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.

Firstly I'm posting this here as I'm really looking for the views of those who have perhaps shunned LotR in the past so I think this is a more appropriate place to ask this question than a sub board that going to only be visited by existing fans.

Now I realize that poor old LotR gets allot of stick around here and seem to blamed by many, rather unfairly IMHO, for everything from the reason your favorite army hasn't been redone yet right to the Reichstag fire. I don't want to debate the pro's and cons of the LotR SBG game here. What I am wondering though is if the naysayers are at least willing to give the new WotR rules a try or if they plan to refuse to at least give it a go on principle?

I looked through the rules today in my local GW and spoke to several gamers and staffers about it. A couple where already big LotR players, some had indulged in the past but where only have 1 or 2 smallish forces and one didn't like the SBG at all. Yet they all, without exception (Yes even the hater) were frothing about WotR, and I can't say I blame them.

The rulebook is visually stunning and very well set out. Everything is made clear and is easy to follow/find. Now as for the rules themselves all I can say is wow! Its relatively simple and clean with very few flow interrupting special rules. Best of all there is real emphasis on maneuver with flank and rear charges hurting like hell. Best of all it keeps LotR's excellent turn system meaning that aggressive maneuvering can be counter maneuvered all in the same turn before anyone even charges.

Now I realize that a common reaction may be that if you already play WFB why bother with WotR? Well let me tell you folks that the 2 games are chalk and cheese. I think that WotR will provide many more subtle tactical in game challenges with far less emphasis on list composition than WFB and more on generalship.

I know that many will sneer at WotR but all I can say is if your not at least willing to give it a go then it your loss. So what are peoples thoughts?

If I hadn't earmarked this weekend for painting my Savage Orcs, I would so be going up GW to try this out.

Although I only had a brief flick through t'book today, I was impressed by what I saw.

And I never, EVER want to run into The Nine as a formation :(

I'm currently painting the 9.......




Also there is a fair amount of flexibility that is included that people seem to glaze over in LOTR that you can do in WOTR- for example the book gives an example of a red gondor force with new background etc... thats very cool- and it led me to an idea....


Evil dwarves

You pick a faction (dwarves, elves, gondor, rohan, mordor, fallen realms etc...) THEN pick if your good or evil- there is a nice paragraph about reasoning- and so then your 25% allies can be from whichever side you picked...

So 75% evil dwarves with allied goblin slaves and a really short ring wraith... .awesome

Though I don't recall spotting the Dragon in there.

It was a very quick flick, occasionally stopping to froth now and then, so I may have just missed it!

Personaly I can't be bothered with WOTR, just a shameless attempt to sell more models in the LOTR range. What happened to putting a small warband up against a ton of goblins with an added cave troll, those were the kind of games I loved about the original lotr rules. Rules which I will turn to every time I want to have a game with lotr models rather than WOTR. I can't see any reason for WOTR other than to try and jump start the lotr side of gw games again, which you can't argue haven't declined. I mean you can get the whole original fellowship for a couple of quid on ebay now.

IT's still a very popular game, with a solid rules set.

WotR is a logical progression. A successful game soon winds up players owning collections too large to really work within the existing rules.

So you release rules to upscale.

Where GW went right here, is not taking the original version off the shelves.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:IT's still a very popular game, with a solid rules set.

WotR is a logical progression. A successful game soon winds up players owning collections too large to really work within the existing rules.

So you release rules to upscale.

Where GW went right here, is not taking the original version off the shelves.

Oh I agree it's popular, but from what I've noticed and read it's popularity is in decline. I'd have hoped gw would have stayed true to the original game in order to answer that problem though. They haven't.

No, they've done something which generates entirely new interest.

Plus, it's also pretty cheap (Well, comparatively) to raise an army with the plethora of plastics.

So all those with extensive collections already need only make or buy the movement trays not to mention the rulebook, and they have a whole new game to play. Thats a damned good price.

