[Tale Telling] How MESBG Differs From Popular Wargames and Is it Good or Bad?

Throughout my short journey into playing MESBG I've found many notable differences between the game and its contemporaries, particularly popular games like Warhammer 40K/Age of Sigmar, WarmaHordes, Legion, and so on. While I'm far from an expert on the Middle-Earth game I have been reading and watching a ton in addition to the games I get in so I'll call this an educated opinion piece. :P

 

#1 - Shooting Isn't Reliable, Yet Still Useful

This is going to be the biggest change for almost any wargamer getting into MESBG: You simply can't win a game through Shooting. I knew this coming in and it was a major reason I decided to try the game. There are armies that focus on shooting such as the Helms Deep Legendary Legion/s and the Army of Dale but they can't WIN through that alone. Even Siege Engines, the big hitters, are extremely unreliable and often struggle to make back their Points throughout a game.

There are several reasons for this. One is that accuracy is toned down in MESBG compared to others, hitting on a 3+ is very good but (usually) only happens when the model doesn't move. Bows are also pretty weak, usually wounding even low-end Warriors on a 5+. Then you have In The Way, which can really put a damper on opposing shooting just by using Terrain/standing tougher troops in the front.

Even for an Elf Army against weaker opponents you'll be lucky to get ~2 kills per Turn through Shooting, and I think that's a good thing. MESBG tries to simulate a lot of real-world historical warfare tactics and that extends to how Bows are used: you soften the enemy with them and gain small advantages, not rout them from afar as they trudge towards your lines.

Bows are best used for threatening Cavalry (by killing the mount), taking off Fate from softer Heroes, and threatening models of value such as Banners. Sure, you can shoot opposing front ranks and thin them out a bit but there are usually better targets and battle lines close with each other quickly.

Siege Engines, while being able to do heavy damage, are extremely inaccurate most of the time and drop in usefulness as combat is joined. This makes it pretty easy to ignore them on the advance and only lose a few cheap Warriors oftentimes, making the expensive weapon of war a poor investment.

Overall I'd say MESBG has the least effective shooting of any game I've personally played with the exception of Historicals, which are notoriously realistic. It reminds me a lot of older Editions of Warhammer Fantasy except that Siege Engines are even further toned down in exchange for not having to guess ranges. As someone that hates shooting, particularly when it decides games, this is a major boon and makes for more interactive games in my experience.

#2 Cavalry Do Not Exist to Break Enemy Lines

In many games, especially Rank and File, Cavalry hit extremely hard and are known for being able to punch through an enemy line in a single Turn of play. Not true in Middle-Earth, for a few reasons, although Cavalry still play a very strong and interesting role in the game. For one there are few all Cavalry armies, these necessitate a low model count and all the disadvantages that come along with that. Even more important is the Priority system, in games with traditionally alternating Turns you can reliably set up Charges, not so here. If you lose two Priority Rolls in a row, which happens all the time, your Cavalry can get Charged themselves if they're poorly positioned.

Once they do Charge, Cavalry hit quite hard and benefit from an Extra Attack and Knock Prone against Infantry. This means Cavalry against Cavalry isn't all about who gets the Charge and even if your front lines take a mounted Charge you can strip some advantages by using your own lancers to counter-attack. Finally, there is no overrun or second move in this game unless you use a Heroic Combat, which is hard for Cavalry to make use of because of their big bases. Should you successfully Charge, if you lose Priority you're going to get Charged right back and then there's no advantage to your expensive, mounted models.

For most armies Cavalry play more of a support role, lending necessary Attacks and Trapping models via Knock Prone so that a hole can be carved out in the battle line. They're also good for hunting behind enemy formations, going after archers and support Heroes. You can win a game with all Cavalry, it's just going to take more finesse than jamming a bunch of knights down the opponent's throat.

#3 Magic Won't Win Games, But Can Lose Them

A bit of an odd take but I find Magic to be similar to Shooting: it won't win you a game but can lose a game for your opponent. What does that really mean? Well in many other games Magic is very similar to other kinds of attacks, there are buffs and debuffs mixed in but plenty of magic missiles and other effects to actually net kills. MESBG has very few Spells that actually kill models, of the ones that exist some also don't work against every model (Banishment for example). Deadly magic is also harder to cast, typically going off on a 4-5+ and requiring either several points of Will or a very strong Wizard such as The Witch-King of Angmar with Crown.

