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.

 Da Boss wrote:
The Hobbit films have been a disappointment except in one way- the designs and costumes have been as good (for the most part) as the excellent designs and look of the LOTR trilogy..

I'll agree mostly with this (though I'm not a fan of the goblintown creatures). Weta does consistently amazing design work.

 Vermis wrote:

It's a real shame Peter Jackson couldn't trust the Hobbit material the way he trusted the LoTR books.

That's funny, because from what I hear about the Hobbit movies, Pyjamas treated the book with just the same amount of respect as LotR.

The respect might have been there (I don't doubt for a second that he loves all 4 books), but the approach he took to writing and editing the hobbit films is completely different. Thus, the results in each trilogy are completely different.

We really should not have been surprised. Tintin was also a letdown, and King Kong was a clear telegraph of the mind-numbing action style that would be used for The Hobbit. I'm hesitant to say it, but I'm starting to see Jackson in the same way as Lucas. The director who triumphed over adversity in their blockbuster breakout trilogy, but when they've got all the power, money and backing to make their films unfettered, the results slowly became less than stellar. Of course Jackson's decline has been faster, but the comparison seems to have some validity.

The bracketed "for the most part" was me acknowledging to myself that the Goblins in Goblin Town and the baby faced giants in BotFA were not well designed

But in terms of kits, the Wood Elves, Dwarves and Orcs that were released in plastic are all excellent.

 Eilif wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
The Hobbit films have been a disappointment except in one way- the designs and costumes have been as good (for the most part) as the excellent designs and look of the LOTR trilogy..

I'll agree mostly with this (though I'm not a fan of the goblintown creatures). Weta does consistently amazing design work.

 Vermis wrote:

It's a real shame Peter Jackson couldn't trust the Hobbit material the way he trusted the LoTR books.

That's funny, because from what I hear about the Hobbit movies, Pyjamas treated the book with just the same amount of respect as LotR.

The respect might have been there (I don't doubt for a second that he loves all 4 books), but the approach he took to writing and editing the hobbit films is completely different. Thus, the results in each trilogy are completely different.

We really should not have been surprised. Tintin was also a letdown, and King Kong was a clear telegraph of the mind-numbing action style that would be used for The Hobbit. I'm hesitant to say it, but I'm starting to see Jackson in the same way as Lucas. The director who triumphed over adversity in their blockbuster breakout trilogy, but when they've got all the power, money and backing to make their films unfettered, the results slowly became less than stellar. Of course Jackson's decline has been faster, but the comparison seems to have some validity.

Jackson's decline was already in full force during the RotK. He basically played it safe during the FotR where things weren't changed so much as they were removed (Which is fair enough). Then we start with things like the Elves at Helms Deep during TTs. Then we end up with things like 2 ton maces, skull vaults, and ghostly green armageddon goo.

LOTR was my first wargame it holds a special place in my heart

feth YOU gw for ruining it you witches!!!!

The biggest sin of the Hobbit line for me was that it wasn't in scale with the Warhammer Fantasy line.

If there was crossover in the models use I would have been more inclined to buy the.

In the end I bought a couple boxes here, at insane discounts, just to use for D&D, and they still sit unused.

New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.

I know, and I still think it was a criminally stupid decision.

I'd have entire Warhammer Fantasy Armies of LOTR Orc and Goblins if there were a compatible scale.

 adamsouza wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.

I know, and I still think it was a criminally stupid decision.

I'd have entire Warhammer Fantasy Armies of LOTR Orc and Goblins if there were a compatible scale.

It was also likely a legally required decision.
Mithril Miniatures already had -and still has- the license for 32mm LoTR wargaming miniatures. Mithril's standard for 32mm, however (based on the only two human sized ones I've owned) is 32mm to the top of the head/helmet which is almost spot-on 28mm to-the-eye, the aproximate scale of GW minis.

Thus, even if GW had wanted to, I doubt (though I don't know for sure) that they would have been legally allowed to make 28mm. Even though they don't match the Jackson concepts and have a different style, all the Mithril LoTR minis I've seen are quite nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
[q
Jackson's decline was already in full force during the RotK. He basically played it safe during the FotR where things weren't changed so much as they were removed (Which is fair enough). Then we start with things like the Elves at Helms Deep during TTs. Then we end up with things like 2 ton maces, skull vaults, and ghostly green armageddon goo.

