PDA

View Full Version : Why don't you play LOTR?



Pages : [1] 2

Huw_Dawson
22-04-2008, 19:14
I've been browsing the net, and it seems to me that it is decidedly odd that very few people here have picked up on LOTR recently. Why? Here is a checklist of "Why I am suprised that LoTR is so unpopular"

1) The basic troopers are cheap.
If you pay for a Gondor army, you can get 24 minatures for £18. That in my mind is fantastic value for what it is. For similar amounts of
2) The character models are stupidly lovely.
I think that the wide range of characters really adds that customised edge to your armies.
3) The ruleset is the best GW makes.
The ruleset is solid, easy to understand, varied and generally uncomplicated.
4) Stupid amounts of variation.
The game can be played between two people with almost anything popping up on the table. You simply cannot predict what your opponent will bring.

So why don't you play? (Aside from "Nobody else does", which would be defeated if you actually went out and bought 2 small armies and got people to learn to play you.)

I simply can't understand. GW gives you a game that basically makes you look at Warhammer 40k and go "Pheh!" and you just ignore it!

- Huw

Matt121
22-04-2008, 19:32
In a nutshell... cos its ***** that was aimed at infants & they squeezed every lat penny out of it they could & as a result the rest of their ranges suffered.

darkprincewilson
22-04-2008, 19:34
I was already to heavily into the other systems to get into this one. So basically, it is financial.

Also, subjectively, I did not like the rule set. There is nothing wrong with it, I just did not find it appealing.

deathskullork
22-04-2008, 19:36
I inexplicably loathed the LOTR line untill recently and I started to see it for what it was, a line of fantastic models with a rich backround to back it up. If you asked me why I used to not like it I couldent tell you, I dont and never have played any of GWs games so it wasent the rules.

Send/Recv
22-04-2008, 19:36
I actually really like the game, dont play it that often though due to a lack of players...and people would rather play 40k or WFB.
Legends of the old West is based upon it and that seems very popular and fun.

I think it has suffered because people think that it is a game aimed at kids and wont give it a chance, which is a shame.

Zink
22-04-2008, 19:39
Originally I didn't because the minis were smaller than the other GW offerings. Now I'm buying historicals from other companies and the minis scale fits but I don't need the rules.

Lord Damocles
22-04-2008, 19:43
1) The basic troopers are cheap.
If you pay for a Gondor army, you can get 24 minatures for £18. That in my mind is fantastic value for what it is. For similar amounts of
Cheap they might be, but (at least IMO) they're not the greatest models GW has ever made by a long way. In fact I'd put them in the same category as the BfSP dwarfs...
Also I don't really want to have a force made up of four different models, each repeated eight times across my army - I get that already with my Grey Knights:p


2) The character models are stupidly lovely.
I think that the wide range of characters really adds that customised edge to your armies.
There's a wide range of characters in 40K and fantasy too. It also annoys me that there are about ten different Gimli models - can anyone say 'run out of ideas'?


3) The ruleset is the best GW makes.
The ruleset is solid, easy to understand, varied and generally uncomplicated.
I've heard that the rulesets good... but it takes more than rules to get me to play a game.


4) Stupid amounts of variation.
The game can be played between two people with almost anything popping up on the table. You simply cannot predict what your opponent will bring.
See also: 40K, Fantasy, Epic etc.


I simply can't understand. GW gives you a game that basically makes you look at Warhammer 40k and go "Pheh!" and you just ignore it!
This is one of the reasons I don't play LOTR actually (I did try it, honest:angel:) Do I really want to be playing a game against someone who spends the whole time lecturing me on how 40K has turned my brain to mush, and this game is sooo superior.

The other major reason that I don't play LOTR is that there's something about the game which makes me feel... uneasy. I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is though. Maybe it's that I don't think that the films were particularly great, and therefore a game shouldn't have been made out of the films.
Or maybe it's that the whole franchise seems to have degenerated into GW trying to screw money out of the players any way they can: releasing factions which don't appear at all in the films, and which get only a single sentence worth of background in the books; GW then feels the need to release supplement books, the background for which they just invent themselves (which seems to defeat the object somewhat). I think it was Gav who said of the Shadow of Angmar supplement, 'Tolkein didn't give any background about this period - so we filled in the blanks ourselves' (!?!)

Just my 2 cents...

Bloodknight
22-04-2008, 19:44
Since I hate LotR (the books; I've never been so bored reading a bit of fantasy fiction than when follwing the adventures of an unappealing Hobbit. If Tolkien had only chosen a Dwarf as hero ;). The Silmarillion, too, was a huge PITA to read and largely uninteresting), I never felt the urge to start that game.

