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.

Why?Is it because: MY CODEX IS DELAYED WAAAAAA!As I see on the internet all the time?I see dozens saying:LOTR models are terrible and warhammer is the best,Yet LOTR models don't have axes the size of their bodies(well...ok prowlers..)Is it the rule set?All over the internet its always:its goes down to who rolls the most sixes.Its not,its five times as tactical as 40k.Is there a must take unit like a Riptide?Or does every unit have SOME weakness.
Lets compare elves to tau.
Tau:We are the best shooty army EVER.We ignore cover and stuff.We have riptides.We suck at close combat.Its a shame you'll never get there.
Elves:We are great at everything.Its a pity we get swarmed by three goblins per elf...
Or is it the rule that states:I can't play uruk hai vs gondor because Im trapped by what's written in the book.Because I have NEVER seen that rule.
Its OK to have tyranids fight(Insert SPESS MAHREEN chapter that was destroyed before it got near nids) but aragorn vs hobbits?nah...
What do you other LOTR players think?

I think it's down to a few things.

First off, the lifespan of the game. 40k and WFB have players that have been there from the 80s/90s, and as such, have an understandable attachment to the game. LOTR, while existing as a universe longer, has only been on the gaming scene a relatively short time.

Second, your point about people feeling confined by the books is a good one, it is amusing how some people throw a fit over elves vs Gondor but are fine with SM vs SM or WH High Elves Vs Wood Elves. This probably does come from the fact that LOTR does clearly define good and evil as a setting, whereas 40k and WHFB (to a lesser extent) do not. This wouldn't be a problem but for the fact that, thanks to the setting and style, many more people play LOTR for the narrative than those who look for the same in 40k. I myself am guilty of this, I must admit. I'll happily pit my Ultramarines against Blood Angels, and yet would hesitate to play my Gondor army against Rohan. (not that that's an issue as I can't get a game. I'd happily play my own side if it meant my Gondorians could come off Shelf Duty!)

Thirdly, from a purely objective point of view, the LOTR models are often inferior to 40k models. Style aside, 40k and WFB use multi-part plastic with a metric tonne of options and bitz. LOTR models are largely more limited in posing and variety, and don't lend themselves to conversions as much. This wasn't an issue when I could get 24 LOTR minis for the price of 10 40k figures. Now they're around the same price, for me, 12 single-pose Dwarf Grimhammers, despite being amazingly cool models, are going to fall behind a unit of Guardsmen or Space Marines, as I'll get more use from the 40k stuff as I'll actually get a game. This is a self-perpetuating cycle, as it results in less people buying into the game, meaning there's less use for the people that do buy figures.

Certainly, though, it is a real shame the game is less popular, as as a ruleset it is amazing, and the figures are great.

I asked the question on The One Ring forum not so long back. Check the link, there are some interesting responses!

http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=26550

I also asked the question to Matt from Miniwargaming.com for one of his Sit and Talks.

He gives his answer around 0:56:06 into his Sit and Talk video...

http://www.miniwargaming.com/content/sit-talk-from-home

It's not the game I dislike but the source material.

LOTR just bores me to tears. It could have the most brilliant system of rules in the universe but it's still LOTR.

I like this point from the one ring:

Bilbo wrote:
…I am sorry but I really don't have time to trawl through the gentleman's talk when it lasts an hour, I listened for about two minutes but tuned out as it was all general rambling prevarication.


Not sure if you missed this section of the OP:

Thermo wrote:
Matt from MiniWargaming gives his opinions to this question about 0:56:06 into his Sit and Talk video...


Here are my 2 opinions:

A) The myth that SBG is predicated on 6’s/lucky dice rolls

I've asked a few former GW mangers/players the same question the OP asked and the majority of them mentioned that the game relies on rolling 6’s/lucky dice rolls to make things “happen.” I can’t quite comment on this notion myself as I've only played about 5 or 6 games in total throughout my involvement in the hobby (I’d love to increase that number ever so badly).