That's a very good point. There are definitely some incredulity-inducing elements throughout the whole LoTR series (Legolas surfing down stairs on a shield while shooting…), but they are fewer in number and spaced throughout what is overall a much better trilogy. In the Hobbit, the boundaries of credulity seem to be stretched every other scene and Jackson-additions appear where they just aren't necessary.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.

I assumed New Line required GW to use a realistic scale so models didn't look like bobble headed freaks more than anything. Warhammer's human models are pretty derpy looking (though the hero scale works fine for Orcs/Skaven/Lizardmen/etc).

I like the LOTR scale, while it'd be nice to have crossover, I'm happier that they aren't derpy looking.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.

I assumed New Line required GW to use a realistic scale so models didn't look like bobble headed freaks more than anything. Warhammer's human models are pretty derpy looking (though the hero scale works fine for Orcs/Skaven/Lizardmen/etc).

I like the LOTR scale, while it'd be nice to have crossover, I'm happier that they aren't derpy looking.

Yeah, I think it had more to do with the models required to actually look like humans (IIRC for most of the LotR range, and I presume the Hobbit range, they had to be signed off as looking enough like the actors) than for incompatibility. I also think it was a bit of a natural effect of having the Perrys do most of the range.

 Eilif wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
[q
Jackson's decline was already in full force during the RotK. He basically played it safe during the FotR where things weren't changed so much as they were removed (Which is fair enough). Then we start with things like the Elves at Helms Deep during TTs. Then we end up with things like 2 ton maces, skull vaults, and ghostly green armageddon goo.

That's a very good point. There are definitely some incredulity-inducing elements throughout the whole LoTR series (Legolas surfing down stairs on a shield while shooting…), but they are fewer in number and spaced throughout what is overall a much better trilogy. In the Hobbit, the boundaries of credulity seem to be stretched every other scene and Jackson-additions appear where they just aren't necessary.

Oh, I know it gets worse in the Hobbit. I just wanted it noted that the rot began back in 2003.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.

I assumed New Line required GW to use a realistic scale so models didn't look like bobble headed freaks more than anything. Warhammer's human models are pretty derpy looking (though the hero scale works fine for Orcs/Skaven/Lizardmen/etc).

I like the LOTR scale, while it'd be nice to have crossover, I'm happier that they aren't derpy looking.

That is an issue with proportion not scale. 54mm scale models from other companies are exceedingly realistic.

The second hobbit was pretty terrible. Legolas continues to slaughter orcs, oh now he's handily dispatching the orc chief. It felt like he was killing orcs for at least an hour. YAWN
Yes, we get it, Legolas is god, just have him kill smog too by shooting a bunch of arrows from his rapid fire machine gun bow through the dragon's eye into it's brain then he can blast off into outer space using his rocket boots and bro fist gandalf who also happens to be flying up there then the two of them can go battle Darth Maul. (Ok, that would be kinda awesome)

Nightcrawler... NOW THAT WAS A MOVIE

 Flashman wrote:
GW really should have thought this one through. They renewed a license to sell war games off the back of a franchise with very little war in it. I believe we all said as such at the time.

I was definitely of that mind, yeah. The story in The Hobbit doesn't lend itself well to a mass battle game...hell, even Lord of the Rings is kind of a stretch to be honest, with most of the action following a small D&D-esque group of adventurers going on side quests and getting into small skirmishes, and then later participating in two or three major battles. The Hobbit is even worse for it because it essentially is a D&D-game up until the very end with the Battle of Five Armies. And I'm not even sure how practical that battle would be to try and actually play out, you would need a massive table and it would be a five player free-for-all, basically.

So The Hobbit models basically only ever had appeal as collector's pieces to paint and display, but even most of them were put off because of the ridiculous prices. My dad is probably the ideal customer for Hobbit minis, because he's one of those types who would be more interested in just having the models based on his favorite characters than playing a game with them, but when I told him how much they were even he was like "Nah, that's crazy, I'll pass."

 Eilif wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:

Jackson's decline was already in full force during the RotK. He basically played it safe during the FotR where things weren't changed so much as they were removed (Which is fair enough). Then we start with things like the Elves at Helms Deep during TTs. Then we end up with things like 2 ton maces, skull vaults, and ghostly green armageddon goo.

