandybuck and Peregrin Took. Merry and Pippin are two of the cheapest hero profiles in the game and have . . . well, some of the worst hero profiles in the game too (unsurprisingly). Far weaker than warriors who are cheaper or the same cost as them and by far and away the most vulnerable and fragile models in their army lists, you may wonder if bringing these little imps is even worth doing.

"You need people of intelligence on this sort of mission . . . quest . . . thing . . ."

Today, we'll be looking at these two guys who I have gotten a lot of mileage out of in the past few years. With three different ways to run these guys, we've got a lot to dig into - so let's get started!

Is There Such A Thing As A Bad Legendary Legion?

Good morning gamers,

I will begin by acknowledging the click-bait title - I write articles on the internet, I'm allowed. :-)

Legendary Legions have been reviewed recently by Ali King on the GBHL and he categorized them out in broad terms as "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." As a quick summary (though you should read the article - its focus is actually on the impact and value of theme in Matched Play and much larger than just the Good/Bad/Ugly classification of Legions), there are Legions that give you an incentive to play a themed list that isn't oppressive ("good" Legions), Legions that don't give you much of a reason to take them over their normal alliances ("bad" Legions), and Legions that add oppressive rules that can create a negative game experience ("ugly" Legions).

I think Ali wrote a REALLY good article and did a great job of categorizing the Legions, but while much time was dedicated to the Legions that are "ugly" (among the other topics), I kept coming back to the thought that some Legions are bad. Ali makes the case (and on some level I think he's right) that there are Legions that just aren't as good as their "normal" army lists - but I've spent a lot of time on this blog writing about what makes certain Legions better than they first appear. So, let's take a look at some Legions that are probably classified as "bad" Legions and see what they have to offer.

In Defense Of: Smeagol

Good morning gamers,

Before we get into today's post, I just wanted to highlight that this is our 600th article on the blog and we just passed 900,000 total site views (if you trust the Google analytics) . . . thanks for reading our articles everyone - it means a lot to us!

We've looked recently at how you can build your lists around Galadriel and Denethor to get more mileage out of them and mitigate some of the weaknesses that many players decry in the global community. Today, we turn our attention to a model that . . . well, pretty much all players don't want to take in their lists (especially the Rangers of Ithilien Legendary Legion): Smeagol.

Smeagol is probably the least-often included member of the Fellowship army list and while there are at least perceived benefits to taking Frodo (who probably carries the Ring) and Sam (who might be able to get free Heroic Combats) in the Rangers of Ithilien LL, Smeagol doesn't look like much of an add - especially since he costs nearly the same amount as 4 Rangers of Gondor. With an errata requiring Frodo, Sam, and Smeagol to be included in the Rangers of Ithilien Legendary Legion, Smeagol has been thrust into the spotlight - or more appropriately, he WOULD have been thrust into the spotlight if basically everyone in the community hadn't stopped playing with this Legion. :-)

The skulker has emerged - hiding in the basing box because he insisted on being based before being photographed!

I'm preparing to play games with this Legion (looking at procuring Anborn, Mablung, and another box of Rangers of Gondor either later this year or next year) and I'm going to go out on a limb with the following claim: the Legion is still good and hasn't gotten worse now that the three travelers are required in it. Even at lower points levels, they're worth it. Why? Not just because Frodo and Sam are useful (some players in the UK have claimed that from the beginning) - but because Smeagol is useful too. Let's find out why.

Revisiting Play Styles Part 4: The Reactionary Playstyle

Hey Reader!

Welcome back to the blog! Tiberius wrote a blog post recently about list building for beginners, based on a 2015 post I made talking about the seven list building play styles I noticed at the time. Last time we talked about the Linchpin Playstyle, and in today's post we are looking at the fourth playstyle: the reactionary army.

Since the Linchpin playstyle often becomes the meta (shooting-heavy armies like Rangers of Ithilien and Assault on Helms Deep, magic-heavy armies like Vanquishers of the Necromancer and Riders in Black, etc.), the natural playstyle to discuss next is the Reactionary list, as it draws its existence from the presence of meta army lists. We'll look at this mindset, and then discuss how to do it effectively.

Also, fair warning: I don't tend to play these armies all that often, so not a lot of pictures this time around as I don't own the kinds of models that you'd typically use for these kinds of armies. I'll include a few of the new Fangorn army I'm working on, though, because I'm enjoying making my own ent army from scratch (as I'm not a huge fan of the standard ent model from GW).

I.  The Reactionary Playstyle: "You Shall Not Pass"

Gandalf in any form - an excellent reactionary model

The Reactionary playstyle looks at armies that end to show up - heavy shooting armies, heavy magic armies, heavy monster armies, etc. - and says, "So how do we END THIS MAN'S WHOLE CAREER?!?!?!" And I'll say this: I don't tend to make lists this way (as I'm typically the first person to decide on the army I'm going to run at a tournament, and I don't tend to encounter the heavy meta armies all that often), but boy oh boy does this style of list building look fun! Cracking the meta and changing the game appeals to me, so if this is you, good on you! Keep it up! It's what keeps our game from going the way of Warhammer 8th Edition where everyone was running Demon Princes with a 3+ ward save on every wound coupled with casters spawning zombies as free chaff every turn to keep powerful units from doing anything useful for the whole game.

