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.

I'm currently playing 40K and was wonder how similar LOTR is? I have always been a big Tolkien fan and want to know if the game is as addictive as 40K.

Thanks!

Not really. LotR is by far easier to play, but some people say too easy. Personally I love it, because all you need is a few models to play.

Thanks! Are the games quicker?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is the Mines of Moria starter set the best why to start?

Its a skirmish game that has considerably more tactical depth. 40K wins in strategic depth though since half of 40K is list building with various minutiae in options that for the most part are lack in LotR in comparison.

It can be quicker or longer depending on how many points, how much time you take thinking about moves, etc.

Mines is a good set since you get the condensed rules with some models.

LotR SBG is however plagued by the same drawback that 40K 3rd ed did, and that a myriad of rules supplements in order to play an army. I would say its actually worse than 3rd ed 40K in that regard.

Still overall, its a great skirmish game, but cannot be directly compared to 40K since the two games are very different mechanically.

1. Game time depends on what type of army. If you have an elite army like Dwarves, then it should be quick, but a horde army like Goblins might take longer.

2. I'd say so. It gets you used to the rules, heroes, infantry and monsters. And like they say, it is best to start small. From there you can decide what army you would like to collect.

Edit: You don't need to but all the supplements, just the one(s) concerning your army.

I've been gaming since the FotR box set came out in 2003. Over time I've picked up 40K, and now it's mostly on the shelf until the new DE come out, but I've consistently stuck with my LotR SBG armies for all those years.

For me, part of the addictive-ness comes from the fact that you only need a few models, like Tim the Biovore said, to get a game going. Games as low as 100 points per side (12 WoMT vs. 20 Goblins) are still decently entertaining, while the equivalent in 40K can't really be done.

The turn mechanics are much better, in my opinion, with players alternating moving and shooting before a combined assault phase to end the turn, so you don't have to take a nap every time your opponent has to move his horde of orcs towards you. The movement mechanics are a large part of the strategy as well - there are no squads, so you're free to position and move your army in whatever formation you've come up with.

The downside of LotR is that it is much harder to kill stuff (5+'s for a kill normally, nothing lower than a 3+), and though you'd think that'd prolong the game, the turns are quick enough that it's not that much of an issue.

That's just the SBG though, I have no experience with WotR

Thanks all. Excellent comparative orchewer!

Thanks!

hmm, back when the Big Rule Book came out I would say that yes, it is way more entertaining than 40k and usually shorter. However, now I would say that it is a lot more complicated, largely because there are so many supplements and there is a good chance you will meet soemthing that you were unaware of when facing a new army, or even the same army a couple years later.

As for the WotR, if you tune it becomes a great game which I prefer over Warhammer. However there are some serious balancing issues, not to mention cost of metal miniatures for elite units.

Guys, I collect both.
I think that he 40K rules make a bit more sense, but I am better at LOTR, and have only lost 2 times in
my whole war gaming lifetime.

This thread is definitely peaking my interest in LOTR. What is the best why to dip my feet into LOTR? The Mines of Moria starter set or a small force?

Also, which force is the most balanced? In 40K I play Tau and Eldar, which I love (in a purely platonic sense). In LOTR I would rather have a generalist force.

Thanks!

Its been awhile since i've played LOTR, but iirc, all forces are limited to 30% of their models being armed with missile weapons, unless there is a particular rule allowing more.

Thus, all armies can be 'generalists'.

Mines of Moria gives you Goblins and a Cave Troll against the Fellowship. So its 'heroes' potentially using Might and Fate, against hordes of little enemies.

The LOTR games tend to be cinematic to me, and seem to play like the movies, which can be good if you like that, or not.

As far as forces, I would just look to pick up a box of whatever forces you like. If you like Gondor, a box of their warriors gives you 8 spear, 8 sword, and 8 bow. Buy a banner and captain and you're set for smaller games.

Rivendell is elite, with few units
Gondor are generalists
Rohan can have lots of cavalry
Isengard tend to use pikes
Orcs are generalists, though not terribly good at shooting
for example

LOTR tends to get clunky once you get over 50 models on the board per side, but that only tends to happen against Goblins, and at higher points values.

With regard to armies and lists, you can very easily get your feet wet just by getting the rulebook, and Legions of Middle Earth. If you find you like it going forward, then get the supplements. The game works perfectly fine with just those two books.

Boy, now I want to break them out and play a game or two :-)

I actually wouldn't recommend the Mines of Moria starting force for you. Neither Goblins nor the Fellowship are what you consider 'generalists'.

I'm going to assume that by "generalists" you mean an army that is capable of dealing with anything your opponent throws at you.

Gondor comes to mind for good armies as "generalists". Their basic warrior has a high defence, relatively inexpensive, and you can pretty much get anything you want and put it in your Gondor army to deal with specific threats. Want cavalry? Knights of Minas Tirith, game breaking heroes? Aragorn, Boromir etc. Siege Machines? Trebuchets and Avengers, Elite troops? Rangers, Osgiliath Veterans, Cheap heroes? Beregrond, Denethor, Damrod ...

No other good army out there has the wealth of choices available to them than Gondor.

As for "evil" armies ... Isengard comes to mind as a "generalist" force. At first, they may look like a small elite force, but it really depends on how you build the list. High strength Uruk-Hai to slaughter enemy troops, cheap Orcs to bolster numbers, elite basic troops like Bezerkers, cavalry from Warg Riders, siege engines, and even a troll if you want.

The thing with LotR is that you can make any army a generalist army. Even Elves, who's main strategy is shoot your opponent until they stop moving can dish it out in close combat. No army is completely hamstrung from doing something (e.g. it'd be suicide to assault with Tau, but with Elves, it's a viable option).