That's a very good point. There are definitely some incredulity-inducing elements throughout the whole LoTR series (Legolas surfing down stairs on a shield while shooting…), but they are fewer in number and spaced throughout what is overall a much better trilogy. In the Hobbit, the boundaries of credulity seem to be stretched every other scene and Jackson-additions appear where they just aren't necessary.

Yeah, Legolas surfing down the stairs was kinda stupid looking back on it now, but at the time I thought it was awesome (I was also much younger). Some of the less over-the-top moments are still really cool though, like Legolas stabbing an orc with an arrow before loading the arrow into his bow and killing another orc with the same arrow. Stuff like that helps to sell elves as really skilled fighters and bowmen without making them look like gods. But it definitely helps that moments like that are a little rarer in LotR.

In the Hobbit, though...there's pretty much the entire escape from Goblin Town (there was even a Wilhelm scream at one point) with just one absurd thing after another, the entire scene with the barrels floating down the river (and that one dwarf, I think it was Bombur, popping out of the barrel and becoming a whirling death machine, come the feth on...it was still funny but for all the wrong reasons), Thorin belly-surfing down a river of molten gold...in fact I'd probably say that entire Smaug encounter was pretty damn absurd. I dunno, there's just too much this time around, and I'm already of the opinion that there's way too much movie on top of that, so it's more than a little annoying to think that all the extra, pointless length was done for the sake of fitting in this ridiculously over-the-top action that we really didn't need to see.

Not to say that The Hobbit shouldn't have had some humor in it, in fact I always liked The Hobbit more than LotR specifically because it was a little more light-hearted and fun overall compared to the dark and depressing storyline of LotR. But did we really need BARRELTRON?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.

I assumed New Line required GW to use a realistic scale so models didn't look like bobble headed freaks more than anything. Warhammer's human models are pretty derpy looking (though the hero scale works fine for Orcs/Skaven/Lizardmen/etc).

I like the LOTR scale, while it'd be nice to have crossover, I'm happier that they aren't derpy looking.

Agreed, the LotR models definitely benefited from not being made in the same "style", I guess. More realistic proportions makes for much better models. If they all looked like the WHF humans then I don't think they would have had the same appeal to people who weren't already WHF fans, and probably wouldn't have sold as well.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.

I assumed New Line required GW to use a realistic scale so models didn't look like bobble headed freaks more than anything. Warhammer's human models are pretty derpy looking (though the hero scale works fine for Orcs/Skaven/Lizardmen/etc).

I like the LOTR scale, while it'd be nice to have crossover, I'm happier that they aren't derpy looking.

That is an issue with proportion not scale. 54mm scale models from other companies are exceedingly realistic.

It's mostly just semantics. The word "scale" is often used in a way that encompasses proportions as well as actual length ratios, for example "28 mm heroic scale" describes both the size of the model and the bobbleheadedness.

Bobbleheaded models tend to not look good next to properly proportioned models even if you do match the size.

I've been playing 40k for over 15 years. I loved the lotr movies and bought a ton of the models for painting/displaying (wanted to play but no one seems to play lotr or the hobbit in central Wisconsin... seems like people only collect/paint this stuff). The models really are great, and are very realistic/better compared to fantasy or 40k. I'd love for 40k to be more realistic like the artwork in shield of baal-exterminus, etc but that'll probably never happen.

I'm glad they made smaug (great model) and I will own a copy one day... Just couldn't justify spending several hundred dollars on myself at Christmas time. I think it is hilarious that several sharks bought him and put him on ebay for $700-$800 when games workshop is going to be selling more smaugs in January for far less. As for the rules, I'm glad they are cheap or free depending on how one wants them (kudos GW).

I hope they still support the line for several years as the stuff really is great. The only thing that hurt lotr/the hobbit is FINECAST. Worst... financial... decision... ever... for GW.

Still think that LotR is GW's best rules system by a long shot. Pity they decided to increase prices by more than 100% (right now, they are at what? 200% of the original price or sth.?) a few years ago, else it would have been a great and very popular game.

