Tuesday, June 07, 2011



After yet another humiliating destruction of my Mordor forces in GW’s War of the Ring, I have reached some harsh conclusions…

Here spews forth some vitriolic rambling frustrations in no particular order…

Lord of the Rings – Story & Movies I love them both. A few bits in the movies I didn’t like, but I can live with…

Lord of the Rings – the miniatures games – Arrgh!

Strategy Battle Game: A fun skirmish game with a few figures, but in scenario play it just seems to be line up the cannon fodder bad guys and let the heroes romp through most of them until they run out Might or Fate. And pray the scenario doesn’t call for hills or the figures just keep falling over.
Outside of this, to me Lord of the Rings should be about huge forces clashing, and the Skirmish game never looks right with too few models on the table.
If you DO put enough models on the table for a big battle it just gets so fiddly and time consuming moving all the single figures, it then takes an absolute age to play…

Which brings us to the War of the Ring game.

I had high hopes for this when it came out.

Huge forces clashing together, yippee!

A beautiful glossy eye-candy rich spectacle, and a rarity for GW – all the armies in one book with the rules. So no need to buy more expensive supplements, and have these suffer the dreaded ‘codex creep’.

The game also seemed simple, and quick to resolve and uncomplicated, with enough subtle twist thrown in to make heroes interesting and add an extra exciting dimension to games.

But after many games the reality has sunk in… If this was a computer game it would be called ‘buggy as hell’.

There have been quite a number of discussions on the online forum boards about the rules regarding terrain. What seemed an easy way to handle rules regarding terrain has turned into a mixed up farce with many house ruled interpretations having to be made. Not good.

After this, we have several charismatic units within the game, that due to its mechanics, are relegated to almost zero use. Here I talk about trolls, and other single company restricted formations that simply cannot keep up with the rest of the army as it moves.

And then we have the Epic Heroes and Spells. I hoped these would add some colour and flare to the game without being over powering or unbalancing, yet again there is endless discussion on the forum boards about game balance.

GW’s other games were often referred to as “HeroHammer”, and I fear that is how War of the Rings is taking shape.

If you freely allow army construction as the rules suggest you can cram in every knarly hero possible, with free use of similar heroes from other allied lists, to create an almighty Might and Spell slugfest, which utterly bogs down the game, or pretty much seems to dump it into the Paper Scissors Rock category of gaming.

Indeed, when I mentioned concerns at not being able to defeat an elven force, with a ‘themed’ Mordor force, I was advised to take several blocks of Morannon orcs with Gothmog, Khamul and any other wraiths I wanted to chip into the mix. ‘The elves would be dead by turn 4…’

The other uber Mordor list seems to be euphemistically known as the ’Mordor Royal Airforce’; named as you take as many mounted Wraiths on Fellbeasts as you can manage.

But this all smacks of Power-gaming and that’s the one thing I have always tried to steer clear from.

A game should be playable and enjoyable for both sides with balanced forces. Not creating uber lists to hopefully crush your opponent on turn 1.

That kind of gaming reminds me too much of earlier ‘Herohammer in space’ games back in the 80’s, where everything deployed in cover, and either the first person to move out got wiped out, or with sufficient special rules and gizmo’s moved and ‘vaped’ their opponent in turn 1. I don’t call that a game, it’s just an exercise in throwing dice. I haven’t played Herohammer or FordyKay since…

Yet singly, mounted wraiths die easily and again I wonder if they are worth taking?

So this led to several house ruled games trying to limit the excesses of Heroes, to One Epic per 1000 points, which seemed to help some of the issues raised, and yet it all then depends which Hero you take, and if they are the Paper Scissors Rock to your opponents force.

Being a Mordor player generally, I have a bunch of Wraiths to try, but singly they are not terribly effective, and against an angry rampaging Boromir, stand little chance. So am I forced to take Gothmog, or ally in Suladan into every game? Not much variation in your games then eh?

Gah! What to do. I feel like giving up on the whole thing, yet I have devoted several years of time collecting and painting these forces and making terrain for them, not to mention the cost spent, and the Lead-and-Plastic-mountain-beastie that still pokes its head out from games room and painting table cupboards…

Do I wait till they re-do the War of the Ring rulebook? Will I feel like shelling out over $100 for another rulebook??? Time will tell...