Although I’m quite positive this isn't the case, “lucky dice rolls/6’s are mandatory” seems to be a common malingering mindset that is present throughout SBG discourse more so than other game systems.

It’s interesting to flip through the LOTR Best of White Dwarf magazines because you start to pick up on this notion (example: In the Balin’s tomb scenario, the goblins ultimately won because they surprisingly hit Legolas with arrows and Legolas was expected to survive with two Fate points left).

B) Immersion is difficult

When the everyday fan thinks of conflicts that occur in Middle Earth, they mention Helm’s Deep/Minas Tirith. It’s very rare for someone to highlight the warg attack scene for example.

People want to recreate these massive battles thanks to the film and all the pretty pictures present throughout the rulebooks/sourcebooks. Normal skirmishes (especially a points Match battle with no relation to the film) just seem awkward and off putting.

Before I go into a wall of text, I’ll try to sum up this point with an example:

Kitchen table 1 has a handful of newly assembled marines and Tyranids

Kitchen table 2 has a handful of newly assembled uruk-hai warriors and Rohan warriors

For the most part, people are going to find much more interest with kitchen table 1 because kitchen table 2 needs about a hundred more uruks, an epic Helm’s Deep miniature castle, a handful of elves and masterclass painted miniatures because the film depiction is in the back of their minds.

Dakkajet, those are some good points in that quote. I do recall something similar to the second one in my days of trying to get people into LOTR. Everyone wanted to play Helm's Deep/Minas Tirith but no one had the time or the models. Even when using rules that make it more accurate (uruks respawn when killed) the core rules of the game don't lend themselves to games on that scale.

WOTR tries to fill this gap, but isn't as good, as it requires huge amounts of models. I have played some great games with that system using paper/card proxies (printouts of models on card unit bases) but even my fairly large collection can't actually do anything above 750 points with WOTR.

When you do throw aside balance for narrative games, it does become more immersive,but I imagine the majority of gamers would rather balance than narrative.

About 10 years ago when LOTR was still a major seller allot of the aggression towards it was based on the fact that it was seen as an upstart that was intruding on 40K and Fantasy and taking up valuable space that should be for the ‘proper’ core games. There was never actually any evidence this was the case but the perception existed and that was that.

Also what didn’t help was that it had a large number of younger players, so people seems to consider LOTR as endemic of the fact that GW was aiming at younger and younger players all the time and ignoring the Veteran players.

I always thought LOTR was treated most unfairly by many. The rule system itself was one of the better ones GW had done in some time. It flowed well, was flexible and you hardly heard any rules based arguments. It was also very well balanced and there was distinct lack of ‘creep’.

Sadly what drove most of the players, myself included, away wasn’t a problem with the shame but that it was almost impossible to find any players after a while.

About half the gamers a our local store have LOTR armies, but only 1 in 20 or maybe more games are of LOtR.

GW missed a big opportunity in the hobbit to revitalise this gaming system, instead of getting 40k/WFB players into it they need to get other tolkien fans into it, ones that don't know about table top gaming.

to the original question:
It might be that most 40k.WFB players are biased towards their game system, and they are the only ones that hear of new releases through white dwarf mags.

To be fair the first film didn't have much of an emphasis on combat aside from the scrap with the Goblins. There wasn’t that much that lent itself well to wargame. The Flashbacks of the Dwarves fighting the Orcs where awesome, but not detailed enough to make a good scenario.

When the original LOTR games came it was much the same. The Game didn't really 'click' until the 2nd film came out and rules got updated to include Cavalry and combat scenarios that didn’t revolve around the fellowship. The game then really opened up.

The new trailer gives the impression of lots of scrapping between Elves and Orcs and the 3rd film with have the battle of the 5 Armies. This might inspire a few people back the system.

I used to enjoy the game for the miniature style and the excellent rules, however I could barely get a game. Now that the Hobbit is taking the lead, I've heard some of the rules have been changed destroying the balance and the elegance. That and I don't like the art direction of the new films, so it's doubtful I will enjoy the miniatures.

Well I think that they lost out on the opportunity with the hobbit release like others have said.
I actually think the game is not as tactical as some of the other game systems. But that's just an opinion.

