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.

Look on the bright side. So few people play, that GW feels no need to hike up prices, which means we can get 20 modesl for 30-ish dollars, as opposed to the 10-12 for 30 deal we have with 40k.

I must admit I am a recent convert to the War of the Ring game. I got the starter sets for the first two LOoTR games and played it with a friend of mine when it first came out, but never got interested in it.

I played a demo game at the GW and the new system seemed pretty cool. Easy to learn (from a veteran player's point of view), fast paced, the models look great, and they are a lot cheaper than WHFB or 40k ones.

ZoomDakkaDakka wrote:Look on the bright side. So few people play, that GW feels no need to hike up prices, which means we can get 20 modesl for 30-ish dollars, as opposed to the 10-12 for 30 deal we have with 40k.

I thought the 20 man sets used to cost $25? sure yea they uped it to $27 something but thats still a price wise. thankfully the Ent is cheaper than a warhammer treeman!

With LotR you can start playing after buying a $30 box of troops.

With 40K you're lucky to get a complete Troop squad in a box.

Well, the LotR stuff is still kind of a rip (especially the way troops are packaged, why are high elves mixed with numenoreans?) but it's definitely better than 40k or fantasy (despite the complete lack of bitz).

And you get more with them but yeah its stupid how high elves and numorence are together, personally I hate nermonerence!!!!!

Guys, I have collected LOTR for several years, and have amassed over 300 models, including the Balrog, Sauron, Shelob, A mumak, and a giant horde of Uruk-hai. The one thing that GW could do to make LOTR loads better would be to have multi-part plastic kits. Although this would bring the price up a bit, it would attract loads more people!!

I'm sorry but I dont think it would, I'd love a LOTR game but cant get one! :(

Gutsnagga wrote:Guys, I have collected LOTR for several years, and have amassed over 300 models, including the Balrog, Sauron, Shelob, A mumak, and a giant horde of Uruk-hai. The one thing that GW could do to make LOTR loads better would be to have multi-part plastic kits. Although this would bring the price up a bit, it would attract loads more people!!

Apparently the reason they couldnt make numerous multipart stuff was the fear of mixing in with warhammer and infringing on the contract they have

or something like that

sdf boy wrote:Does anyone else think LotR might be better suited to an rpg system similar to D&D?

Actually there is (or was) an RPG produced by a company called Iron Crown Enterprises. It was a d100 system called MERP (Middle Earth Role Playing) based on thier Rolemaster game, and the first RPG I ever played, back in 1988. It was really intricate in the lore of Tolkien, and included all of the settings, monsters, and magic items from Tolkien's world. I had a lot of fun playing it, but it never took off here in the US because the mechanic was a little too clunky and hyper-detailed for easy play, and GMing a game was godawful hard, because there really wasn't a good way to abbreviate the monster's stats. This resulted in many interruptions in the story while stats were looked up...

I personally think that LOTR has the best rule set out of the 3 main Games=workshop games. I love how the game is played, but like others , I have no desire to play with frodo...

Yeah, I agree, and its a easy game aswell!

It's actually quite popular with gamers who'd rather stay away from GW Stores, historical wargamers who mod the game to historical era's.

so far I've seen lists for the Classical era, dark ages, renaissance and colonial wars.

The people who play it like that don't have any business in a GW store

I've never played a game, but I have 150 Warriors of Minas Tirith and a few dozen Guards of the Fountain Court that I bought, assembled, and painted simply because I liked the look of the minis. I don't know if I ever will play, however. From what I've heard, the rule set seems to simple for me. If it could be adapted to something more like 40k, I might, but for now I will stick to collecting minis.

40K and Fantasy are baby games for babies. Literally. I realize that staement can be viewed s inflammatory, but it is also a very true statement. GW has gone on record stating that their target demographic for their games are 13 year old kids using daddy's money.

40K and Fantasy are contrived background stolen from a myriad of sources (chief of which being LotR itself) while LotR is based on solid literature of a more mature caliber.

LotR/WotR franchise proves that GW can write competent rules when required to. 40K and WHFB cannot hold a candle to it mechanically or thematically.