I don't care how good it is, two things made me not start it: the different scale to WFB, resulting in the unusability of the admittedly good minis for the game I play, and its background.

theHandofGork
22-04-2008, 19:45
My FLGS unloaded their last Mines of Moria for $25. I picked it up and loved it. Previously I thought LotR would be either 1)simplistic or 2) boring. Neither of which proved to be true.

However, as much as I like it, no one else in my area plays LotR, presumably for the same reasons I had. I have to admit, if I had to pay full price for Mines of Moria I probably wouldn't have started.

Huw_Dawson
22-04-2008, 19:47
Heh, I think I came off sounding a bit arrogant. :p Oh well, no harm done. Apologies to those who think differently to me! ;)

- Huw

weareinalotoftroublebeale
22-04-2008, 19:57
You sound more passionate than arrogant. Like an imperial comissar.

LOTR is a quality game!

However. I find it hard fitting in my 40k,whfb and specialist games (soon to be warlod game as well) and also doing LOTR system. There's only finite time I can pay attention to my hobby. As for my kids, they have a choice to choose a system they like. They have not found LOTR apealing bacause of the lack of kids who play these games playing LOTR.

I think it has to do with a few thing:

1. Number of players who play it locally.
2. It's in compatibility with the original GW system of M WS BS S T W I A LD. This is important to bear in mind because most GW systems have a similar or hybrid version of this and has been ones of GW's strength to cross over gamers to their new games.
3.Since it is non related to the WFB or 40K IP and is on a different scale. IE: Proxying LOTR high elves for Warhammer would look silly because of size.
5. Lack of detail & quality in their codexes compared to WHFB and 40k. You can pick up a 40k & WHFB army book many times and go through the background,history or armylists.


Although each army has an armylist. They don't have an army book and they don;t release the whole range army at once.

For example Harad, they just released one version this year and had another a few years back.

Also it's hard getting my mates who are interested is block regiments and mass infantry into LOTR. Although I know you can play big games. The idea of moving over a hundred miniatures individually where you can do the same in WHFB faster is not very appealing.

As to models, some of the metal ones are great. I question a few of the plastic box sets, I think they are very poor.

Also since the release of LOTR there seems to have been a dent in quality from 40k and WHFB. I think having a 3rd system has overstretched GW. I don't know why, it shouldn't.

But if LOTR range ceased. My WHFB & 40K armies would come out quicker and stuff like FAQS as has been mentioned would properly be done. There would be more resources focused which would mean better quality. Also I doubt if the Studio has really expanded to fit the needs of a 3rd system.

LOTR releases are poor.

It's easer to juggle two balls than three and GW aint good at juggling.

All that said it's a shame. Great game and won't be surprised if it fades away a few years after the hobbit into the dark depthes.

Thanks,
Inquisitor Beale
Corruption is within the system and thus must be purged

Pokpoko
22-04-2008, 20:02
noone plays it,and noone i tried to intrest in the game showed any intrest at all. and i'm NOT playing with a bunch of 12yr old that usually play it at the local shop.
that and the world it's set in-if it was generic i'd be all over it,oponents or not. as it is, it's based on rather bland storyline,so no(despite the gondor cav and infantry being nice)

EmperorNorton
22-04-2008, 20:03
I don't really know.
After I got into GW games through Blood Bowl I picked up the Two Towers starter set as I have always loved LotR and especially Rohan. Never played, though. I think it has something to do with the bad reputation the game seems to have.
In the meantime I have picked up Warhammer, 40K and Mordheim, but still haven't played a single game of LotR.

RampagingRavener
22-04-2008, 20:18
1) The basic troopers are cheap.

They're also often one-piece (or effectively so), making conversions or general poses beyond what you get in that box rather hard. They're also, IMO, at times rather ugly. Or if not ugly, plain and uninteresting.


2) The character models are stupidly lovely.

Personally I've never thought so. They're certainly not bad models in the slightest; but I don't really see what's so amazing about them.


3) The ruleset is the best GW makes.

I couldn't comment here, as I havn't played LoTR since the first few rulesets were released. Which got a couple of mates into the hobby, but they lost interest in LoTR after 6 months or so and switched over to 40k full-time. That said I have watched a few of the much larget LoTR games going on, and they seem to take painfully long at times, since each model acts independantly. Unless they changed that in the last LoTR rulebook.


4) Stupid amounts of variation.

Depends entirely on your local metagame. If you play in a limited circle of players, and have no nearby gaming clubs, then it'll be pretty easy to guess what your opponents will have. Mabey the odd new unit or such that they've painted up since the last game, but that's no diffrent to 40k or Fantasy.