And yet another dimension to the overall mix, is GWs recent 2 pronged attack to try and kill off gaming: The so-called super duper Finecast resin/plastic range – at an extortionate price, coupled with their decision to try and restrict online sale by discounting independent retailers (God bless Maelstromgames and others) to overseas markets, where prices are so high compared to ‘home’ UK stores, it is just a joke! Even when you consider current currency exchange rates!

The Finecast I have yet to inspect myself, but many figures appear to have a ton of flash and mould lines to remove (at a potential medical dust hazard from inhalation apparently), and issues with bubble holes in the figures that need a fair bit of green-stuff repair. So I don’t get the “improvement”, and certainly not the new price, resin being cheaper than metal, or so I have read.

And generally I don’t see any great difference in quality of the casts between the Finecast and regular metal figures, from what I have seen from online image comparisons…

Perhaps this is simply my time to completely withdraw from the GW world of gaming? I only hung on to their Lord of the Rings game for a love of the ‘setting’, but the games are somewhat lacking as I have described above, so there you or I have it.

The one good thing to come out of the Lord of the Rings gaming stable, is the ‘Legends’ series of skirmish games, based closely on the Lord of the Rings Skirmish Game.

I have a growing fondness for their Legends of the High Seas - a Pirate skirmish game where the setting suits and looks right with a handful of figures, some fun themed games can be had over several scenarios and if things are not taken too seriously I hope a lot of fun can be had. Watch this space for more…


  1. I love the LotR range, the skirmish game as well, but I feel ripped off by War of the Ring. Such a lovely package full of promise but really bad game design. Worst thing is, essentially, the system is great. It promises, and it fits my expectations and tastes of a great wargame, but it doesn´t deliver. It doesn´t simply out of lazyness. Out of not enough developement time, not (nearly) enough playtesting.

    I disagree with you regarding powergaming. I believe it is an RPG term that separates people playing the fiction and people playing the system (in games where both do not go hand to hand, of course). In wargames though I believe a designer has the obligation of making it fun to build the "uber-list", with its limitations for theme or flavor or whatever. It should be fun (and thematically appropriate) to create the deadliest Mordor army and see your opponent build the deadliest, most effective Dwarf army. These are strategic games as far as I can remember.

    Good design, serious playtesting, and anything is possible. GW just doesn´t care for either. They put 95% of their efforts in making figures which is great. And I would love to play their games with their figs, but a quick read through any 20 editions of their 3 core rulebooks and you already know you will not have fun.

    I´m certainly not waiting for another WotR... in any case, I got the book for the eye candy and the ocassional good idea.

  2. While the book is nice eye candy, WotR was an unplay tested marketing ploy to kick some life into a range who sales were dying. If you and a friend want to agree to certain parameters ( no or identical and limited magic on both sides) it can be fun, but as pick up competitive style game it falls to powergaming gimmickery quickly and is as disappointing as the first time you realize that 40k sucks.

    The SBG is great game, easy to learn, difficult to master. Large Skirmishes at 600-700 points do feel like the movie in my experience..at 600-700 points of Mordor, I'll run a couple heroes a troll, warg riders and a ton of orc...that's all you need...yes..Gandalf, Aragorn and Boromir together will probably beat you (or just Big G and A) but that's their job stick to Legions lists, and common sense tactics and the game excels with them...best of luck Scott looking forward to some more LotR here!

  3. Our group gave up on WoTR before we even tried it. I think I am the only one that actually bought the rules. I can see how in a campaign setting the rules could be fun, but I agree with John, it is no good as pick-up game. I love SBG and it has been a regular game in our group for many years. I have never had a bad game in fact.

    High Seas is a pretty good game too...

  4. Scott,

    I for one like LotR SBG game over WotR, I had high hopes for it but found it lacking. I a couple of guys here in Phoenix started a WotR campaign but ended in two weeks because of all the funky rules issues.

    Now I stick exclusively to LotR SBG and have had a blast with it. And it will not be a surprise but LotHS has more in common with SBG than you might think. I used LotR SBG as the base for LotHS.

    The nice thing with LotR SBG is that you can use for other historical settings. My original pitch to Warhammer Historical was either Pirates or Samurai. My game group has used LotR to do Zombie games, Pig Wars (viking raids) and I have used it for WW2.