And for peeps like me who like what they have seen, there is a real incentive to start a new game.

whatwhat wrote:Personaly I can't be bothered with WOTR, just a shameless attempt to sell more models in the LOTR range.

Yeah, it's totally unlike how GW pimps 40k and WFB, and that's just wrong...

Of course, their Customers were buying volumes that supported mass battle, and actually wanted mass battle, so of course, GW is going to refuse to convert the skirmish game into a mass battle game?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:No, they've done something which generates entirely new interest.

No that's their incentive for doing it.

Do you honestly think GW are making the game to give already existing customers something to do with there armies?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Personaly I can't be bothered with WOTR, just a shameless attempt to sell more models in the LOTR range.

Yeah, it's totally unlike how GW pimps 40k and WFB, and that's just wrong...

Of course, their Customers were buying volumes that supported mass battle, and actually wanted mass battle, so of course, GW is going to refuse to convert the skirmish game into a mass battle game?

Well done you've just repeated my argument in sarcasm.

Good rules or not, LOTR has never piqued my interest beyond the movies. Also in the same boat as WHFB. The rules are damn good, but the interest is just NOT there for me. Regardless of GW's opinion, miniatures do not drive my purchasing, it's the fluff and rules. Moreso the fluff.

Actually, yes.

Customer Retention is every bit as important as Customer Generation.

This does both.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Actually, yes.

Customer Retention is every bit as important as Customer Generation.

This does both.

I've seen enough of how GW run things to know the former is less important to them.

@what: I don't see the problem. GW has WotR for mass battle and LotR for skirmish, both using the same figs.

It's the same as AoBR / SH / KT scenario gaming vs 40k mass battle, or Mordheim vs WFB.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's the same as AoBR / SH / KT scenario gaming vs 40k mass battle, or

Not really.

Mordheim vs WFB.

More like it.

Well, no.

This is the first time GW have upscaled something WITHOUT taking away the original. Thats quite a landmark, and a very positive one.

All you have to do is look at where existing skirmish games have drifted to on GW's priority list and you can see why having both a mass battle lotr game aswell as a skirmish one would kind of impede on my preference of the later. Because you can see where the original game is going after WOTR comes out.

People will choose one or the other. GW certainly will.

Yeah.

Nowhere! LotR as you know, is almost entirely Scenario Driven, designed to represent the cool scenes in the film.

WotR is about the cool massed battles and recreating them.

Two different niches, and seeing as LotR is still ticking over nicely in it's own right, why ditch it?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yeah.

Nowhere! LotR as you know, is almost entirely Scenario Driven, designed to represent the cool scenes in the film.

WotR is about the cool massed battles and recreating them.

Two different niches, and seeing as LotR is still ticking over nicely in it's own right, why ditch it?

But LOTR doesn't sell on the basis that it's a "scenario driven game" it sells because of it's Lord of the rings liscencing. If games sold on that basis GW would still be supporting a fair few other games which have dropped off their priorities list.


If you can honestly tell me you'd put your money down on three or four years down the line GW still having both WOTR and the original LOTR games in the form of more than just an online free downloadable pdf (a la inquisitor/necromunda etc.). Then I will agree to disagree with you as this argument is just going to go round in circles.

I never gave the original LOTR games a chance because of the different scale, just like I never gave EPIC or Inquisitor a chance. I have enough money invested in 28mm without branching out to totally incompatible systems. At the very least, if they were compatible I'd have picked up some minis for conversions. Besides none of the local shops appear to have any players interested in LOTR.

Still don't see why they'd drop it.

WotR is there to boost sales amongst existing players, and get more people less inclined to the Skirmish to buy the models as well.

Previously, things have been streamlined to enlarge the games capacity. This is a different approach altogether.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that this time, it's not really comparable with what has gone before, as nothing has been replaced.