I used to be a LotR hater too, but since the skirmish game has been revamped, it is actually quite good. WotR is even better.

No one plays LotR games? Nope, not many do in direct comparison to 40K or fantasy, but the license still makes them a ton of money from people who do enjoy the LotR background.

If anything, 40K and WHFB players should be thanking each and every person who buys the LotR stuff because its that extra bit of income they provide which keeps you playing those games with shiny new models and subpar rules support. The divisive comments by detractors of the LotR stuff is only hurting 40K and WHFB by reducing the income for GW by keeping more people from buying into LotR.

From where I am sitting, LotR/WotR is gaining momentum due to disenfranchised WHFB/40K players wanting to move on to something a bit more mature mechanically and thematically. Judging by how GW is making a starter box for WotR (based on more or less solidly confirmed rumors from good sources), it seems it has come of age and is entering the big league of GW games.

I had the two original box sets for lotrs and although the models are good (even though there's not as much scope for customising as 40K) the game seemed a little slow for my tastes. Due to that and the lack of players I know who play it I gave up. In fact I know of more people who play hero quest, mordheim and battle-fleet gothic than lotrs!

Having said that wotr only seems to have recieved praise on this thread.... now i'm curious... is it really that good? I've always been tempted but through sheer lazyness and general dissapointment in GW I've not bothered looking at the book. What are the good points? And in particular how does movement work? Something that I don't like about whfb is regiment movement, I'm more a fan of the flow you get with 40k squads.

Hellfury wrote:40K and Fantasy are baby games for babies. Literally. I realize that staement can be viewed s inflammatory, but it is also a very true statement. GW has gone on record stating that their target demographic for their games are 13 year old kids using daddy's money.

40K and Fantasy are contrived background stolen from a myriad of sources (chief of which being LotR itself) while LotR is based on solid literature of a more mature caliber.
.

13 year olds are not baby's dude besides, LOTR is also by GW, hence, for 13 year olds!

You made a rather inflammatory remark indeed, and totally over-exaggerated. I don't know your age, but what yo say is very immature!

To a non-hobbyist's point of view, both games can be judged as "for kids" because it has toy soldiers.

besides, we all know GW is out of touch with reality (and it's original former veteran fan-base)... what they say is worthless to people who have been at this game/hobby for longer than a decade.

As for background, while LoTR is a big influence, it is not by far the most prominent inspiration for Warhammer Fantasy, which has more links with lesser know fantasy works like Michael Moorcock's and plain real world history than with Tolkien's masterpiece, while I have yet to find out what inspired the 40k Background. The stories might not be original, but few other game backgrounds are as well developed as the warhammers. Also, for a long, long time, there has not been another game or fanatasy/sci-fi world which could compare setting-wise... It did, however, inspire a whole lot of other fictions and sf/fantasy imagery. More and more fantasy/sf movies are made that heavily lean on Gothic themes... only a decade or so ago it was all arthurian or Star Trek/wars stuff!
GW would not be the only inspiration off course, but it's influence in fantasy/sf is on a level with Tolkien's IMO.

Herohammernostalgia wrote:You made a rather inflammatory remark indeed, and totally over-exaggerated. I don't know your age, but what yo say is very immature!

As hyperbolic as my statement is, it can only be considered inflammatory if you take umbrage with the statement. Usually people will take offense because it hits closer to home than they are comfortable with. The maturity enters play in how a person reacts to the statement. I dont take anything on this site nor in gaming seriously since it is a hobby that uses dollies and doll houses played on a board representing a magical land of dollies. The statement, while intended to be inflammatory, is more meant as a comical jibe towards those games and the people who play them. Considering the inflammatory premise of this thread "No one likes LotR", it is justifiable.

Herohammernostalgia wrote:As for background, while LoTR is a big influence, it is not by far the most prominent inspiration for Warhammer Fantasy, which has more links with lesser know fantasy works like Michael Moorcock's and plain real world history than with Tolkien's masterpiece, while I have yet to find out what inspired the 40k Background.

