Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As a staunch 40k player, my brother has recently grabbed my attention with buying the Mordor book. He's set on collecting the army, mainly with mordor urak-hai and all sorts of Ringwraith nastiness. I found mysefl wondering. If you wanted to expand out of 40k which would you go for?

I myself am finding myself worringly attracted to Easterlings...

Fantasy is the better, but you can always go like me and collect all three systems.

Wow. Dedicated. (no sarcasm here, I swear!)
But at the moment I am torn. The two close cousins of 40k are calling. Battlefleet Gothic and Inquistior. But at the same time, these two intriguining systems are also eye-catching.

I like how the LotR can let you practically have one of the most manuverable forces ever. With almost every unit being able to split into tiny fractions. I'm also a bit disconcerted with how Fantasy seems to be decided almost entirely by deployment.

I don't know. LOTR was actually my first wargame, as the rules are pretty simple compared to WFB and 40K. It is also much less cartoony than WFB. It depends if you like complexity or not, I guess.

LoTR is just a bit too simplistic for me (although I guess unit choice is growing all the time). For many people, this is a selling point and Rick Priestly's original design brief was a Warhammer Fantasy version of chess.

I play Fantasy now, and also War of the Ring (an even more clearly "Apocalypse" version of LotR, with no real similarity other than models and fluff between the two). Fantasy is very different from 40K and has some intersting elements. Deployment being so important is off-putting at first, but it's not too terribly hard to get competent at it. The smaller number of dice rolled in Fantasy means the game has more randomness in outcomes, which is interesting to me, because I've heard a lot of assertions that WFB is the more tactical game (from WFB grognards).
War of the Ring is a fun game, but playing it competitively is broken at the moment.

jwolf wrote:War of the Ring is a fun game, but playing it competitively is broken at the moment.

As opposed to WHFB, which isn't broken in competitive play? Daemons of Chaos dominating the field (with Vampire Counts and Dark Elves placing high as well, because they are the only armies that actually have a decent chance against Daemons of Chaos), isn't exactly what I would call balanced either.

I personally had this dilemma before, and decided on Warhammer Fantasy, purely because almost no one plays War of the Ring around here.

WFB is square-basing nonsense. Go with LotR for round-based satisfaction!

I prefer WHFB, but the current chaos demon dex has ruined the game, and its nigh impossible to find a game anymore. which is why I have been focusing on my Space Wolves lately.

If you can put up with Tolkein's fantasy then LotR. Or better still neither. Spread your gaming wings a bit.

It depends on what you mean by "better." Each has good points.

WHF: This game is probably the most popular game GW makes. So you will have a much easier time finding other players I think.

LOTR: This game is a lot of fun. The system is a little more complex, but this also makes it more fun in my mind. LOTR and WOTR (War of the Ring) both use the same models, so if you go LOTR you have the chance to move into the large-combat WOTR later while still being able to make good on your investment in LOTR models.

Solorg wrote:WHF: This game is probably the most popular game GW makes.

Apart from 40k and LotR?

What I like about LOTR and WOTR is the freedom. I can mix and match using the allies system to build all sorts of combos and cool lists using the units I like.
I can mix mordor orcs with easterlings, or the balrog, or a dragon, or a load or uruk hai and Saruman. I also like it for a sort of generic fantasy feel, which I think it does quite well and fluidly.

I like WFB too. I actually collect all three.
And it's a fact that the WOTR rules have huge holes in them that need to be papered over by players.

I've personally found that LOTR is a lot about playing set scenarios and battles. If you enjoy renacting battles then its great, but if like me you prefer it to be personal then its probably not the game for you. LOTR isn't the sort of game where you play a campaign about taking land or that kind of thing. It is much more like a skirmish game and it usualy played like a story. Unfortunately I don't think the way it relies on heroes is very good.

However IMO fantasy is a very good game. It has a lot of the same rules as 40k but is also some areas are different. It has a very different focus and tactics to 40k. Although some armies are unbalanced there are no armies that GW focuses on like SM in 40k. Fantasy also has a more tactical movement phase due to units being arranged in blocks.

This is only my opinion but as you can guess I would say you should go with fantasy.

