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.

If my local GW hadn't just shut its doors, I'd go for a demo game of it. Not going to be buying in though, as 40K already has it's nasty grabby hands in my wallet.

Sigh, I want to buy it. But I have too much on my financial plate right now. What with Birthday presents, Semi, Empire Total War and the Guard coming out, I might have to sacrifice the Guard to get a sizable Rohan or Minas Tirith or Dwarves (or all three) armies.

So when did LotR: Apocalypse come out?

It's coming out this weekend, right before the Stoma & Shadowsword.

Thanks for the input ya'll.

It’s a shame I went to bed and missed the debate between MDK and WhatWhat.

My 2p on WhatWhats argument is this.

There NO WAY that GW will dump the SBG. They have stated on several occasions that this is not a replacement for the SBG, just a new way of playing.

As for the assumption that this is a cynical attempt to shift more models all I can say is that GW are really damned uf they do, damned if they don’t. Its been a common criticism of the SBG that it falls over when playing larger games and many people don’t play it on this basis. So if anything this can be interpreted as a positive sign. That GW is actually listening to its customers by bringing out WotR whist still leaving the SBG intact. It literally means that everyone wins. 2 ways of playing with the same army. How can that not be good for the hobby?

As for myself I think having diverse 2 systems which use the same model range is real boost for gaming, especially for campaigns. Image playing a linked campaign of SBG games representing armies trying out scout one another, stem the flow of supplies and reinforcements and seize objectives, which can then cumulate in a WotR game or 2 based on the results of the previous games! That’s got more excited than anything. Now battles from the smallest skirmish to the largest battle are possible and all from the same range of models. WFB, as much fun as it is, have never offered much outside of the pitched battle. Mordheim with its different settings and factions meant it could never meld with WFB in the same way.

As far as I'm concerned, LotR is far far stronger for having both rule sets. Its literally greater than the sum of its parts. GW would be insane to get rid of SBG and I am thankful they have no intention of doing so.

I'm also confused about the comparison with CC in SBG with 2nd Ed 40K. The are nothing alike. SBG's CC system in far cleaner for a start!

I would try it if the new plastic Ents weren't so hideously hideous.

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:I would try it if the new plastic Ents weren't so hideously hideous.

So your not prepared to try a system because you don’t like a single model? It's not like there aren't alternatives available. I've just typed 'Treeman Miniature' into google and found several companies who make suitable alternatives.

JohnHwangDD wrote: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.

I think there's an element of this, and an element of them not wanting to make "heroic-scale" minis of real people. An Aragorn with a huge head and massive hands is a lot harder to get past Viggo Mortensen's lawyers, I'm sure.

aunshova wrote:So when did LotR: Apocalypse come out?

Preview day today at the HC's. Release 4 April.

Agamemnon2 wrote:
I think there's an element of this, and an element of them not wanting to make "heroic-scale" minis of real people. An Aragorn with a huge head and massive hands is a lot harder to get past Viggo Mortensen's lawyers, I'm sure.

I always thought that was the main reason too. If you are going to make miniatures of real pelope then the only way to go is with realistic proportions.

This is (IMHO) one of LotR's more positive points. Having a slightly different scale give the game it's own uniquie identity that is separate from the other GW games. Though perhaps this is why many gamers have shunned it, perhaps they feel the look of LotR simply doesnt fit in with the standard GW ethos and as result its ended up as somthing of an outsider.

Incidently LotR has a great deal of respect amongst the historical gaming comunity. Its one of the few GW games I see covered in the standard historical wargames press. Perhaps this is down to the more 'realistic' appearance of the miniatures. Ive heard it decribed as a historical wargamers fantasy game (along with Warmaster). Perhaps this was Rick Preistley intention all along when he designed the game.

I wouldn't mind giving it a go if I could afford it. Don't know what the hell I would collect, though.

Sidstyler wrote:I wouldn't mind giving it a go if I could afford it. Don't know what the hell I would collect, though.

Sounds like you start with with the book.

It's a bummer, I kinda wanted to check it out but my flgs closed down. Closest one is in Libertyville and that's 2 hours away. Sorry but I'm just not that into it.

If I did play however, it would most likely be the easterling guys. I always liked how they looked and how you could pretty much make up your own fluff for 'em.

I originally got into GW games over LotR, and it's still one of my favorite game systems. Do I froth at the mouth over these new WotR rules? You can bet your Orcish britches I do!!!

It's an amazing idea, IMHO. I have fond memories of squishing Gondorians with a column of Uruk-Hai pikemen...

[Moderator edit: Don't spam the forum.]

