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 would like to know which game you prefer. Please vote. Thanks


Also, i like to play both LOTR and WOTR with my friends, though one only plays LOTR. Should i try and make him the WOTR club, or leave him to it and play with him with a LOTR force. If he collected WOTR aswell, we would only occasionally need to rewrite army lists to the LOTR points system, instead of all the time. What do you think? Please reply.

First up! LOTR is much better, but abandoned by GW - why?? The strategy battle game allows for single mini movement and actions - awesome. This personal, almost RPG approach is awesome! I like the way you have a 'warband' which is great for modelling and painting opportunities.

Peatreed wrote:First up! LOTR is much better, but abandoned by GW - why?? The strategy battle game allows for single mini movement and actions - awesome. This personal, almost RPG approach is awesome! I like the way you have a 'warband' which is great for modelling and painting opportunities.

This ^

This is something that drew me into LotR and made me stay. It was a breather for painters, as you could build a small highly characterful and then spend ages making it look good.

WotR lacks pretty much everything that made LotR great bar the characters.

Being someone who grew up playing games like Dungeon & Dragons, reading books like LotR being able to reconnect to a more RPG style of play, and getting to paint and play with miniatures was brilliant.

But then somewhere along the way "big" games became more important (as some members might say bigger sales too....) And the guys who like little games have been all but forgotten about. LotR will go the same way as WHFB, getting bigger and making people who want to play small skirmishes and Scenarios have to look elsewhere for their games. Sad times.

I think LotR is certainly more interesting with WotR being more an Apocalypse level game IMO.

Peatreed wrote:First up! LOTR is much better, but abandoned by GW - why?? The strategy battle game allows for single mini movement and actions - awesome. This personal, almost RPG approach is awesome! I like the way you have a 'warband' which is great for modelling and painting opportunities.

Seconded (or thirded, as it is). LotR is a lot better then WotR, for all these reasons, and another - I don't think WotR is true to Tolkien's fluff, WotR has definitely gone the way of WHFB in this respect, with "Fates" or "Fortunes" or whatever they're called, and every man and his dog being able to cast spells. IIRC, only the 5 Wizards, 2 of whom weren't even touched on in the books, could cast spells, and a handful of powerful of elves were magical, let alone being able to cast spells. WotR is ridiculous.

/rant.

WotR, but... it's a nonsensical question. It's like asking whether you prefer ice cream or cotton socks.

LotR is a well-designed and cinematic skirmish game. WotR is a well-designed and somewhat abstract large-scale wargame. If I wanted to play a skirmish game, I'd certainly not want to play WotR, and if I wanted to play a large battle, I'd hate to use LotR.

Peatreed wrote:First up! LOTR is much better, but abandoned by GW - why??

Sales

Exactly - most important word of the thread - I hate it when people say the three core games - WF, W40K, and WOTR - Ouch! WOTR is in fact a different approach to LOTR, not a new game!

I went for WOTR because thats what I'm a little more familiar with. I watched a demo a year or two ago and thought it was neato.

Never seen LOTR played much or at all at my flgs.

I'd go with LOTR because I'm more familiar with it, and find the rules very good. Always fun to play. Also WOTR doesn't seem very fluffy to me. My only complaint regarding it is everything is a pain in the butt to kill. Me and my buddy play easterlings and gondor and have to wound on a six

Greetings Prophet,

I'd consider your time with him with SBG as an investment. He may never come around to WoTR, but if he continues to build his collection eventually that may change, and you'll have him, "hooked." A solid WoTR club can then go forward.

All the different locations of rules and stats has kept SBG at bay with me thus far.

I love the convenience of WoTr -- one book to rule them all.

If he enjoy the skirmish more, however, I'd certainly try to find time to play only that with him. if he's a good guy and you enjoy his company, it's worth it. No one game group is on the same page with everything.

And occasionally offer him a WoTR demo. He certainly likes the setting.

Both have rulesets that work.

But personnally the appeal of skirmish or small armies is getting me lately.

Shrapnelsmile wrote:
All the different locations of rules and stats has kept SBG at bay with me thus far.

I love the convenience of WoTr -- one book to rule them all.

This is exactly the problem: GW won't support SBG properly, when I started in wargaming I started in SBG as I started literally the same day they brought out the latest rulebook so all the rules were in one book. they then did sourcebooks like 40k and WHFB which is less convenient but still easy to use and understand but now all the rules are in WD articles - this means I need to wait for GW to post the articles from the WD issues that are old but still too recent to post online as we might get a little more money. I need some of those statlines to decide if I want any of it in my dwarf/elf army and I'm not buying 2 issues of white dwarf just to check out a few new characters.

Also, when I started I immediately turned away from WHFB even before a test game as units have rear and sides; now fair enough your at a disadvantage if someone hits you in the rear or side or you get surrounded but I expect my men at the back to turn around and I expect my men to create a circle when surrounded not sit there and all face the same direction no matter what.

/rant

Shrapnelsmile wrote:All the different locations of rules and stats has kept SBG at bay with me thus far.

I love the convenience of WoTr -- one book to rule them all.

This is true, WotR is very convenient. SBG actually had an update in the pipeline once all of the Source and Journey Books were finished, but then WotR came along and the focus was shifted.

Perhaps both games will get more attention in the coming year Doop. We shall see.

Sorry for being stupid but whats the difference between LOTR and WOTR, I have been out of wargaming for about 5yrs now and am just getting back in and reading my Lord of the rings manual blue cover, hardback, but yeah what is the difference, are the models the same? etc?

Thanks

The models are the same. WotR is a recent stand-alone game focussed more on the giant clashes you see in the movies then the small time skirmish action the Fellowship took part in.

Lotr, because WotR is just the same as wahammer with lotr models

Personally i think that they both have really good rule sets. If you look at the number of historical gamers who have re themed both set of rules its clear they have potential.

I just personally prefer LOTR as for me LOTR is about single person heroics, which is far better represented in a skirmish game.

I hate GW's love of large scale warfare. It has made me consider turning to privateer press SOO many times. LOTR used to be my fav game. I used to love it more than any miniature wargame, RTS, RPG, 1st person shooter, etc, and I still do. But there is nobody playing it within a five mile radius, and the only LGS within that radius is a GW. And they are hell! Nobody with LOTR there. I never thought 40k was that good in comparison. I hate this subject for that reason.

While I'm a huge LOTR fan, I dislike the SBG. I always wanted to play massive army battles and WHFB was too cumbersome and a lot of the models looked like gak. SBG looked okay but there was little to no support. WOTR came out and even though I saw it was a money grab again by GW, I liked the idea of large armies and heroic units duking it out with nice looking LOTR models. Unfortunately, no one plays it!

I really like LOTR....and believe me± LOTR is easier and cheaper