On the side of model design I think all the models are well done and there are a few models I want to get just as nicely painted ones but my skills aren't there yet haha
I've seen that December will see new models including barrels out of bond which might be a cool model

I don't think people dislike the game since it's a really balanced game but lots of people just don't see enough of it.
Look at all the rumours for new warhammer fantasy/40k codecies and models but there's very little interest in the hobbit releases on forums but even in store my flgs doesn't really order much of it so people don't see it

Zond wrote:
I used to enjoy the game for the miniature style and the excellent rules, however I could barely get a game. Now that the Hobbit is taking the lead, I've heard some of the rules have been changed destroying the balance and the elegance. That and I don't like the art direction of the new films, so it's doubtful I will enjoy the miniatures.

I know what you mean about the art direction, the dwarves in the Hobbit seem more 'cartoonly' than the dwarves in LOTR. But I suppose that was necessery to give some individuality to 13 different dwarf characters, not to mention that the Hobbit is lighter in tone than LOTR and the art should probably reflect that. The new style has actually grown on me.

I understand why a new art direction was necessary even if I don't like the implementation of it. And of course, different strokes for different folks, no doubt the new models reflecting The Hobbit films are drawing in more new customers. Out of the new models I actually really like the Orc Hunters, Men of Dale (Even though that's never how I pictured them), the Rivendell Knights and the Grim Hammers (again, even though that's something I just don't expect to see in Middle Earth).

However I remember similar complaints about Elves with katanas way back when Fellowship of the Ring dropped.

Anyway, The Hobbit/LOTR is the only supported GW game I would still buy and play. I've just heard such negative things regarding the updated rules and pricing changes.

The only part of the Hobbit artistic direction I didn't like was the change from prosthetic/costumed orcs to CGI orcs, there's something less gritty and 'real' about Azog compared to say, Gothmog or Lurtz. The art choices for Dale/laketown were unexpected, but certainly added something to differentiate the setting from the Rohan/Gondor idea of human civilisation in Middle Earth. The new elves look pretty cool, and I'm certainly a fan of the look of the new dwarves (particularly the Grimhammers). Thorin's lot are a bit over-the-top caricatured, but I'd rather that than 'Bilbo and the 13 bearded midgets'.

I think this month's releases are a perfect example of why this game is dying out. The new Elf Palace Guard and Rangers are £30ish per box of 10, converted from Euros from the leaked German pics. It really does illustrate my earlier point:

A few years ago (ie LOTR era), £30 would have got me the best part of 2 boxes of troops. That's 40-48 models, or 24 and 6 cavalry, or even 24 and a character (in other words, a good enough starting force). You could put together a good army for mid-sized games for somewhere in the region of £50-60, buying at full retail.

Now, £30 gets me 10 elves. That's it. I appreciate there's inflation involved, but that's still a phenomenal drop-off
in value. The real issue comes when I consider what else I can get from GW or elsewhere in the same price range. As a 40k player as well, that £30 could get my Imperial Guard a tank or artillery piece, my space marines an extra squad and a load of bitz, and change. I could even buy into a new game entirely, like Mantic's Kings of War, which has 1-player starter sets for the same price as GW are selling 10 models for. And seeing as that's either a bigger selection of models and more bits, and will actually see the table, versus 10 elves that, while looking great, will only ever be on shelf duty, it's a bit of a no-brainer. Like most people, I imagine, I can't afford to just drop £30 on some tiny shelf ornaments, and if I didn't already play LOTR, the buy-in cost is now several times higher than it was previously.

As such, few existing players put money into the game, and therefore, no new players are enticed in as there's a very limited amount of opponents around.

If GW were to lower the prices to their pre-hobbit/LOTR-reboxing levels (ie no more than £20 for 2-sprue sets of 20-24 figures) I'm pretty sure the uptake of the game would increase a fair bit, but at the moment, neither the models nor the game itself can compete with the other ranges, from GW or elsewhere.