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

A few years ago (ok, maybe last year), the GTs dropped the requirement to bring a Good and Evil army with you, and allowed GvsG and EvsE. (previously, you had to bring a good and evil army, then dice off to determine who was what, iirc). I'd be shocked if WotR didn't allow GvG and EvE. As someone said above, you can even do an 'evil' Good army or a 'good' Evil army and pick allies accordingly.

I'm interested enough to pick up the rulebook. I think one of the things that LotR was missing was a 'comp' element, which WotR is trying to bring in. At least for Gondor, a lot of the elite models are like +1-2 points more than a basic warrior, but would buy you a lot (like +1 Fight, +1 Courage, and better wargear or a special rule).

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

Indeed it does. There is a paragraph covering this situation in the book and it's perfectly acceptable as long as both players consent.

I'm looking forward to this more than any other gaming release this year.
I'll probably end up trying to run events for it in Ireland if it's fun, because LOTR has little enough in the way of events and that's a damn shame.
(Gaelcon forgot to mention it on their questionaire, though the questionaire itself was a brilliant idea)

Im really looking forward to this as an excuse to get back into LOTR. And I want some of those snazzy new trays for my IG.

Peeked at the book. Very nice.

LuciusAR wrote:

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

Indeed it does. There is a paragraph covering this situation in the book and it's perfectly acceptable as long as both players consent.

In the stories that make up the Silmarillion, the Elves even fought against each other a couple of times.

Actually, we aren't obliged to give it a try at all.

I'll give it the same space as I give to LoTR and WHFB.

Although, as a jaded gaming vet, that won't be a lot. I'd much rather be devastating the eastern front or taking on the Niew Frieslanders. Neither WHFB or LoTR have anything that grabs me. Neither does most written fantasy (fiction). I'd rather read the Snorri Eddas (Or even Beowulf) again than try to read LOTR.

I'm not a fantasy person. Yes, I did play WHFB for a small time in 1987, but that was before 40k, and I dabbled in other games between napoleonics and WW2. If 40k hadn't come along, I'd be playing "Hammer's Slammers" or "Starship Troopers" or just the devastation of the eastern front.

The miniatures are only part of the game. If the world itself (the setting) fails to inspire, then no amount of good minis will make up for it. The Perry brothers have done some very nice stuff, but I'd rather have their napoleonics stuff than the entire population of middle earth.

Still, at least it is a 'proper' game and not that WoEvercrack frippery.

The game doesn't interest me in the slightest. Al though I heard good things about LotR's rules and liked the any good guys or any bad guys army building concept (now gone IIRC) the bit of LotR that put me off was LotR I have no interest in Tolkein's slightly racist, middle england fantasy world.

The system may have uses through its Legends of the Old West offshoot though. Perhaps doing for ACW what FoW did for WWII.

I had hoped that the WWI/40k rules GW released would be WWI/LotR.

I've just begun work on some movement trays and downloaded the free 4-page quickstart copy of the rules from the GW website, so I'm looking forward to trying these out in the next couple of weeks.

As a long-time player of the LotR SBG I've got around 1000 painted models of most factions knocking around that I've collected over the years, and this just pumps a little bit of life back into them for me.

My interest in the SBG had been going a bit stale frankly. I'd played it since its release, very heavily for the first 4 years or so, and got a bit burned out on the system. Although conceptually I see it as the best of the 3 core systems GW produce.

For the sake of the cost of a rulebook and a few movement trays (well, to be honest, some coloured cardboard would do, but the new placcy trays are cheap enough and a decent product, so why not..?!) I've got myself a whole new game. I may end up fleshing out my collection with a handful of new command models, or the odd sprue of orcs or something, but none of that's necessary if I find I don't want to go that far.

As far as the future direction, I foresee this replacing the SBG as GW's 3rd core system for the remaining 2 years of the New Line licence. If the licence is renewed for The Hobbit then of course all bets are off, and we are likely to see a hitherto unrevealed future for Middle-earth 28mm wargaming! What's certain is that this system will adequately portray the Battle of Five Armies, which is the only mass battle action in The Hobbit, so there are obvious synchronicities there.

My reasons for believing that the SBG will take a back seat to the new game are because, according to the seminar at the LotR GT in January, there are no more print supplements planned for the game. Any new models released for the game will be supported only in WD. Or so I understand from the reports on TLA from those that heard the seminar. Plans for a forthcoming Elven supplement for the SBG to follow Mordor seem to have been shelved for now. Probably forever. Maybe one'll come out for the WotR, but that is a long while in the future, if ever.