Unlike some of the other playstyles, this one pretty much has to be built well, because if it's not, it doesn't do its job and the list gets left on the cutting room floor. Since it's built to counter the meta, if it doesn't do it, it doesn't see the light of day. So toward that end these lists tend to be pretty competitive, but they go through a lot of iterations to get there.

Some aspects of the list are pretty obvious: you need an answer to shooting, as the heavy shooting armies aren't going anywhere anytime soon. It needs answers for magic, as magic is only going to get more powerful as the game progresses (such is the way of things, and I'm cool with that). It needs an answer to people with high Fight Value, needs a plan in case someone is bringing tons of Might for making clutch moves, chewing through speedbump mobs, and the list goes on. But once it finds a solution to these things, it's good. And in fact, it's very good.

So that's where we're going today.

In Defense Of: Denethor

Good morning gamers,

Today we're continuing our examination of models that get slighted in the MESBG community for one reason or another. Last time, we looked at Galadriel (the Lothlorien one, not the White Council one), who is often critiqued as a bad candidate for pure Lothlorien armies because she has to be your army leader. Today we look at a model that receives similar censure: Denethor.

Why NOT To Take Denethor

Unlike Galadriel, Denethor gets critiques on a number of levels: first and foremost, he doesn't have any Might or Fate points. Not having Might is not usually a good thing, but some heroes without Might can make it work (the Balrog gets free Heroic Combats and is F10, Shelob is F7 with Monstrous Charge, Barrow-Wights have Paralyze, and Castellans of Dol Guldur have 12 Will points that can be used as Fate Points). There are other heroes who don't have Might (and some of them don't have Fate either), but most of these guys are not going to be your army leader (maybe the Dwimmerlaik, but certainly not Orc/Uruk-Hai Drummers, a Goblin Scribe, or Grima).

Denethor is different: thanks to his hubris, Denethor has to be your army leader - even if a Hero of Legend is present in your list (overriding the rule that Heroes of Legend become your army leader over Heroes of Valor). Denethor is only Defense 5 (average Defense, but not great for someone who has to be your army leader and often gives up victory points if he takes damage) and has 2 Wounds and (as we've already said) 0 Fate points. Two wounds and he's gone - pretty easy proposition for almost any model in the game.

Unexpected Military Formations: Fighting On The Ground?

Good morning gamers,

In the past year, we've published articles that took real-world formations that were used in antiquity or the middle ages and applied their principles to MESBG. These formations have included things like Tercio Squares and the Svinfylking. Today, we're looking at a formation that I've heard rumor of but can't find any documentation that it actually existed. It involves . . . fighting while lying on the ground.

I've heard that during the raids of the Vikings in northern Europe, there was a tactic that could have been employed by having some warriors lie on their backs on the ground with swords in hand over their heads while other warriors stood over them with spears held high. Why this odd formation? Because Norse shields were rounded and were not long enough to guard both a warrior's head and legs at the same time. If a Norse warrior held his shield high to guard his head from being skewered by a spear, the warrior lying on the ground would swing his sword and hack the warrior's feet off. Should the shield be dropped to guard his legs, the Viking would find a spear impaling him in the face. I can't find it documented anywhere, but it kind of makes sense (at least, if the Vikings didn't have a multi-layered shieldwall active).

But the idea of having some of your troops on the ground while others are standing over them with spears intrigued me - and it got me wondering if fighting on the ground is ACTUALLY valuable in MESBG. And the surprising answer is . . . yes.

Fighting On The Ground: Rules for Backing Away, Making Way, and Spear Supporting

The rules for Prone models can be found on pages 32-33 of the main rulebook, though there are sections on pages 45 and 84 that apply as well. Here are the highlights:

• A model that is Prone has no control zone;
• A model that is Prone is considered to be half of its normal height for the purpose of working out Line of Sight;
• A model that is Prone may move up to 1" on the ground (crawling) but may not Charge this way;
• A model that is Prone may spend half of its movement to stand up or to lie down (you can't stand up and lie down in the same turn);
• A model that is Prone may be jumped over like an obstacle on a 2+ (a friendly model who gets a 1 on the Jump test just stops moving, while an enemy model who gets a 1 on the Jump test must charge the model instead);
• A model that is Prone does not make Strikes if he wins - instead he stands up;
• A model that is Prone and loses a fight counts as being Trapped and must back away the required 1" if possible; and
• A model that is Prone may be supported by a friendly model with a spear or pike but cannot support a friendly model with a spear or pike while Prone (you need to dig in the Designer Commentaries of the Main Rulebook for this one).
  

In Defense Of: Galadriel

Good morning gamers,

Today we're beginning a new series, where we look at models who have been critiqued in the community in one way or another, examine what it is about these models that generates the critique, and then walk through ways you can build a list or think about using the models to mitigate these concerns. It's important to note that most of the models we're going to view in this series aren't "bad" - in fact, some players really like them (as I or my colleagues here do). However, the critiques come up frequently and so we're going to address them here.

"The quest stands on the edge of a knife . . ."

Our first hero is one of my oldest and dearest models: Galadriel from Lothlorien. Galadriel has been an auto-include for me in almost every Lothlorien list I've ever built - and once you're at 500+ points, I can't imagine running Lothlorien without her. However, there are critiques that are commonly made against Galadriel from Lothlorien - let's see what they are.