This argument can be easily explained. What came first and what inspires anything with elves and orcs and dwarves and...etc?
Thats right, LotR does. (Or more accurately, old myths which Tolkien gathered together into a cohesive mass).

Dune is a prominent and obvious example of merely one area of inspiration for 40K. To over simplify 40K prominent sources of inspiration would go something like this:

Old legends > Tolkien > Lovecraft > Heinlein > Moorcock > Herbert > WHFB > 40K.

Herohammernostalgia wrote:It did, however, inspire a whole lot of other fictions and sf/fantasy imagery. More and more fantasy/sf movies are made that heavily lean on Gothic themes... only a decade or so ago it was all arthurian or Star Trek/wars stuff!
GW would not be the only inspiration off course, but it's influence in fantasy/sf is on a level with Tolkien's IMO.

GW's influence on Sci-fi and fantasy are minimal if at all. It sponges so much of its background from other sources, readily admitted to be the games designers and writers. The term Gothic is not original to GW either, even though they like to think they are its originators due to vigorously enforcing its stolen IP. Ispiration would be a more accurate descrition but when you try to legally claim certain ideas as your own original creation thats when it enters the realm of legal theft. Just ask Michael Moorcock. I am sure he would have regaled you with tales about his own stolen IP.

I wont argue more about influences though because the facts lie in a person's background in how much they have read, seen, etc and otherwise absorbed from sources predating the "Fantasy innnn spaaaaace" and "This isnt really LotR, its WHFB" games.

Don't get me wrong, I love 40K background to death. But I am much too well read to harbor illusions it (and WHFB) is anything but borderline plagiarism of other's ideas mashed together in a fun, easy to digest package.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

covenant84 wrote:1) wotr only seems to have recieved praise on this thread.... now i'm curious... is it really that good?
2) What are the good points?
3) And in particular how does movement work? Something that I don't like about whfb is regiment movement, I'm more a fan of the flow you get with 40k squads.

1) Depends on who you ask. Some hardcore LotR players hate it because of many reasons such as they prefer skirmish, they hate how the SBG is somehow shadowed by the formation based game, hate mechanics, etc. Alternatively, some WHFB and 40K players like the system better and consider WotR to be the pinnacle of GW's current line of mass battle games. Its all purely subjective but if you really are interested I would play it a few times in a casual way to judge it for yourself using someone else's armies.

2)

Interleaved turn structure. No more going to lunch while your opponent takes his turn in UGOIGO games because you are much more involved and have an opportunity to respond to their actions.

All of the army lists in one book

Simplified movement (see #3)

Simplified point costs for units instead of nickle and diming everything

Cool background

Plays best in a casual environment where people leave competitive mindsets at home with their ego

Premeasure anything, anytime you want

Combat is now much more simplified

There are plenty more that are revealed through playing it, but I think you get the idea

3) Movement is one of its best points since, simply, it is basically WHFB and 40K movement mixed into one. While you do use ranked formations of troops in a tray, it gets rid of how WHFB uses complicated turning. While a front facing is important to the mechanics, how it gets there is less stressful and annoying than how it occurs in WHFB.

I know I use the term "simplified' a lot in what I consider its strengths. This is because WotR doesn't pollute the game with extraneous rules for the sake of rules. There is a lot to be said for keeping things simple and yet not feel like you are playing candyland.

That said, there is much room to criticize this game from various aspects. While it is a great starting point, GW could do a lot to refine a few niggling points in this game regarding mechanical ambiguity (a lot of which were addressed in the FAQ, thankfully). Actual stuff that matters mechanically and not peoples whining about how so and so is powerful and 'broken' etc. Those comments can best be left in the dumpster because I posit that this game is best left in a more casual environment so that a story can unfold instead of worrying about why assault cannons get rending or whatever.

Thanks Hellfury, most helpful

Well, I hate WOTR, I think if they encouraged people to play LOTR more, alot more people would play it, also whent hey bring new armies out or new figures out, people will drop LOTR and go for them cuz they'll find them better.

And if you like me that cant ever get a game of LOTR than of course your going to change to 40k, thats what I did!

Are we debating about this or something?