That indicates to me that WotR will be the main system GW concentrates on in selling LotR minis. Which makes sense from their standpoint as it is based entirely around building a large army of a single faction, as WFB and 40k are, whereas the SBG was less successful in that regard (i.e. once you'd built up around 700 points or so then there's not much point taking your army further as the game pretty much slows to a crawl beyond the 1,000 points mark. Unless you are interested in scenarios or collecting multiple factions - which it appears most of GW customers are not - then you stop buying models, and that hurts GW's bottom line). Obviously this new game has a longer metal/plastic tail than the old one, and if its a good game and people enjoy playing it, what's the harm in that? Provided the old rulebook remains in the current catalogue then players are free to choose which they prefer. And despite the hatred pumped out by the 40k-crazed fanboi-morons, it is clearly in no-one's interest to restrict choice. From a customer's point of view increased choice is ALWAYS a good thing.

[EDIT FOR CLARITY: I collect and play 40k myself. My disgust is limited not to those that play 40k, but to those that play 40k and wish all other games produced by GW would die! Clearly the latter are uncivilised, retrograde demi-humans! )

Sure it looks like the SBG ruleset is moving back to something approaching Specialist Games territory, but that's not necessarily much of a problem provided new models and new stats continue to be released which will continue to stimulate some interest for the game amongst those that prefer the smaller skirmishes.

In any case, we all knew the LotR franchise had a finite shelf life. That was obvious the moment GW let slip that they had not renewed the licence beyond 2011. At least this way the game gets to go out with a bang rather than a whimper!

Osbad wrote:In any case, we all knew the LotR franchise had a finite shelf life. That was obvious the moment GW let slip that they had not renewed the licence beyond 2011. At least this way the game gets to go out with a bang rather than a whimper!

When did this information come out? Is that the beginning of 2011 or the end?

What about The Hoobit's films? Surely they'll keep making mini's and scenario rules for the release of those.

I was in my local GDub last saturday and was excited by what I heard of the rules (units failing a terror test against a troll getting pounded by it as they lose their attacks and he gains loads).
Sounded like great fun and for that reason I may finally be interested in collecting an army and playing.

I was in my local GW yesterday and had a game with it and I was surprised I actually like it, WoTR focus more on units and how they react in battle rather than having a hero such as Aragorn wade through an entire army they are merely their to augment your units and use their special skills to make that unit more effective in combat, not be a combat monster in their own right.

Its a rather balanced game system that plays well, I for one detested the SBG, after my 500th game of fellowship vs goblins and a troll i quickly grew bored sold off all my minatures and carried on playing WFB but now if enough of my mates are playing it I am very tempted to give it a go.

George Spiggott wrote:

Osbad wrote:In any case, we all knew the LotR franchise had a finite shelf life. That was obvious the moment GW let slip that they had not renewed the licence beyond 2011. At least this way the game gets to go out with a bang rather than a whimper!

When did this information come out? Is that the beginning of 2011 or the end?

The rumour was leaked on Warseer and then confirmed on TLA a year or so back now. They signed an original 5 year licence from November 2001, this was then quickly extended to 10 years. So if the rumour remains true (and apparently it came from the horse's mouth), then the licence should expire in November 2001. Note this is the "film" licence. The "Book" licence with Tolkien Enterprises (which covers all everything in LotR and most of the appendices and the Hobbit book and was signed sometime early 2003), is not due to expire any time soon. I'm afraid I can't link to the post on TLA as my work blocks access to the site for some unknown reason (probably the word "Gaming" in a meta tag somewhere). Apparently the reason being that New Line were asking extortionate sums for extending the licence by a further 5 years or so, and GW weren't prepared to pay so much for it as it couldn't be justified by the anticipated remaining profits from the line.

Note also of course, that with New Line (or whoever they got taken over by... Time Warner?) producing The Hobbit and a second film in 2010 and 2011, there will be a new film licence up for grabs. I have no information one way or another whether GW have signed up for a new licence for these films. It would make sense, but no doubt New Line are greedy buggers, so it may not be worth it for GW. We'll find out soon enough one way or another. I know that many at GW really didn't want to take on a new licence because of the hassle that the "LotR bubble" caused them in destroyed shareholder expectations once all the free advertising evaporated and they don't want to repeat such a short-lived bubble again, but given the obvious synergy between their existing range and the new licence, there is still a strong positive case to take it up.

We'll see.

I thought they already had *a* License on the Hobbitt, judging by Battle Of Five Armies.

Perhaps they need not shell out on it at all? I have no idea how licenses work though!

Thanks for that Osbad. I think it would be a shame if the SBG was left to rot as I think LotR will be all the more stronger for having both rule sets.

I thinks its more likely that GW are being cautious as what with the hobbit movie in production an entirely new contract will be required. Its somewhat different to simply extending the current one.

I can't see why new line would not want a new contract with GW. Both parties made a fortune from the last agreement and there's no other company that could pull it off. It's a win win situation. Wouldn't surprise me if the price was a bit higher this time though.

Once the new contract is arranged however I would fully expect to see new stuff to come flooding out for both SBG and WotR.