The lack of bitz doesn't help does it?
New gamer:Hmmmm....I could buy 12 hunter orcs for 30 euro with zero extra parts....or I could buy this box of boyz with almost a hundred parts for those conversions things that's also a Tenner less....Guess which one the guys going to pick?

Yeah, I am a huge fan of the LOTR skirmish game and I even liked many of the ideas in WOTR even though it was ultimately a flawed game. I have a whole pile of the models and I really like them, the art style from the film was translated really well into miniature form.

I'm an even bigger fan of the Hobbit than I am of LOTR, but the price of the miniatures, jesus. I can't make myself pay it, even though I've wanted my own Thorin and Company since I was about 11. Maybe if I see it discounted somewhere, but the price is just astronomical, and I don't really like the look of the Goblins- much prefer the old Moria Goblins or Red Box Games gobbos (which I will be getting soon!)

I mean, I was in with my girlfriend in Dusseldorf GW recently buying some paint. I had about 25 quid I was going to drop on some models for my birthday. When you look at six hunter orcs on wargs for 35 euro, it's just too much. 25, I would have picked them up no problem- they're great sculpts. Similarly, the Grim Hammers look sweet and would go well with my Red Box Dwarfs, but the price tag was just way beyond what I want to pay. It's a real shame, the miniatures are excellent.

Da krimson barun wrote:
The lack of bitz doesn't help does it?
New gamer:Hmmmm....I could buy 12 hunter orcs for 30 euro with zero extra parts....or I could buy this box of boyz with almost a hundred parts for those conversions things that's also a Tenner less....Guess which one the guys going to pick?

Yeah, that's precisely it. If the LOTR/Hobbit models were comparable to the 40k stuff in terms of sculpts (ie multi-part, fully posable, weapon options in the box ect) then they could get away with pricing them as such. As it is, you get half the stuff, so it should be half the price.

Yeah the price of the miniatures is the key. When LOTR first started you could get 24 miniatures for £12 and a captain was about £5/6. That meant a perfectly usable starter force cost under £20.

Now the miniatures are excellent, but the prices are comparable with WFB. It's a shame as I love the Grim Hammer miniatures and the new Elven Cavalry but can't justify paying the sort of money GW want.

For 35 euro I can buy:
Ten elf palace guard with no bitz
Ten spess marheens with ONE HUNDRED and seventy nine components that are also larger models with a captain(So he acounts for 20 LOTR monies already)I don't blame them for picking marines.I can't wait for TABA.30 euro plastic captains anyone?40 euro gundabad orcs?The ripoff choices are endless!

Da krimson barun wrote:
For 35 euro I can buy:
Ten elf palace guard with no bitz
Ten spess marheens with ONE HUNDRED and seventy nine components that are also larger models with a captain(So he acounts for 20 LOTR monies already)I don't blame them for picking marines.I can't wait for TABA.30 euro plastic captains anyone?40 euro gundabad orcs?The ripoff choices are endless!

I agree with you.
The hobbit prices ar insane! As you said ten elves are €35! How does that work? €25 for two spiders!? I mean come on? It's crazy! I don't want to know how much smaugs going to cost!
If Games workshop back down there prices and give the game the same amount of tlc they give 40k we would have a great game!

I think GW are starting to pitch the Hobbit and, to a lesser extent, LotR as a "Tolkein Collector" kind of thing, hence the higher prices and lack of extra bitz.

I see a lot of people I've never seen before coming into my GW and buying a Hobbit box or two. I imagine they'll just be assembled, painted and used to adorn a shelf, probably next to various editions of LotR books.

I fully expect Smaug to be in the £100 area, making him the single most expensive kit GW have across any of their ranges. Yes, he'll be absolutely huge, and I think we can assume about the same amount of plastic as a Stompa or Wraithknight. But then you have to add the 30-40% LOTR tax and you've got a £100 figure at minimum. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but I'm far from optimistic.

 The Shadow wrote:
I think GW are starting to pitch the Hobbit and, to a lesser extent, LotR as a "Tolkein Collector" kind of thing, hence the higher prices and lack of extra bitz.

