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.

Back to Basics: Heroic Actions in MESBG

Good morning gamers,

Today, we're talking about what heroic actions are available to heroes in MESBG. When I first got started playing SBG back in 2010, there were only three heroics: Heroic Move, Heroic Shoot, and Heroic Combat. These heroics are the only ones available to all heroes, but other heroics have crept up through the intervening years (and when the MESBG rules revamp happened in 2018, the other heroics became specialized and were listed under each profile . . . which was good, because Captains of Rohan being able to out-fight Cave Trolls for two rounds was just silly).

But what heroic actions are out there? And are there traps to any of them that should be avoided? We're going to deep-dive into all of this today as we explore one of the best aspects of the MESBG system. I'll be dropping links throughout the discussion to our previous Heroic Heroes series where I talked about how these heroic actions work and some of the best heroes that could use them back in 2020 - the articles are old, but the lists have held up pretty well over time - and other articles that we've done on heroic actions so you can learn more if you want to. Let's take a look!

Common Heroic Actions: Move, Shoot, and Combat

As has just been stated, every hero in MESBG has access to Heroic Move, Heroic Shoot, and Heroic Combat. At least two of these are incredibly useful heroic actions (whether there's value to calling Heroic Shoot is very much a debatable question) but all three share one thing in common: they all change the cadence of the phase that they're called in. Let's see how they work.

Heroic Move

I mentioned very briefly in the Move Phase post of our how-to-play section of this series that a hero who declares a Heroic Move can either move before the normal priority-player's movement or can call "With Me!" to allow the declaring hero and all friendly models within 6" of the hero to move before the normal priority movement, though the declaring hero has to move first, the friendly models within range have to end their movement within 6" of the declaring hero's final movement, and anyone who can't end within 6" of the declaring hero's final position OR that doesn't want to move within 6" of the declaring hero can't move at all. Heroic Moves are incredibly useful because they can allow you to move first.

Because Heroic Moves alter the cadence of the Move Phase, if both players have heroes who declare Heroic Moves, a roll is made to see which player gets to move first - one player is assigned the values 1-3, while the other is assigned the values 4-6 and a single die is rolled (the Evil player is 1-3 and the Good player is 4-6, but in Matched Play, you'll need to decide which player is which if it's a Good-vs.-Good or Evil-vs.-Evil match). Each player then takes a turn resolving one of their Heroic Moves. You can cancel a Heroic Move declared by an enemy hero by charging them.

For most factions in the game, moving first is really good - cavalry models can get their charge bonuses by moving first, heroes get to pick their matchups instead of having their opponents decided for them, and models that are trying to escape from enemy models with an object that's worth victory points have the opportunity to get in a better position (and even out of reach of an enemy model). Yes, Heroic Moves are awesome.

They're also costly - you'll hear veteran players talk about "Heroic Move-Offs," which is the colloquial term for when both players declare Heroic Moves to see who goes first. In most cases, the side that loses the 50/50 roll is going to have their Heroic Move cancelled, which results in a wasted Might point (hence my caution about counter-calling Heroic Moves with actual Might points back in 2019). For most players, this is just seen as part of doing business, but as the game drags on, wasted Might is felt acutely and this can have a psychological impact on your game play. Blaming dice is all fine and good - and losing priority a ton of turns in a row and NOT winning any of the Heroic Move-Offs can be a real pain - but the choice to counter-call a Heroic Move is a choice that we make, and so before you counter-call a Heroic Move (or even declare the first one), one should always examine the board and see what the ACTUAL risk is of moving second. Sometimes it's fine to move second.

FAQ Time: Reviewing the February 2024 FAQs

Good morning gamers,

I know I said we would do Thursday posts every other week this year, but golly I couldn't wait two weeks to cover the FAQ drop, now could I? I'll admit it - I was a little afraid we weren't going to get a February FAQ, but surprise, surprise, the GW MESBG team does in fact love us and dropped us an FAQ . . . albeit the shortest FAQ we've gotten to date. Perhaps this means the game is in a good place - and it probably means they didn't read my mail again (or just wrote it off as the antics of a crazy man). Still, it's good to get some updated content for MESBG, so without further ado, let's get into the changes!

Photo Credit: Reddit 
Where is it? Did they fix all those things I asked about for Fantasy Fellowships and the Men of the West? No? Oh well . . .

What Didn't Have Changes

This time around, there were only changes to four of the GW supplements - the main rulebook, the Armies of the Lord of the Rings, Defence of the North, and the Matched Play Guide. If you're interested in any of the other sourcebooks, you can look at our article for the August 2023 FAQ (or in the case of Quest of the Ringbearer and Fall of the Necromancer, before then).

