I start with something that cannot be denied: allied contingents are necessary. Aside from Isengard and Mordor, almost every other army has weakness that the core forces alone cannot compensate. i think of the old Dwarves, who lack spellcasting, cavalry and spear support.
Point is...when do you think that a perfectly legal allied contingent is unacceptable? Where do you set the line?

And not only for allied contingent, but for other strategies as well, such as sculpting equipment that a unit would have never had (giving axes to everyone, for example)

Example: Alfrid and Bombur allied in an High Elf Army led by Gil-Galad where elves have been given axes as hand weapons. Perfectly legal but, should my opponent use something like this, I'd feel morally justified to kick him 'till kingdom come.

My solution is to play games with people that are generally on the same page as I am.

Nothing wrong with the above scenario if both players like that, but if off-the-wall improbable alliances are not your cup of tea, play with someone that is in the same camp.

_________________
Well, that's my 2 cents.

I think it comes down to whether or not it makes the game boring for both player. If you fielded warriors of the dead backed up by Galathrim court guard with Halbard as banner support and spend three hours walking all over you opponent who brought Easterlings then I'd say you crossed the line. If you pit the same force against someone packing reavers, castellans of Umbar, backed up by morranon orcs and supported by crossbows and a shade then your fine. Both players are on the same page about what kind of game they want to play.

Turning a fun game into a boring chore with either unsporting troop combinations or unsportsmen like tactics is where I draw the line.

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

how about sculpting axes to every model even those who never used such a weapon?
I mean, I'm fine with Rohirrim with axes. They actually have them. And so do orcs. But, for example, Minas Tirith soldier haven't. Or esterling. Aside from dwarves, Axes are commonly used by not-so-regular armies, since they are easier to forge and to use than swords.
EX: hobbits lacks a properly trained army. When they have to fight, they take the first thing that can smash a head, so they won't use swords.

Does anyone use an house rule to limit "piercing-strike abuse"?

No, no one does that. If a player wants to spend all that time converting models to purposely shoot himself in the foot by playing like a berserker without concern for his own survivability then he can do so. He will lose of course, the same way a player who sends an entire army of men who use nothing but two-handed weapons will lose.

Look at Kand those guys have two-handed axes, axe wielding horsemen, axe wielding chariots and a naturally low defense. So why haven't they become the hottest thing? Or the Dunlandings, same thing, all kinds of axes and strength four naturally but they haven't become some unstoppable game breaking scourge.

If you wanted to be upset about an army that would be overpowered with all axes why not harp on goblin town? They can thematically use nothing but axes and clubs, have a low defense, are cheaper than dirt to field and you can use the scribe to spam them. You can even use an piercing-strike from the back ranks with the horde rule they have. At least Gondor or the Easterlings would have to sacrifice their defense to use the axes but goblins get nothing but benefits.

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

If someone wants to go to the trouble of converting a bunch of ax-men, I don't see the issue. Swords seem like the more common weapon for Gondorians, but aside from explicit mentions like the ax-men of Lossarnoch I don't see why some, especially Osgiliath or other veterans, or rangers, might not carry axes as well. Easterlings did use axes, according to the lore, but according to the lore "Easterlings" was more of an umbrella term that encompassed many peoples, including Variags, and not just the guys in gold armor from Rhûn that we're shown in the movies.

_________________
Well, that's my 2 cents.

I think most allied contingents are acceptable. I play with a lot of people who like to take one warband dwarves, one elves, and one men from random armies. Thats fine. If thats all they own or they like diversity, who am I to disagree or hinder their fun as long as it makes sense.

What I hate is power gaming to an extreme degree. I played someone who mixed 26 watchers of karna with a shade and some spectres. I wanted to throw up. This wasnt even in a tournament.

Also, he suggested he wanted to use hunter orcs with uruk hai pike support.....like come on man......grow up.

Otherwise, if someone wanted to do isengard Uruk Hai with some Angmar hero like buhrdur with shades and orcs just because thats all they have and I know them personally, thats fine. The best thing to judge this is are they my friends, and how much do I know them.....


If the first time I play someone they come with like 2 dozen watchers of Karna or Bombur and Alfrid I will be cordial, play to the best of my ability and have a nice conversation, and never, ever play with them again.

If I see someone in a store that Im already at for example after I finish a game with a friend and they try to play me with wood elves with axes Im going to laugh at them and leave. Reavers with axes are bad enough too.

Ill think its fine if I see a Uruk hai Captain with an axe, or some scouts with axes here and there...like 2 per warband....but thats because i saw them in the movie with an axe or two.....

Basically, its common sense and courtesy.

One thing I like to do is use Thranduil with Mirkwood Rangers, Thorin with Erebor warriors, Alfrid and lake town spearmen, and Beorn.

I think thats the worst Ill do but it is themed to a point and competitive, and has a nice mix. Theres no modded weapons or any bombur and stuff like that.

Furthermore, allied contingents between friends often takes away from your armies goal and may hurt you easily.
If you take dwarves and arnor for example which I thought in an army once, I lose troops to help close combat with the dwarves, and the rangers are all alone without more support since they shoot and the dwarves are headed to combat. So yeah those are my thoughts in general.