I see a lot of people I've never seen before coming into my GW and buying a Hobbit box or two. I imagine they'll just be assembled, painted and used to adorn a shelf, probably next to various editions of LotR books.

Why can't that be the same in 40k? Or fantasy?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
I fully expect Smaug to be in the £100 area, making him the single most expensive kit GW have across any of their ranges. Yes, he'll be absolutely huge, and I think we can assume about the same amount of plastic as a Stompa or Wraithknight. But then you have to add the 30-40% LOTR tax and you've got a £100 figure at minimum. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but I'm far from optimistic.

I heard that he is going to be the size of the regular dragon. But you got a point on the price.

If they make Smaug the size of the current Dragon model, I shall be very disappointed, as from the brief glimpsed we've seen he is far, far larger. Even if they do scale him down, I expect something at least mumakil-sized.

I hate the way you put the question. Imo this game isnt disliked at all. If anything its ignored by the majority of gamers, people who wont give it a chance. Those that have gave up on it due to lack of players. Which is insane because at least 50% of players i know, have LOTR armies.

I think it is quite the oppsite, i think this game is loved vs disliked. Their are those that ignore it but for those of us who do play, dont just play we are enthusiasts. We love it. Honestly in my area its hard to get players to dust off their armies but truly it think its on the few of us who do game to get things together that will get players excited about getting a game in. I try at least...

I don't dislike the game. I don't like it, either. Like WHFB, it just doesn't interest me.

 namiel wrote:
I hate the way you put the question. Imo this game isnt disliked at all. If anything its ignored by the majority of gamers, people who wont give it a chance. Those that have gave up on it due to lack of players. Which is insane because at least 50% of players i know, have LOTR armies.

I think it is quite the oppsite, i think this game is loved vs disliked. Their are those that ignore it but for those of us who do play, dont just play we are enthusiasts. We love it. Honestly in my area its hard to get players to dust off their armies but truly it think its on the few of us who do game to get things together that will get players excited about getting a game in. I try at least...

I agree. The OP comes off as having a persecution complex.

 dakkajet wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
I think GW are starting to pitch the Hobbit and, to a lesser extent, LotR as a "Tolkein Collector" kind of thing, hence the higher prices and lack of extra bitz.

I see a lot of people I've never seen before coming into my GW and buying a Hobbit box or two. I imagine they'll just be assembled, painted and used to adorn a shelf, probably next to various editions of LotR books.

Why can't that be the same in 40k? Or fantasy?

Because the Lord of the Rings is a classic in fantasy literature, and has spawned one of the most successful film franchises ever, and it's been around for nearly 60 years. I'm not sure you could say the same about Black Library novels. Horus Rising is not really a classic in science fiction literature.

I don't know that a huge amount of people dislike lotr, maybe they just aren't exposed to it. Mini gaming in general is a smaller market, and it can be a fairly pricey one. I've only been playing 40k for about a year, if lotr was the dominant game i imagine that is what i would be playing now instead of 40k. I think a lot of it is exposure. Most of us get into these games through exposure from friends.

Zond wrote:
I used to enjoy the game for the miniature style and the excellent rules, however I could barely get a game. Now that the Hobbit is taking the lead, I've heard some of the rules have been changed destroying the balance and the elegance. That and I don't like the art direction of the new films, so it's doubtful I will enjoy the miniatures.

This sums up the... vibe or whatever I've gotten from this game.

Is The Hobbit worse than the older Strategy Battle Game?

For a group of guys who will play each other in small games, and never touch a tournament or other players and so not need to care which is the 'official' version, which LotR ruleset is best?

 Dakkamite wrote:

Zond wrote:

For a group of guys who will play each other in small games, and never touch a tournament or other players and so not need to care which is the 'official' version, which LotR ruleset is best?

For me, LOTR Big Blue Book. I didn't feel The Hobbit added anything much, I found the differing weapon rules too complicated for the system, and the new heroic actions kind of pointless. LOTR has the advantage of beautiful simplicity, good balance and lack of unneeded rules, so it's the clear winner for me.