While I don't have any insider knowledge, it would appear that the older supplements are being left alone unless there are game-altering changes that need to be made. In my humble opinion, this is a real shame - mostly since the errata requests I submitted were tied to clarifying things about certain scenarios from the older books (all tied to Fantasy Fellowships - which I think is a great way to keep the game entertaining and interesting for players who have been in the game for a long time . . . and it can make you buy hero models that you'd otherwise avoid picking up) and to Legendary Legions that have been chucked to the wayside by competitive players (though my hat off to the guy who won a GBHL90 event with the Men of the West - you are truly a legend).

Right or wrong, the only non-rules-heavy supplement that got any changes was Defence of the North - which, honestly, was totally expected (or for you double-negative lovers out there, wasn't unexpected). Before we dig into the meat that we got in this release, let's take a quick look at rules that got clarified and worked as we expected (and by "we," I mean us here at TMAT - I know these have come up before and we ruled on them the way the FAQs said).

Back to Basics: Magical Powers in MESBG

Good morning gamers,

I am a HUGE fan of the magical powers that are in MESBG and (generally speaking) how the system of casting and resisting spells (as well as channelling them) works. The rules for casting and resisting hasn't changed much since I got started and the only additions that were made (Heroic Channelling and restoring Will points on resist tests that get a natural 6) have been good - though perhaps not always implemented the way I would have done it. The purpose of today's article isn't to go in-depth into every spell - we've actually already done that in a previous series - but rather to explain how casting works, things to think about for different caster types, and how to pick the right targets for your spells. Furthermore, you should be aware that I'll be using the term "spell" and "magical power" interchangeably in this post (and have already done so in this paragraph). Let's dig in!

How It Works: Casting and Resisting Magical Power in MESBG

If you want a slimmed down version of this, you can check out my post from 2019 on the Top 5 Ways to Waste Might Points - the third topic covers the basics of casting. That article was specifically focused on whether channelling certain spells (some heroes have the ability to declare a "Heroic Channelling" with a Might point in the Move phase - if they do, the spell/spells they cast that round have a "stronger effect" than normal), while this article will be focused on the nuts and bolts of casting spells, regardless of whether they're channelled.

In order to cast a spell, a model with at least one magical power has to be unengaged in order to cast one of its magical powers (though the Vanquishers of the Necromancer Legendary Legion gives its members the ability to cast some of their spells while engaged). This means that if you can charge an enemy caster before they get to cast, you can prevent them (most of the time) from being able to cast a spell. Perfect!

As you probably noticed in the statements above, each model with at least one magical power can only cast one magical power each round (though Saruman in the Vanquishers Legion and the Necromancer of Dol Guldur in the Rise of the Necromancer Legendary Legion have rules that allow them to do a little more). Since many casters have access to more than one spell, they have to be selective and intentional with which spell they're using this round. It's often a good idea to figure out BEFORE you play a game what spells you intend to use and in what situations you intend to use them. For casters like Moria Goblin Shamans, this may be decided pretty easily (I'm casting Fury with two dice and then I'm done), while casters like Ringwraiths and Wizards might require an entire chart to figure out what spell you're going to cast. Experience and practice helps with this a lot.

Literary Corner: Why the Lord of the Rings Books Are Better than the Films

Hey Reader!

So as Tiberius noted in his last Thursday post, he's of the mind that the Lord of the Rings films are better than the books. And I want to say two things upfront: 1) he makes some very good points, especially in the realm of pacing: a movie paced like the books would not sell. And 2) this is a lot of pressure, because I feel like most people have OPINIONS on this subject and might be angry with me if I botch this up, :P

So I'm going to present a few arguments, but I don't feel like I need to give every reason why the books are better stories/portrayals of the story than the films. So if you have additional points to add, feel free to add those in the comments below! And if I'm off-base, you can add those too, :P

I.  Developing Minor Characters Is GOOD

Perhaps the biggest issue with taking a book that was written over decades and putting it to screen is that it will, invariably, have more depth than you can fit into a cinematic work, especially if you want it to be a masterpiece. Even if you were to adapt it to a TV show, it would be hard to encapsulate it effectively because of the visual medium.

An incorrect portrayal...

While I love the movies, the movies often have to cut corners with characters, and that sometimes means cutting out people that you love, or wholesale changing them because there just isn't time to develop them properly. We see this in The Fellowship of the Ring with Farmer Maggot, who is reduced to less than 20 seconds of screen time, and in that time his character is completely changed. Instead of cowering before the Black Riders and telling them where to find the Bagginses like we see in the movie, this is what the encounter looks like in the books (and I paraphrase sections for brevity, which will be in red):

“This lane don’t lead anywhere, and wherever you may be going, your quickest way will be back to the road.” The wraith asks where he can be found, and Maggot tells him, “Be off! There are no Bagginses here. There are no Bagginses around here. You’re in the wrong part of the Shire,” and when the wraith offers him gold if he’ll tell him when the Baggins passes by, Maggot replies by telling him, “No you won’t” (which is probably true) “You’ll go back where you belong, double quick. I give you one minute before I call all my dogs.” 