  5. Thanks for the feedback guys. It's nice to be able to vent online, and have a sympathetic response, and not have to pay through the nose for a shrink...
    Maybe I'll give LOTR SBG another look, I don't really want to give up on all the time and money I have alrady spent on this game!


  6. Hmmm... A GW product that encourages you to spend a fortune, while resulting in a mediocre and unrealistic gaming experience? Surely not!

    May I humbly suggest keeping all your lovely LOTR miniatures and trying them with a totally different system?

  7. Hi Scott - RANT, now there's a title to pull us all in quickly :)

    As you know, I don't agree about WOTR.

    My take is that the issues that people excessively damn what is actually a pretty tight game by 1st ed standards aren't willing enough to have 'horses for courses', when it comes to their wargaming.

    Now a disclaimer, my opponents are all reasonable adults(though why you'd suffer through am unreasonable opponent, and an unreasonable adult is the least edifying experience of all, just to play toy soldiers is beyond me), but we've not struck a single thing about this game's rules that we couldn't agree on in seconds. Not one.

    Additionally, I may tend to over-think these things (that's a big part of the fun for me, though) but I reckon that you can make the game pretty damned balanced, with only a small amount of changes - along the lines John suggests.

    Why go to the effort of changing the game at all? Well sometimes I just like to have a big fight with lots of figures, and WOTR is actually a game that rewards smart play without getting bogged down in detail.

    So, 'horses for courses' - WOTR works well as long as the goal isn't to be king of the world through playing some guy you'd never voluntarily associate with otherwise. We're all pretty grumpy around here recently, so I don't feel that the fact that we make it work somehow is due to our exessively good nature! Then again, with all the grumpiness and all, I've come to see the value in a game that is fun and tactical without requiring a huge deal of concentration. :)

    GW make some good games, I enjoy both BFG and Epic, and I put WOTR in that group. It seems to me to be 'fit for purpose' and neither lazy nor a shallow marketing ploy.

  8. @ Colonel - don't worry I won't be selling them anytime soon. They're 'precious' to me...! I will at least keep them for SBG, and as you say whatever else may eventuate.
    They are a devotion of countless hours of painting and some of my best work too, so I couldn't part with them. And even if I didn't like any of the rules, I'd still keep the figures as I love the 'setting'.

  9. @Jamie - I dunno mate, I was definitely in the WOTR camp till recently, but maybe I've just had the straw that breaks the donkeys back? Maybe it's just me? Maybe I'm a crap player? ~12 games and ~12 loses, its hard to keep smiling... After the game, I'm now pissed off and moody ans hell, the kids scatter out of the way and I get it in the neck from the Missus, because my gaming is something that I am supposed to 'enjoy'. On reflection I don't think I have enjoyed many WOTR games. After each loss its been 'ah so that what I need to try next time', and that has kind of kept me going. But that mindset only lasts so long. At this rate I'll be on prozac before long...

    I dunno. Is it the game or me? I don't want to take the Uber forces, you shouldn't have to, to win a game, but that's what it feels like at the moment... Shouldn't a balanced 'combined arms' force stand a chance? Or is the game about analysing the very best you can get out of an army list, and taking that only in specific combinations through a series of points level, and just forget the rest?

    Trolls - nah useless don't take them, Castellans - nah useless, cant keep up with the army, Barrow Wights, same, Orcs nah useless, take Morannons... Morgul Knights - cool but I can only take 4 companies and Boromir has just hit them 6 companies, and has Epic Strike and Epic Duel - 'Gosh I say did we just bump into something there?' He says spitting bits of black cloth from his teeth.

    This was one of my issues about cavalry counter charge. Or lack thereof...

    Wraiths, great but take 9 all on Fell Beasts. Er you wont actually need any other troops, great, what a game that will be!

    I give up!

  10. Hi Scott, if you're getting grumpy after a game - then I think we all agree you should stop right now. Your wife is right, mine would say exactly the same thing. :)

    Half my answer was to your (not ranty at all) posting, and half was to the comment thread above. You know 'people are wrong on the internet' and all that.

    When I started out, I struggled a bit too. My hatred of the crossbow in WOTR stems from that 'childhood' trauma. I got there in the end, and wouldn't say that I consider either magic or Epic strike particularly central to my battleplan, but I was always pulled back in by my perception that the underlying rules are pretty elegant and clever. However, I don't think there is any virtue in playing if you aren't liking it.