I used to play LoTR, and still think it's a really good game, but I stopped playing a while ago, simply because there was never anyone to play against

Same as me

At GW ringwood, loads of people have LOTR, so I've never been short of opponents.

Ive got a few models but thats about it. I never really got into the game and only collected the models becuase i though they would be fun to collect and look at.
Ive got every model of all of the fellowship as well a set of Rangers of Middle earth.

All up, It seems like an interesting game but with 40k and WHFB Rules taking up room in my head i cant be bothered to learn yet another set of rules.

The re-enactment criticism seems like it has the potential to hurt replay value in some cases. My FLGS had a Helms Deep Board after the Two Towers expansion, but how many times can you re-fight helms deep before it gets dull? The SBG was a good skirmish game but lacked the epic feel of bigger battles (which fantasy/40k both capture well) There exists the possibility to play as many different types of games as you like, but the problem is that the game relies on the movies to generate enthusiasm. Now that the films have passed GW has had to desperately find ways to drum up interest.

I think a fundamental problem with the game is that the expansions have been extremely uninteresting. Ruin of Arnor? Fall of the Necromancer? Nobody asked for these expansions, and upon release nobody really bought the models. The products are not well differentiated from alternative systems and are a bit too bland.

In my somewhat limited experience with the SBG game, it felt like combat often dragged on too long but I enjoyed the emphasis on heroic actions and maneuvers. One problem is that the game lacks the decisive and brutal qualities that defines the 40k and Fantasy rulesets. It seems that WOTR incorporates this aspect better, but requires a huge investment in models that I am loathe to make, particularly when no opponents are ever around to play against. Fantasy has stolen so many of the Tolkien race archetypes that the game seems redundant a lot of the time.

I think it makes sense for GW to put LOTR into specialist games and focus more attention on 40k/Fantasy.

LOTR suffers from a common problem. Small base of players.

I have played many mini-systems over the years but 40k has won out. Not because I think it is the greatest game ever but it is played by a large number in my area. WFB, LotR, WotR, Flames of War, etc all have points that appeal but unless you like to play with yourself, (pun intended) you are going to end up going with a system that appeals to a number of people. Varied opponents with varied styles/interpretations/tactics wins out over a well-developed rules system with an awesome background.

Hellfury makes a lot of good points. I don't like his disparaging of 40K, but LOTR is indeed a great game. I've been a 40K player for around 8 years, and I'd consider myself very invested in it, but I ended up trying a LOTR demo at my local GW, and loved it.

I'd rather take the dip into Fantasy first (because of a larger fan-base, and because of more options for armies), but if I had a group that was pushing for it I'd love to play LOTR.

Sadly, I've NEVER seen ANYONE play one game at any of my local game stores; and I've played frequently at 5-6 seperate locations.

Replace "doesn't" with "don't" and "a lot" is two words not one.

I for one am not a huge fan of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, "The Hobbit" on the other hand...

Also I don't care for most movie "tie ins" A game that embodies the feel of the books would have been more interesting to me than one that embodies the movies.

I think the LotR and WotR games are much like RPGs. You get out what you put into it.
If you think all you can do is what's in the movies, then you are straitjacketing yourself.

If you want to do a battle from the books or movies you can.
If you want to do a what-if, you can.

They are very flexible games in that respect.
They are not locked into being reflections of the movie at all.

skrulnik wrote:I think the LotR and WotR games are much like RPGs. You get out what you put into it.
If you think all you can do is what's in the movies, then you are straitjacketing yourself.

If you want to do a battle from the books or movies you can.
If you want to do a what-if, you can.

They are very flexible games in that respect.
They are not locked into being reflections of the movie at all.

Quoted because its worth repeating. Flexible is actually and understatement. The only constraint is your imagination.

Here is a list that represents an evil army during Morgoths exile in Beleriand. This predates the events in LotR by...oh....several millenia.

Its all arachnids, with a couple models replaced with more arachnids as proxies for theme. Legal within the set limitations of WotR but highly thematic.

Call Shelob "Ungoliant. Call the 2 goblins some imagined name given on the right hand side of the bolded entry...bob's your uncle.