Besides, the Skirmish is so well developed now, that it can act as a nasty Crackbait. Imagine you're just getting into it, and LotR is the setting for you. You pick up the SBG, put together a force for good, and a force for evil, and because Army Lists are quite loose, you pick up a bit here, a bit there. Then you realise you have a big collection. So you look into WotR. If it's to your taste, you assemble a force from what you have. Provided you enjoy it enough, you would look at expanding other areas of your collection to have more forces to pick from.

Thus, in this respect (As ever, I may be wrong!) keeping the SBG about makes a lot sense financially.

whatwhat wrote:If you can honestly tell me you'd put your money down on three or four years down the line GW still having both WOTR and the original LOTR games in the form of more than just an online free downloadable pdf (a la inquisitor/necromunda etc.). Then I will agree to disagree with you as this argument is just going to go round in circles.

Honestly? Yes.

They can still make money off the Journey books etc, and as WotR isn't a replacement for it, why would they remove it?

As I demonstrated, it's fantastic Crackbait, being the single cheapest way to get into the Hobby.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Honestly? Yes.

They can still make money off the Journey books etc, and as WotR isn't a replacement for it, why would they remove it?

As I demonstrated, it's fantastic Crackbait, being the single cheapest way to get into the Hobby.

K then since my beliefs and experiences tell me otherwise I will agree to disagree with you.

But I will leave on this. I believe WOTR in GW's view is a replacement for the existing LOTR rules, as they know that regiments, boxed sets, army suplements etc. sell a lot better than the kind of models needed to support skirmish based games, as has been demonstrated in the past. A logical conclusion then would be to stop supporting the orginal LOTR games and get all of it's customer base into the higher profit making WOTR game.

I'll buy the rulebook, and then make my mind up. The thing that kept me away from LotR was the crappy close combat rules that they stole from second edition 40K. However, this game, from what I've heard seems to be more my sort of action.

Erm...CC rules in 2nd Edition 40k and LotR aren't at all similar.

I'm confused now.

whatwhat wrote:If you can honestly tell me you'd put your money down on three or four years down the line GW still having both WOTR and the original LOTR games in the form of more than just an online free downloadable pdf (a la inquisitor/necromunda etc.).

I'll gladly put a dollar down that LotR & WotR will still be around in 3 years.

I put my money down on Necroumunda, Epic, Mordheim, BFG, and Warmaster and I'm happy with my professionally printed books. I far prefer rulebooks to having to carry a computer or photocopies.

Last I heard, LotR easily outsold Fantasy, and with WoTR in its infancy, I have no reason to suspect this will change in the foreseeable future. WotR is effectively 40k3 / WFB6, with a core rulebook and rulebook / Ravening Hordes lists. If you read the writing on the wall, GW will release a sum total of 10 Codex-like faction books detailing individual armies over the next 2 or 3 years. Therefore, it is pretty much inconceivable that WotR doesn't outstrip Fantasy in the next 2 or 3 years.

The basic LotR box serves the same role as AoBR and BfM / BfSP, as a gateway, and the material is all printed with the sprues cut and cast. So there's no reason to discontinue the gateway product.

I am a fan of the Lord of the Rings series, be it the books and the movies, so I had to collect some of the minis. I built up a sizable rohan force but have never bothered to play the game. What really made me angry about the GW LotR line of minis is that they built them to a different scale than the rest of their line and as such, they cut out a lot of conversion capabilities. I find it to be the lamest attempt to force people to buy minis. I don't know if they were afraid that people would just use WFB figs or what, but I think most people who were going to get into the game were fans of the series and as such would buy the new line of minis.

The other thing I really didn't like about the game is that you had to bring forces of good and evil to games. What's the problem with matching up good armies against good or evil vs. evil? I hope that this new WotR will address this issue and then maybe I can get my Rohirrim on the table. As it stands they sit collecting dust.

IIRC, GW was required to make LotR a different scale so people wouldn't get around the LotR royalties by fielding Treemen or other WFB models.

Does War of the Rings allow Good vs. Good and Evil vs. Evil? I imagine it should given the
cost to play involved.