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

I have no issue with allies that are at least possible, if not probable. For example, it's fine to bring some Dwarves (from Erebor or the Blue Mountains, for example) in an Arnor army, as it's in their interest to see that another Northern kingdom stays strong. Similarly, some Easterling troops in a Harad army makes perfect sense, as there is common trade between the two nations. On the other hand, I'm going to want a damn good reason why Alfrid is in your Gondor army to buff Boromir, or your Corsairs have a Shade in tow. This isn't to say I'd refuse to play either, but I might raise an eyebrow.

I'd add that effort will help a lot. If said 'Shade' is modelled/painted as a 'Desert Sport of Far Harad', or your 'Alfrid' is a 'Steward's Advisor', then I'll be a lot more happy.

_________________
Free fan-made BotFA Supplement

My main reason for playing this game is the love of Middle-earth. Having an army with Gimli leading Khazad Guard, supported by Arnorians with Malbeth and Erkenbrand with a bunch of Westfold Redshields and Sons of Eorl may (or may not) be efficient, it would certainly ruin my experience. Not only is (or should) part of the game be to strategically overcome your armies weaknesses (rather than plugging the holes by using the endless supply of allies), if I just wanted to shove figures over a table and roll some dice, there are plenty of games available. To do those things in the context of Middle-earth, I'd prefer it if that world is somewhat kept alive by having thematic forces, ideally two that even had a chance of encountering each other historically. Possibly even on a fitting table for that encounter. Perhaps even using an interesting scenario to strengthen the narrative.

those last 3 post are almost exacty what I think of this game.
Everyone can have fun without powergaming. It's middle-earth. This is reason I choose this game over warhammer et similia.
Any army can be fun to play with and powerful without stretching the rules to fit in it anything that could give an advantage.


elves with axes go against nearly everything in both the lore and the movies. It's basically a sin.
Reavers are quite a problem. There is no official standard. I wouldn't like facing a warband of reavers with axes. But axes were quite common on ships, and even the Corsair captain (or the Bo'sun? don't remember) has one sculpted. While I can complain about elves, I'd have no ground to complain against Reavers.

Isn't Tuor given a nice, fancy ax by the elves of Gondolin? Admittedly that is in the First Age, but it would strike me as odd for elves, especially wood elves, not to use axes at all in war.

_________________
Well, that's my 2 cents.

Okay I think we have gotten a little of topic here. Lets just agree that the kind of people who would consider making houses rule to stop this kind of gaming don't need them and the kind of people who use play by exploiting these loopholes wouldn't agree to be bound by them. Okay? Okay. Lets move on.

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

If non M.E themes in your opponents army bother you, you could just start playing using the Legions of middle earth again

It's a game guys, have fun with it, if someone's taking a force that "ruins it" for you then you're playing too seriously.

And if after all that you see your opponent turn up with a really optimised list, you could just claim one more piece of scenery to deploy at the start of the battle.

even a nice themed list can in the hands of someone hell bent on winning can be really frustrating. Personally list building since 2012 has been great, I'm more than happy to see loads of crazy lists hell yeah!

_________________
http://grungehog.blogspot.co.uk/

While I agree that some players like cheese more that Wallace and Grommet, it's like that in any game.

Playing scenarios might limit the cheese factor. I do agree with Grungehog that "Legions" would fix this and would like to see an updated version released in Dr. Grant's wonderful magazine. >wink, wink< This becomes a much more viable option when GW stops releasing official content for LotR games, but clubs can always house rule new "Legions".

I used to play "Magic: the Gathering". There were basically 2 camps of players: competitive and fun. Fun players would become annoyed when playing drafts and other such tournaments against the competitive players. Their feelings were generally that comp players were usually more skilled and less forgiving and were there for prizes more than fun. Comp players do not always enjoy fun games. Fun players liked making decks around quirky concepts that didn't always win, but that they really enjoyed. They were usually financially poorer and trying to maximize the fun they could have with what they had. Comp players like to train, almost like boxers, by playing games similar to what they would in tourneys. Fun games do not fit that role for them.

Could both of these players have fun? Yes. It helped to explain to new players that on draft night the Comp players would often win and get first choice of prizes, so beware. But if you want to become a comp player, the best way was to attend these events and have your butt handed to you. That's how I became decent in competitive. We also had multi player Mondays, which was for casual players. Prizes may be available, but they weren't the hot stuff the Comps were drooling for.

You will find yourself falling into one school or the other, more or less. And so will everyone else. It might take a while to learn who likes what in the local gaming group, but in the meantime, try and enjoy the experience. If you don't like playing with Joe Blow, that's okay, you've only committed a few hours of your life. You will always find the opponent who is only out for his own good time. But don't let him ruin yours.

_________________
"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a rock." -Will Rogers

I'm not against competitive players. But I say that one can be competitive without being cheesy. I have no problem if a Gondor player uses Elessar and Boromir (what if Boromir had survived?) or if said Gondor player uses the new Galadriel as ally (a bit of stretch, but she's related to the king, after all). I am ok with Reavers with axes.
But if I see Alfrid and Bombur as allies to Gil-Galad, I would not be happy. That's just powerplaying in his lowest form.

Being competitive is one thing. Tossing minis on a table just because they are strong, is another whole different thing.

The simple solution to dealing with the kind of opponents taking unthematic blatant powerplays is simply to beat them at the game hard enough that they give up on said combinations.

_________________
http://grungehog.blogspot.co.uk/