  11. I stopped buying GW stuff years ago and I'm currently doing my best to sell most of what I have off.
    Since I'm largely just collecting Historical miniatures now with a few pulp stuff here and there this is no problem, but if I start buying some fantasy stuff again then I'd go Mantic. Mantic has the right approach to selling their resin/plastic kits in which they double the amount of figures in the box for the same price as their old metal kits, while GW just doubles the price for the same amount!;-)


  12. Game balance and playtesting doesnt solely go to balance faction against faction. Models in the same army should also be balanced. There should be a "better option" if you want to play a certain playstyle, but if you want a different battleplan then the other troops become the best option. Thats good game design.

    Check any Warmachine tournament roster. See how different factions win every time, and check the lists for similar factions to see how they are completely different. Sometimes not a single model repeats itself.

    Yes, WotR is lazy design. It has great groundbase like its been said above, and if you like design its great to tweak. But like you Jamie, the times ive played it left me with a bad taste. Even after winning.

    GWs main rules are full of underpowered troops compared to their own faction. Thats an even more basic mistake than balancing factions out.

    I believe powergaming in wargames is when someone takes advantage of loopholes in the system, not when playing to the best of your abilities (both when creating the army and when playing the game). Anyone that says you have to play innefectively (unoptimally) with like-minded "adults" playing innefectively adds nothing to the game. A serious boardgame designer would crap his pants if he knew people have to play this way to actually have fun.

    I believe wargames are a whole hobby, but when it comes to rules its all about game design. And miniature wargames are light years behind in this art compared to other games. And trust me, GW is not the place to look for innovation or any kind of evolution in this field.

  13. @dogui
    Great post there sir, I've added you to my rapidly growing WM blog roll!

  14. After more time to reflect, I think if I am to continue with WOTR, and Mordor (and protect my sanity), then we just go back to the original game as written, no house rules for forces, and I "powergame" it as I refer to it:I take as many Morannons as I can, Khamul, Gothmog, and any other wraiths I like, and if I havent got enough Morannons then all other regular orcs become proxies for them. Wings of terror forward, spit out spells here there and everywhere, strength from corruption, bounce hits from Khamul, Gothmog and orc captains protect him from Duels, and hopefully romp to victory... But am I just switching places with my opponent? Does he then get pissed off and stops playing through repeated defeats against the same adversaries...?

  15. Scott, I was leaving off responding because I think there are arguments in this thread that are excessivly narrow in their vision of what wargaming actually is. They deserve a longer reply, and I have my own blog afterall.

    However, just from my own experience with WOTR:
    I really would caution against just trying to 'fight fire with fire' in WOTR. We tried the whole RAW thing as an experiment at the start of the year. It was not pretty (Trans-Misty-Mountains-Alliance?)and two of us actually felt a bid 'sad' afterward. You were advised to to take the 'default' Mordor list by someone who actually did use a rule loophole to win a tournament, even though he thought it was a loophole that should not exist in the game. I don't really get the sense that your idea of a satisfactory game is the same as his, Scott. I meant it when I suggested that if it wasn't fun, then it might be worth taking a break. Still, like a healthy adult wargamer, you actually dabble in heaps of things - so perhaps just scale back a little and then worst comes to worst, WOTR is a game where you have a loss in amongst all the other things you are now playing?

    Still FWIW, basic Orcs with 2HW are awesome troops. I mean this in an objective 'powergamer' sense. Their only down side is that Morranans and Blackshield goblins are underpriced. I would suggest that if you design the army to fit a plan, Orcs in column with 2HW will serve you well. They do not last as long as Morranans but hit twice as hard vs most of the heavy infantry out there (vs def 6 they hit the same as, vs def 8 they are slightly better). Given the list has 'Pall of Night', 'Strength from Corruption' and 'Wings of Terror' you can aim to get ahead early by inflicting far more harm than you take. The Knights can then be the reserve. They have no hero in them and do not come out to play except to either join in later in the battle (once the enemy force is reduced) or as a sneaky unit for 'sieze the prize' or as a cheeky thing to throw into a 8.5cm gap (no being beaten to the charge by infantry) as a charge in column. So your battle might have two phases - intially bludgeoning them with 2HW Orcs, then later mopping up with Morranans and Cavalry.