LOTR has a lot of non-storyline scenarios too- in the Legions of Middle Earth book, for example. And it is totally possible to make lists that contain no named heroes, but it is true that heroes are a major part of the game.
WOTR is very different to LOTR though.

jwolf wrote:I play Fantasy now, and also War of the Ring (an even more clearly "Apocalypse" version of LotR, with no real similarity other than models and fluff between the two). Fantasy is very different from 40K and has some intersting elements. Deployment being so important is off-putting at first, but it's not too terribly hard to get competent at it. The smaller number of dice rolled in Fantasy means the game has more randomness in outcomes, which is interesting to me, because I've heard a lot of assertions that WFB is the more tactical game (from WFB grognards).
War of the Ring is a fun game, but playing it competitively is broken at the moment.

I agree, never played LoTR though. The Importance of Deployment in WFB is based on the history that inspired the game world and rules. All great battles pre-1900 have been won by deployment and terrain. Trebia, Cannae, Alesia, Crecy, Agincourt, Stirling Brigde, Falkirk and Austerlitz serving as prime examples of battles won by deployment.

I would say go with Fantasy if you like the Total War games. If you like Age of Empires, go with LOTR.

@randomfrog: How did you make that connection? Because one uses formations and the other doesn't?

Da Boss wrote:And it's a fact that the WOTR rules have huge holes in them that need to be papered over by players.

Sounds mysteriously like a grimdark game I play...



Ultimately, like choosing what Space Marine chapter to play, it comes down to personal preference. Which do you like more? If you can invest in both, go for it. Also take into account the modeling and painting aspects of it. Will modeling and painting easterlings be more fun than, say, modeling and painting VC? Demons? Bretonnians?

Personally, I'd go with LoTR. If nothing else you can watch the trilogy while you paint/play. Peruse the Fantasy thread in the discussion forum (is the location right?). That could tip you one way or the other.

Best of luck in whatever system you are called to.

Rico...

War of The Ring.

All the best bits of Fantasy, LotR and Warmaster somehow mashed, mixed, filtered, mashed, sieved and then filtered one more time to create possibly the finest mass combat 28mm scale game I've ever played.

And thats coming from a Fantasy nut. LotR pips Fantasy to the post in this case, as you can easily build up from the Skirmish game to the War with just a handful of purchases.

I would have gone to LOTR, but the story bores me to death. Something about LOTR in general makes me fall asleep. Iv delved into fantasy books here and there during the past 10 years of 40k, and enjoyed the stories thoroughly. I just started an Empire army not to long ago, and despite my modeling complaints and the tray movement system, I have been enjoying myself.

My friends did try LOTR back when it first came out (before they even knew I played 40k), and we all lost interest fairly quickly.

George Spiggott wrote:

Solorg wrote:WHF: This game is probably the most popular game GW makes.

Apart from 40k and LotR?

If you check his profile, you'll see that Solorg lives in 1989, when WHF doesn't have anything else to compete against...


____

@OP, I'd suggest LotR WotR - great, realistic sculpts and a clean-sheet design.

I think it's best to go with WHFB, then move on to WotR/LotR later, as WHFB shares similar rules and concepts with both WotR and 40k.

Yeah that, and well I can find no lord of the ring players.
40k is frequently played but Fantasy is considered a delicacy. Least up here.

Same, and it is even rarer to find a LotR player. Mabye I'll just stick to 40k until I can make up my mind.

Perhaps a fleet of Badass battleships, still loyal to the undying Emprah? Hmmmm....

Fantasy is definitely the better path.
LotR plays almost nobody in our area (only noobs), but Fantasy enjoys a large community here.

If you want regular games, i would suggest Fantasy, purely because there seems to be more of them than LOTR players. However LOTR is an incredibly fun game, at small levels, unless you play WOTR, playing against horde armies in LOTR is not fun

Tim the Biovore wrote:Fantasy is the better, but you can always go like me and collect all three systems.

agreed.

if you find it difficult to choose you could always get an army for each game. and (if your young) if do all 3 games then you have a possible job when your 18(minimum age for working at GW) not to mention the 50% discount.

I would go with WFB, but that's just because I never ever played LOTR and at the moment I don't want to. I think the models are great but I've always been hesitant to get into it, I just feel like they're both fantasy games and I don't need to play 2 different ones, since my modeling time is limited also. hell I've been painting the same leman russ for the last 2 weeks....

If I were you I'd strongly consider starting a small Battlefleet Gothic fleet. If you go Imperial Navy or Chaos, you can get a sizable starting fleet (4 cruisers/battlecruisers and a few escort squadrons) for under $50. True, not a lot of people play it, but I remedied this by starting a Chaos fleet to run parallel to my IN. People are usually willing to play one of my fleets against the other at my FLGS, and games can be worked in to 40k campaigns (particularly those involving Planetstrike) rather nicely.