Back to Basics: Banners

Good morning gamers,

When I first started playing MESBG (back when it was LOTR SBG), one of the biggest waste of points in my mind were banners. Depending on your faction, you'd pay 25-35 points for a flag that prevented you from taking additional war gear (like a shield or a spear), gave its carrier a -1 penalty to his dueling rolls, and "all it did" was give you a reroll in whatever fights you could fit within 3" of that guy. Sure, if someone was standing nearby, they could pick up the banner, but they'd drop all their additional war gear and become just another "guy holding a flag." No thanks, I'll take 2-3 more guys instead, please and thank you.

But the one guy in our group who wasn't fooled by the hefty price tag and restrictive nature of banners was Centaur - mostly because he was playing Uruk-Hai Scout/Feral Uruk-Hai Isengard lists (with little to no spears) and Rohan infantry spams (who couldn't get standard spears). Centaur told us again and again that banners were worth it - and like any fool, I chose not to listen to him.

Fast-forward about a year and we got "the warband books," where banners were standardized to 25pts each no matter what faction was fielding them and suddenly, an Elf, Dwarf, or Uruk-Hai carrying a banner suddenly looks a bit more appealing (all three of which I was collecting at the time). Shortly thereafter, the Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game was rechristened the Hobbit Strategy Battle Game and now banner-bearers could carry extra gear . . . that's neat. Fast-forward about five more years and we enter the current era of the Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game and now you can pile up your banner-bearer with more gear than any reasonable person can actually handle . . . it's a good time to be playing the game.

But what is a banner, really? What's it doing for me and why do all those competitive players say I should have one? Well today, we're continuing our "back to basics" series and talking about all things banners - both the actual banners, the different units that are treated as banners or make other units count as being within range of banners (yes, there's a distinction with a difference there), fancy banners, and things that work LIKE banners but actually aren't banners . . . we've got a lot to cover, so let's get into it!

Back to Basics: Control Zones

Good morning gamers,

We're back in our "back to basics" series of MESBG for the next few weeks, and this time, we're looking at one of the most intricate and essential rules of the game: control zones. For new players, the rules for control zones may appear to be straight-forward when you're reading the rules, but even veteran players can find themselves befuddled by what they are "required" to do by control zones once they reach the tabletop. In this article, I'm going try to not only summarize what control zones are and how they work, but also explore some of the more nuanced situations regarding control zones that you'll see on the tabletop. Let's dig in!

The Rules: Control Zones

Let's start with the basics: all unengaged, non-prone models in MESBG have a "control zone," which is a 1" buffer zone around them that they are "defending." Hostile models that wish to enter a model's control zone must be able to charge the model or they need to stop outside of its control zone. 

If multiple control zones are entered by a hostile model, the hostile model must charge the first model whose control zone was crossed, though the hostile model may charge more than one model (so long as the first model whose control zone was crossed is one of those models) and doesn't need to travel the shortest possible distance in order to charge the model. You can also back away or make way into an enemy model's control zone without "charging" that model. Additionally, you can't deploy a model within a hostile model's control zone (which should only be an issue in scenarios where you can deploy on the centerline - though a variant of this rule can also come into play in maelstrom scenarios).

Literary Corner: Why the Lord of the Rings Films Are Better Than the Books

Good morning gamers,

Ah, breathe in that beautiful click-bait title and prepare yourself for a new four-part series that Centaur and I will be doing for the next two months on our bi-weekly Thursday posts! It all started when I said casually to Centaur while we were playing against each other at the 2023 TMAT GT, "You know, the Lord of the Rings movies are better than the books." After a few stunned looks of surprise from various people around the room - including Centaur - he said, "Um, no they're not." And I was like, "Yes . . . yes they are." And he was like, "Well . . . prove it."

And so here we are - with me coming to prove something that literally EVERYONE who loves Lord of the Rings is ready to crucify me for saying: the movies are better than the books. Lest you think that the ridicule and critique that I'm about to get from you is the first I've ever received, think again - I have PLENTY of nerdy friends who hold the Lord of the Rings books to be better than the films . . . and ALL of them have said to me that I'm wrong. When I bring up the points below, however, things get awfully quiet . . .

Now I know what a more moderated reader is going to say - "yes, the original movies were great - and YES they're far easier to ingest as a non-Tolkien acolyte than the books - but come on, the books are pretty good and are clearly better than the movies." If you are nodding along with this sentiment, I don't blame you - I reread the books every year and each time I do, I pull out something new and beautiful from them. I love the books - and have been enjoying Andy Serkis as their narrator this year.

But I'm sorry to say it, every time I read the books, I also feel like Tolkien was limited by the form of his work (epic prose) and the medium of the written word (as opposed to the multi-media medium of cinema). When I read through the trilogy, I find myself saying, "That was good." But when I re-watch the extended cuts of the films, I'm always blown away. So I'll be kicking off this series with one of the most anathema things that I will ever write: when it comes down to it, the Lord of the Rings movies are better than the books. I'll limit my reasons to four for succinctness - let's start with . . .