    I do think WOTR is a game where you have to have quite a defined idea of the role the units play in your battleplan. Different units for different situations and most of the army should be geared to whatever your core strategy is. Heck, I've even found ways to like bow! These ways are pretty limited but I have yet to play a wargame where you can just take any old unit and expect to build your strategy around it.

  16. @Jamie - Thanks for your continued, considered and encouraging comments.

    "I don't really get the sense that your idea of a satisfactory game is the same as his"-->
    Yes you are right, I'd prefer to take a balanced force that was useable and had an even chance of winning, 50% of the time against any likely given army. I like charge and counter charge, action and reaction, I want the game to develop and over several turns and come down to the wire on the last turn... (Not one sided obliteration after a couple of turns.)

    But I am not finding this, usually my forces are destroyed my turn 4, usually following my psychological defeat around turns 2-3... I'm just expecting to lose now...

    You make interesting comments about orcs and 2HW, but I find they die fast enough with shields D5 than without D3. I rarely seem to get anywhere near getting off a successful and likely to win charge to get to use the 2HW effectively. Most elven forces have destroyed my courage making a charge nigh impossible once I am in range, and with Gondor I get trampled to death by Boromir, if Pall of Night fails.

    I dunno. I suppose I should give it a break as suggested, but as my side bar blurb suggests, by the time the next game comes round I have forgotten what I should be trying and get creamed again... I guess I am just a crap player(*); I'm a painter not a war-gamer? If I expect to lose then I won't be upset when it happens.

    I was clinging to the Morannon idea as if you have a 'tool' that rarely fails, then maybe even an incompetent like me has a chance of winning with it!?

    (* - I don't really believe this, I played Warmaster for several years at Tournie level back in the UK and did OK, came second once too behind the 'top seed'. But I had that game 'figured out', maybe I just haven't found the 'trick' with WOTR? Plus I have a habit of trying to play with painted figures, which often means they might not be my first choice in terms of units to take, they are simply what is available painted...)

    I guess I'll give it a break. See what happens later... I'm having fun getting my pirates ready at the moment anyway. :-)

  17. If you want, I could make some suggestions about Mordor. But there's nothing worse than unwated advice anyway, it might not help because...

    ...your Warmaster experience raises an interesting issue - what army did you play in that game? A smart gamer once told new FOW players to imagine what type of armies they like best, when seen in movies.

    I think he is on to something - I only really play two armies: Romans and Knights. In FOW that is German infantry and Soviet tanks, in Impetus it is Romans (and it will be Sarmatians), in WOTR it is heavy inf based Gondor/Angmar/Isengard and Cav based Gondor. The thing is, I am only on top of my game when 'Romans'. Not only am I only on top of my game with them, but I always play them the same way. A 'Cav' player was running my Romans against me in an intro game and he did things that it had never occurred to me to do. I am terrible with cavalry in WOTR. I can be pretty hit and miss with FOW tankovy too. I certainly struggle to keep the small cavalry contingent in my Impetvs Roman force alive.

    Fortunately, Mordor (and Gondor) is one of the true toolkit lists in WOTR. So perhaps you need to find the style, and it is something as abstract as 'Romans', that comes most naturally to you?

    The other interesting issue your Warmaster experience raises is Hail Caesar. I'm still waiting for someone to properly play it and provide some batreps and a player's review. The ones they have @ Warlord (and Wargames illustrated) are style over substance, I find.

  18. @Jamie - With regards Warmaster I played High Elves (Leadership 10, easy movement, devastating cavalry charge and bowfire), and Orcs (Leadership 8, a lot more difficult movement, and a very varied selection of troop types).
    Elves were almost too easy to play well. Orcs were a challenge and more 'fun' to play.

    I suppose the easy thing to contrast would be to go with lots of cavalry, don't mess about and charge straight at enemy, but Wings of Terror more or less does this for most orc infantry in WOTR anyway...

    I don't really think that is my issue really here. I don't especially see myself as an infantry of cavalry commander. I like a bit of both, as they both have their uses, and I like to throw monsters like trolls into the mix as they look good, are themed, and should be effective (if they can keep up with rest of army).

    The interesting parallel with Warmaster and WOTR, is I think army size. Warmaster was frequently criticized for the game being over with the first successful charge by either side. This was very true, but typically experienced in beginning size armies up to 1000 points, where people were learning how to play the game. Once you took the game to greater army sizes, you had waves of armies beating each other up, and a much grander experience was enjoyed, with charge and counter charge etc...