This means you can't build an army to just stand back and hurl fireballs (or other elemental spheres) at the enemy, an army like The White Council or Rise of the Necromancer can't even get that done. Instead most magic augments the game, either in a big way or a small way, and that effect has to be leveraged to win. Something like Blinding Light can really hurt certain armies as a whole while Immobilize or Shroud of Shadows can change the outcome of an important interaction.

Although I'm splitting hairs, this strikes me as Spells losing the game for the enemy more than winning it for yourself. Magic always has counter-play via Will, so unless an army is made up entirely of Captain-Tier Heroes you can at least try to shrug debilitating effects off when it really matters. Even if the opposing army is mostly lower-end Heroes, turning them off might not do as much for you as wearing down a more important Hero. Players should also always have a backup plan for Magic, especially some of the bigger effects like Blinding Light. If you play a heavy Shooting army, what are you going to do when everything hits on 6's? If the answer is "Lose the game" then I place the outcome of the game on the Player who didn't take Magic into consideration more so than the Player who brought it with them.

#4 Expensive, Stompy Models Are Hard to Use Well

I was very caught off-guard by this one since in most games I've played large models are often better than they should be based on their points and can cut through entire armies quite easily. This isn't so for Middle-Earth, in fact I consider most expensive Heroes and other big models quite bad, at least for serious play.

The most transparent reason for this is the Scenarios; most of the games you'll play involve getting bodies into Objectives or into specific areas. Less models means you have less to do this with, ultimately meaning you can lose the Scenario. Besides that the game usually ends when an army is Broken, with a random roll on top, or when an army is Quartered. If a Player has a model like Sauron then it's pretty easy to focus on removing his friends and then just let him kill your army, on the Objective of course, until the game ends.

Another issue with expensive models is how actual Fights work. While these models often have great Fight Values that doesn't mean they will always roll a higher Duel dice and because of their cost having a Banner with them is also tough (not to mention keeping it safe). Heroes can of course use Might to win Duel rolls but that's a finite resource that can also be drained by an opponent using Heroic Strikes. If the model isn't a Hero, such as the "basic" War Mumak, then these disadvantages can be very hard to play around indeed.

Movement speed and ability is a commonly overlooked part of almost any model and expensive ones don't often come with rules to counteract that. Some Fly but otherwise Speed 6-8 is the norm, far from zooming across the table. Terrain can be a real impediment when you're moving at half speed, having to make Climb Checks, etc. and that model NEEDS to do something for you.

Lastly, most expensive models aren't all that difficult to remove IF the opponent can win Duel rolls. Of course these big ticket pieces often come with very high Defense but as mentioned, numbers are unlikely to be on your side which means Trapping is a real risk. Even something with Defense 8 will go down if your opponent is throwing 10+ Wound Rolls on Strength 3. This is probably the least "exploited" weakness of a center-piece model but it's not to be overlooked either.

Now I'm not saying such models are unusable, that's swinging an opinion too far the other way. Many opponents won't have experience against armies revolving around one model and even a single mistake in handling it can be a serious setback to the game. There are also armies that just don't have the tools to really deal with an extremely tough Hero/Monster, usually because they're fairly elite themselves. For my money the Scenario hurdle is the hardest to get over and also the most important weakness. Fortunately MESBG uses Vetos for Missions but when SO many are against you, one ban won't always be enough.

#5 Pre-Planning is Extremely Important

Now you might be thinking I'm running out of steam here with #5 but bear with me. Of course in every game a Player benefits from thinking ahead: what will my opponent do, how can I counter that, what is my backup plan, and so on are very common thoughts during a match. I've found that in MESBG that this process is absolutely vital whereas in many other games you can be much more reactionary. There are several reasons for this but in my mind the two most important are the Priority System and how Fights work.

The Priority system is one of the most unique things about Middle-Earth because even when you go second in a Turn you still get to do things, just at often reduced efficacy. That's very different than the typical rotating turn structure where you do everything you want, often with little interaction from an opponent, and then they do the same. The closest I can come up with is Age of Sigmar, where you change the turn order at the beginning of every Round, although the two games really aren't that similar.

Why pre-planning matters so much with Priority is because many models and formations lose a lot of their potency if an opponent can dictate where they go, or Charge them first. Think about Cavalry, Wizards not being able to cast if they get Charged, Chariots not getting free Hits if they're Engaged first: there are many examples if you look around the game. Losing these advantages can be very crippling to many armies so not positioning correctly can and will cost you.

Fights are another big deal with regards to planning. Often you'll see two lines engage each other, pushing back and forth until some kills happen and holes open up. Having Priority can really impact who has the advantage in combat by allowing you to Engage enemy Spears/Pikes, lap around the flanks before they can reform, or push through a hole before it closes. Even just a Turn or two of this is enough to lose even more Fights thanks to weight of dice and possibly even Trapping, which snowballs the game more and more out of control.