I almost cared, but then I found that my local GW would not let me fill the ranks of my WHFB Army with LotR Minis.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Yeah, Legolas surfing down the stairs was kinda stupid looking back on it now, but at the time I thought it was awesome (I was also much younger). Some of the less over-the-top moments are still really cool though, like Legolas stabbing an orc with an arrow before loading the arrow into his bow and killing another orc with the same arrow. Stuff like that helps to sell elves as really skilled fighters and bowmen without making them look like gods. But it definitely helps that moments like that are a little rarer in LotR.

In the Hobbit, though...

Spoiler:

there's pretty much the entire escape from Goblin Town (there was even a Wilhelm scream at one point) with just one absurd thing after another, the entire scene with the barrels floating down the river (and that one dwarf, I think it was Bombur, popping out of the barrel and becoming a whirling death machine, come the feth on...it was still funny but for all the wrong reasons), Thorin belly-surfing down a river of molten gold...in fact I'd probably say that entire Smaug encounter was pretty damn absurd. I dunno, there's just too much this time around, and I'm already of the opinion that there's way too much movie on top of that, so it's more than a little annoying to think that

all the extra, pointless length was done for the sake of fitting in this ridiculously over-the-top action that we really didn't need to see.

Not to say that The Hobbit shouldn't have had some humor in it, in fact I always liked The Hobbit more than LotR specifically because it was a little more light-hearted and fun overall compared to the dark and depressing storyline of LotR. But did we really need BARRELTRON?

Preciesely. It's ok to have a bit of stupid mixed in. When Legolas surfs down the stairs, it's dramatic (even a little bit cool), because it's not happening every other scene. As to the hobbit, I agree that humor would be essential, but not ridiculousness.

It's all about balance. If crazy doesn't happen every other scene then the whole film is more engaging, the action scenes are more exciting, and when something extra-heroic happens, it actually feels heroic rather than "meh".

I mean I love Smaug, and I like that he has a lot of screen time, but it just seems wrong to invent so much new dialogue and scenes for him, just to try and keep him in the movie as long as possible.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Still think that LotR is GW's best rules system by a long shot. Pity they decided to increase prices by more than 100% (right now, they are at what? 200% of the original price or sth.?) a few years ago, else it would have been a great and very popular game.

This.
They killed it with the price increases. LotR may not have been to everyone's tastes, and there was (and still is) a lot of resentment from 40k and WHB players for "taking up resources" or whatever, but it got a lot of new people in the door, was cheap to get into, fun and well-written. Post-RotK it came in line for the usual GW shenanigans and they started to choke the life out of it with the price increases (halving the boxes, finecast). With the first Hobbit film they thought their market of "collectors" would pay anything they asked (remember the price of the HB rulebook?)- and it simply didn't happen, while simultaneously being overpriced for the (potential) new younger players attracted by the new film. Low sales = low support and the game then disappeared up it's own arsehole.

It's a shame. A real shame.

It really is. LOTR did a lot of stuff right, despite irrational hatred from some WFB and 40K fans. It was a fun and elegant rules system that had good tactical depth without the bloated complexity of GW's legacy rules. It also had a brilliant and coherent aesthetic.

But as you say, GW strangled it with price increases. It used to be around £15 for 24 Mirkwood Elves. Then it was £15 for 12. When the new Hobbit Mirkwood Rangers came out (which are lovely, dynamic sculpts) they were £25 for 10. Even if (like me) you love the game and the setting, you just can't justify it!

 Sigvatr wrote:
Still think that LotR is GW's best rules system by a long shot.

Perhaps only when viewing it in the context of currently available games, to buy new.

I think several of the now defunct games - Epic, Battlefleet Gothic, Necromunda/Mordheim have better mechanics and are more interesting to the player as a 'wargame' in terms of the tactical input they involve.

Always thought LoTR probably appealed due it not being a horribly bloated mess of a rules system, which would probably look good if your only experience of wargaming is to have played later editions of 40k or WFB.

I've played Gothic, Mordheim and Necromunda.

While all are fun games, in my view they each suffer from problems. Necro and Mordheim are really fun, great games, but they are also pretty badly balanced depending on what you allow. Playing Necro or Mordheim is a different experience to playing a Wargame because they are pretty pure narrative campaign games. Gothic is a wonderful game too, I've had lots of fun playing it at times. But again, it was unbalanced by certain lists (the necron list for example) and even before such lists were added, only Chaos vs Imperials was actually balanced.