    I seriously wonder if that is part of the problem with WOTR, we are playing it at too small an army size. 1000 points is just scratching the surface of its potential, and I am sure a lot of the balance issues will disappear as armies get bigger.

    If you look at most of the GW WOTR battle reports, they are often 3000 - 5000 points per side.

    At that size game, the game won't be over with the first successful charge, Super heroes can't be everywhere at once, and after a couple of engagements they will have blown their Might and be reduced in part to 'mere mortals'.

    Even powerful spell casters wont be able to affect every engagement, they'll have to pick and choose who they help, and who they leave to get on with it as best they may, so again this dilutes some of the overall effectiveness of spell casting.

    As you say the SBG is fun but if want big battles then play WOTR, but then play BIG battles with it, don't mince about at 1000 points hoping pick me up games will work across the board. I am sure that's not where the game was designed to be played.

    The problem then becomes, have we got the space to put on such large games, and indeed the number of models to fight it out, and the time to commit to doing it.

    But realistically I think that is where we should be aiming get the best out of this game.

    It would be like buying the latest super sport crotch rocket motorbike, and only riding at the in town speed limit, and never opening it up on the highway, and wondering why it doesn't feel right; your wrists ache and you are forever up and down through the gears, when you should have it flat out in top gear with the wind trying to rip your helmet off...

    Here endeth the sermon...

  19. @Jamie - "The other interesting issue your Warmaster experience raises is Hail Caesar. I'm still waiting for someone to properly play it and provide some batreps and a player's review. The ones they have @ Warlord (and Wargames illustrated) are style over substance, I find. "

    I have played one game of Hail Caesar so far, a greek civil war; macedonian type pike blocks, hoplites, light cavalry, skirmishers and the like.

    All the troop types behaved as I expected they should, the Skirmishers were annoying but did little really and were driven off by the light cavalry, who in turn died horribly trying to engage the medium and heavy infantry frontally. The pike blocks slugged it out over several turns with neither giving way, and the battle was only decided when one flank collapsed, which allowed a thrust towards the now exposed flank of the already frontally engaged pike formations.
    No surprises, it all worked as it should and felt right!
    But again I would say this is a game that will play better the larger it is played, on a big table with lots of troops.
    Its not about sitting down and trying to squeeze the last ounce of effectiveness out of your 1000 point army list, in fact I think organized army lists are one of the things Hail Caesar and indeed Black Powder try to steer clear from... Maybe that's a lesson to be learned? Its not a tournie game that's for sure, and perhaps WOTR should not be either?

  20. Hi Scott, I think you are right re: 'not a tournament game' and that was what my 'fit for purpose' comment was aiming at. I think that sometimes this tournmaent focus becomes a stick to beat GW over the head with and forstalls apprecciating what WOTR does well.

    I don't get to play too many big games but did a really big (4000pt a side) WOTR one last Summer and it was great. If you can manage it, I'd recommend it. I have no problems with the game I am getting at 1000pts either though. Armies around here are tough :)

    I'm always interested in new rules, and battlereports, with pictures, using those new rules...

  21. "I think if I am to continue with WOTR, and Mordor (and protect my sanity), then we just go back to the original game as written, no house rules for forces, and I "powergame" it as I refer to it"

    You could do the complete opposite...

    You're obviously not having much fun playing the game, and you do _want_ to play a themed force, but are your opponents having much fun beating you easily either?

    Why not get together with one or two of them and agree to set up and play a game that you'll both enjoy. Go through the army lists together and both choose both armies. i.e. you and your opponent, working together, choose your opponent's army, and then both choose yours. Agree on the scenario too, and which heroes will be present. With two themed and balanced armies, you might both find the game much more enjoyable.

    I do also agree that you should play as large as you can though. It's what the game was obviously intended for, and you need as many troops and as much room as possible to really get the feet of tactical ebb and flow.

  22. @angelic D - thanks for insight!
    I must admit I have calmed down a bit after this 'rant', and have won both my subsequent games, @1000 points against Gondor on a 6x4 board, with a restriction of one Epic hero each...
    SO i must be doing something right now. It will interesting if I can manage a win against the pesky elves at 1000 points under similar circumstances...


Please feel free to comment on my blog. It is always nice to get feedback.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...