With a more traditional turn structure you don't have to worry about this, even when playing Rank and File. Did an enemy unit burst through your lines? That's okay, you can turn someone around to deal with them or use rearguard to keep them at bay. Need to hide a model or unit from enemy attacks? That's fine, just keep repositioning it since you'll always alternate moves. If you have experience with other games and really pay attention to Priority in MESBG you'll start to see how much it matters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Verdict?

Having given my opinions on why these topics differ from other wargames, are they good, bad, or neutral? Well this is still just my opinion but I find them all to be positives, here's why:

 

#1 - Shooting

Having played many wargames over many years, I've learned to abhor shooting. It all too often dictates the entire game: where models or units can move to and when, what the enemy targets are, what range armies can engage at, and so on. Shooting has a place but it should be to soften up hard targets and tilt upcoming melees in your favor, not eradicate entire parts of an army quickly and efficiently.

Shooting is also the lowest form of interaction that a game can provide. You'll find yourself making Armor Saves or the equivalent and not much else. Terrain usually either just stops the shooting, which still isn't interacting with your opponent, or simply alters the dice in some way. That's just not fun or tactical to me, one simply waits to see how many of their models die and then plays on.

Now shooting in MESBG isn't reinventing the wheel but there are some cheeky wrinkles. Moving and Shooting is one, a model is punished for trying to keep up and also shoot which is appropriate. In The Ways are also a little more interactive than most games because it works and is negated by movement more so than Special Rules. If it was always just a roll I'd rate it lower but because of Heroic Accuracy and Might there's just a bit more interest with the mechanic than I'd be able to glean otherwise.

#2 - Cavalry

Cavalry is something that can be hard to find a balance for but I think Middle-Earth does a good job. As mentioned already knights aren't going to be smashing through your lines, they're shock-troops to soften parts of a battle line and skirmish. At the same time it's nice that Cavalry feel powerful (especially if they're a Hero!) and don't just bounce off Infantry because of defensive rules or combat calculations.

Mounted models have advantages AND disadvantages that other models don't which makes them feel unique and interesting to play with instead of just punchier/faster Infantry. Usually non-Rank and File games have my favorite Cavalry and this is not exception.

#3 - Magic

Similar to Shooting I just can't stand when an opponent has a coven of casters hurling flame and ruin on your army. Magic is often more interactive than Shooting in wargames because it's "special" and MESBG keeps the popular system of "Try to roll a target number and your opponent will do the same", albeit with more interesting resources.

In army games it always seemed a bit off to have Wizards be so impactful, after all why even take an army then and not decide military disputes with Hogwarts style duels? Instead, Casters in this game multiply or divide armies but don't take the win for themselves. Middle-Earth doesn't have my favorite spells, casting system, or any of that but I appreciate the role that magic plays overall and that's enough for me to be content.

#4 - Big Models

Of everything I've discussed this is my favorite, similar to Shooting I cannot stand when one big model takes over a game. It's boring visually and tactically, often times I'll question why I'm bothering to play even if I win. This is because of how binary these models make any given match: you can handle them or you can't. Even when playing against a few expensive models that I can easily beat, I feel bored because nothing much is happening on the table and it's really just an exercise in rolling dice.

Centerpieces have their place, they really shine in large games or narrative play where having a singular focus to the game feels appropriate. Games just get dragged down when they're also powerful for normal play because every army has to include whatever counter is necessary, homogenizing what could be a more diverse meta.

#5 - Pre-Planning

Perhaps surprisingly, this is the topic that I have the most conflicting feelings about. While I love being challenged to always think ahead and look for evolving lines of play, not everyone does. New Players might find this hard to do, especially if they're not versed in strategy games, and can find Priority frustrating. My hope is that for casual play it's enough to get by with just clashing opposing lines together again and again, shifting focus to the Heroes for big moments.

I still lean towards this being a good thing because I think it's easy to learn to avoid the big mistakes that the Priority system can bring with it. It's obvious why and how your Cavalry got Charged for example so a Player should quickly learn from that, same with keeping your Wizards/Banners safe. My play group is a mix of many different experience levels and play styles so the lack of complaining I hear about this is encouraging.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's all for my meaningless opinions this time, how do you feel about the topics discussed? Are there any other major divergences that you think are worth bringing up? It's always delightful when I find some new interaction or wrinkle to the rules within any game and I think I have a lot of road ahead of me with MESBG before I have a solid understanding of it. One step at a time.