For those of us seeking a game that straddled the narrative and competitive aspects of gaming while being fairly easy to play and still having a high degree of granularity, LOTR was a great system. I would rate it above any other GW system I have played, while acknowledging that many specialist games were very fun. I've never played Epic though, so perhaps that beats it.

All subjective of course, but LOTR is to me their best game and I am not coming from a perspective of ignorance- I've played lots of their specialist games, as well as Fantasy and 40K.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Still think that LotR is GW's best rules system by a long shot. Pity they decided to increase prices by more than 100% (right now, they are at what? 200% of the original price or sth.?) a few years ago, else it would have been a great and very popular game.

This.
They killed it with the price increases. LotR may not have been to everyone's tastes, and there was (and still is) a lot of resentment from 40k and WHB players for "taking up resources" or whatever, but it got a lot of new people in the door, was cheap to get into, fun and well-written. Post-RotK it came in line for the usual GW shenanigans and they started to choke the life out of it with the price increases (halving the boxes, finecast). With the first Hobbit film they thought their market of "collectors" would pay anything they asked (remember the price of the HB rulebook?)- and it simply didn't happen, while simultaneously being overpriced for the (potential) new younger players attracted by the new film. Low sales = low support and the game then disappeared up it's own arsehole.

It's a shame. A real shame.

I'm hoping The Hobbit was a moment of realisation "oh wait, maybe our customers AREN'T price insensitive". However I think GW are too stupid and possibly not even realise the price has been an insane barrier to both new players and existing LOTR fans.

But it is such a travesty what GW have done with LOTR and The Hobbit, such a good set of minis with a good set of rules and and avid fan base and such potential just destroyed by poor management.

Killed it with price increases?
Nobody in our gaming group ever played it.

Sidstyler wrote:
I was definitely of that mind, yeah. The story in The Hobbit doesn't lend itself well to a mass battle game...hell, even Lord of the Rings is kind of a stretch to be honest, with most of the action following a small D&D-esque group of adventurers going on side quests and getting into small skirmishes, and then later participating in two or three major battles. The Hobbit is even worse for it because it essentially is a D&D-game up until the very end with the Battle of Five Armies. And I'm not even sure how practical that battle would be to try and actually play out, you would need a massive table and it would be a five player free-for-all, basically.

Well, to keep at least part of this post on-topic, there's the question if the LotR 'engine' could be considered a mass-battle game... With the concentration on individual and individually-based models and characters, and the use of - what? A couple of dozen models? Three dozen? Four? - I'd personally say 'no'. And of course that's what the War of the Ring rules were supposed to address, though those weren't as well made, and at the least missing a bit of the point by concentrating on characters and the fancy special rules they brought along to their units. In both cases I think the perception of WFB - with it's singled-out wound-marker models, it's reliance on herohammering, and it's special rules bloat - as a 'standard' mass battle game, throws things off.

On the topic of the battles themselves: I know this won't appeal too much to fans of the movies (maybe moreso fans of the books, with more tantalising glimpses of backstory, a honking great set of appendicies, and more books dealing with lost or unfinished tales and ancient jewels that make the One Ring look like something out of a Christmas cracker... But I digress) but I've often thought that in terms of wargaming, you might be better off focussing on Middle-Earth rather than The Lord of the Rings. More on the setting than the story, that is. Not to say ignore the big battles, far from it, but also explore the minor what-if battles and other 'documented' battles that took place just before and during the D&D plot, rather than focussing on just how hard Vigo Mortensson can glower or how much Orlando Bloom jumps about like a wooden-faced cricket.
A little more like a historical wargame, maybe; and although I can imagine allergic reactions to that also, to their rare commendation I get the feeling GW was trying for something like that, with various factions and scenario books. Personally, I gotta say one little ambition of mine is to run a campaign of the War of Orcs and Dwarves sometime, the one that ran up and down the Misty Mountains before the events of the Hobbit. (As in, just based on what snippets and outlines the Prof and Christopher let through, not any of PJ's overlong CGI'd set-pieces, and definitely no dwarf-tossing) If I can get suitable minis and rules, not necessarily GW's, or for the official LotR game.

On that note, and also on the topic of mass battle rules: remember the last time GW did the Battle of Five Armies? Repackaged Warmaster rules with strips of plastic 10mm figures. The strips were some of the best 10mm minis made, IMO, and I'd love to gather enough of those to do that campaign (I have other rules options these days); if only the boxes weren't rapidly snapped up. Old second-hand ones still sell for a minor fortune on ebay.

On the flipside, I'm having much more success buying up old 28mm uruk-hai for cheap.

Eilif wrote:
Preciesely. It's ok to have a bit of stupid mixed in. When Legolas surfs down the stairs, it's dramatic (even a little bit cool), because it's not happening every other scene.

Mmnope, don't agree. You could also say that when there's little ridiculousness in other scenes, ridiculousness like Lebrolas shield-surfing sticks out like a rusty nail.

'Least, that's how it felt to me.

Pacific wrote:
I think several of the now defunct games - Epic, Battlefleet Gothic, Necromunda/Mordheim have better mechanics and are more interesting to the player as a 'wargame' in terms of the tactical input they involve.

Yisss.

Da Boss wrote:I've played Gothic, Mordheim and Necromunda.

While all are fun games, in my view they each suffer from problems. Necro and Mordheim are really fun, great games, but they are also pretty badly balanced depending on what you allow. Playing Necro or Mordheim is a different experience to playing a Wargame because they are pretty pure narrative campaign games. Gothic is a wonderful game too, I've had lots of fun playing it at times. But again, it was unbalanced by certain lists (the necron list for example) and even before such lists were added, only Chaos vs Imperials was actually balanced.

I haven't played Mordheim, and TBH I found Necro a little dull and 40Kish (*braces for impact*), but I've also played BFG, Blood Bowl, and Epic:A. Those experiences showed me what cluttered, confused piles 40K and WFB really were. I back Pacific's statement, as well as every time someone types out the 'GW dumped SGs, now they're losing that market segment to other companies' bit, because that's precisely how it happened with me. That GW is now kicking another (their last?) good ruleset to the kerb isn't too surprising, and I expect something of the same reaction from gamers, too.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Killed it with price increases?
Nobody in our gaming group ever played it.

Ah, well, just based on your anecdotal evidence lets completely disregard all the other evidence that pointed to massive sales when it first came out.

For something more productive I'd say the LotR rules are just about perfect for the scale they were meant for ~20-30 figures aside. They work beyond that but it can bog down a little. I appreciate the strength of some of the old specialist rules (Epic, Warmaster) but I can't say I've ever been tempted to try out Mordhiem in place of LotR for Fantasy skirmish.

No, no. He's right. On a similar note, my group never played Warmachine or Hordes either, and we all know that PP went under since those games were abject failures, right?
Anecdotal evidence for the win!

I enjoyed The Hobbit trilogy and am eager for the extended version of BotFA. Extended DoS is good you say? Must watch it then.

 Da Boss wrote:
I've played Gothic, Mordheim and Necromunda.

While all are fun games, in my view they each suffer from problems. Necro and Mordheim are really fun, great games, but they are also pretty badly balanced depending on what you allow. Playing Necro or Mordheim is a different experience to playing a Wargame because they are pretty pure narrative campaign games. Gothic is a wonderful game too, I've had lots of fun playing it at times. But again, it was unbalanced by certain lists (the necron list for example) and even before such lists were added, only Chaos vs Imperials was actually balanced.

For those of us seeking a game that straddled the narrative and competitive aspects of gaming while being fairly easy to play and still having a high degree of granularity, LOTR was a great system. I would rate it above any other GW system I have played, while acknowledging that many specialist games were very fun. I've never played Epic though, so perhaps that beats it.

Completely agree with this - Necro and Mordheim are fun but in basic form can be imbalanced, and a few of the mechanics don't work well. There are numerous fan-made updates though which should be recommended to anyone wanting to try the games.

BFG is a great game also, but like Blood Bowl I think is starting to creak a little bit with age (am I allowed to say that? ) It feels a little bit like watching films from the 60's nowadays, which seem very slow compared to modern efforts where you have to have things exploding every 5 seconds to keep your attention. Still a fine experience, but there are other games which offer a sharper experience.

You should try Epic though! (Armageddon), honestly think it's the best game GW have ever made - really tactical, 'epic' in terms of the scale and the gaming experience, its ten times the game 'Armageddon' professes to be.