So why don't you play? (Aside from "Nobody else does", which would be defeated if you actually went out and bought 2 small armies and got people to learn to play you.)

I simply can't understand. GW gives you a game that basically makes you look at Warhammer 40k and go "Pheh!" and you just ignore it!

First point is that, to be honest, the Lord of the Rings universe has never really interested me all that much. It's always seemed kinda...bland. Warhammer Fantasy and 40k might heap on the melodramatic GRIMDARK far too much at times, but I've always found more interesting material there than the LoTR books. Just my oppinion. This extends onto the Tabletop armies; other than the Moria Goblins and 'monsters' (Shelob and the various Spiders mostly) nothing really draws my attention. And that's probably just down to my overall enthusiasm for creepy, scuttly hordes and love of Spiders.

I've got nothing against LoTR, don't get me wrong. From what I remember it's a very solid ruleset for small skirmish games, and I'm not one of the tools who campaign for GW to stop producing LoTR and drop it from White Dwarf. But nothing about it has ever really enticed me into shelling out the money to try and collect an army, learn the rules, and convince people to try taking it up again.

Andyalloverdaplace
22-04-2008, 20:30
In my case, it was early disallusionment. I had been playing GW product long enough to notice that there was 40k and Fantasy, and then the two "flavor of the year games" that would come out to great fanfare, get a bunch of models, get people playing, and then disappear.

Now, the friendly Redshirts were quick to point out "this time it's different" and I was quick to point out that it was hardly in their best interest to say otherwise. So I skipped LOTR figuring that the hype would die down, and Gorkamorka would see a re-release soon.

Now, obviously they have done something different with this, but my local gaming group of 20-30 folks has no-one who plays LOTR regularly. At the auction last weekend a lot of LOTR models apparently went for stupid cheap to boot, but thats ok, I have enough projects as it is.

Supremearchmarshal
22-04-2008, 20:44
Three reasons:

1. It's based on the movies, not the books. I find the books much more appealing.

2. The world itself IMO doesn't lend itself that well to wargaming. Also, with the current range of models there's not much more you can do than recreate the battles in the books - and even then you can't come even close to recreating the largest ones, since they had thousands of combatants.

3. I already play 40k and various RPGs. I just don't have time for more games.

thinkerman
22-04-2008, 20:50
My Reasons:

1. Lack of direction and clear plan - random army books and fictional units which dont exsist in the films nor books

2. Doesnt have the model range to inspire me to buy unlike 40k or fantasy

3. My friends dont play it

4. My local g.w. staff members dont recon much to it

If LOTR had direction, proper organised army books with stuff from say the 1st, 2nd and 3rd age with new multipart minis to support each and no more random none tolkien stuff.

Bloodknight
22-04-2008, 20:58
Andyalloverdaplace said something interesting I had forgot to mention: when LotR arrived I gave it a lifetime of maximum 5 years, 3 during the movies and two to die the specialist game death because people moved on to the next fad. I was wrong - good for the LotR players ;).

Sir_Turalyon
22-04-2008, 20:59
1. I like 40k / WFB background better; Tolkien was great chronicle writer, but poor novel writer; he had trouble with going down to the earth and creating believable characters. His works have started the genre, but they are no more readable then first edition DnD playable. First movie was fun to watch, but then trilogy devolved into argorn scaling the walls like spiderman while slaying scores of orcs, not good enough to keep me interested.

2. Too few models per side in game, and all looking alike. I am painter / collector even more then player, so I want eighter big model collection or game where each mini is a detailed character (like Necromunda). LotR models all look like generic fantasy human /halfling / orc on foot/horse armed with spear / sword and shield; I think Gorkamorka can have more variety if you use models from older Ork ranges. It's generic like 1st/2nd edition WFB range (with technicaly better scupults, of course).

3. Shortly after game was relased, things like multiple game useless models (Elendil and Isildur lying scenicaly and doing nothing, dying Boromir, fountain with Galadriel and Celeborn ) and boxed sets with same fellowship characters in different movie scenes (aragorn facing left, aragorn facing right, aragorn running, aragorn with torch) made game range look like diorama sets for movies with token rules attached rather then wargaming system that treats itself seriously. As time passed and movies fad went away LotR probably became full-blown gaming system rather then set of collectible miniatures, but I've already decided I'm not interested.

4. No one plays it - only people i see buying / checking LotR minis in local shops are kids less then half my age. Serious enough player could probably introduce me to the game, but there isn't even anyone with rulebook I could borrow to see if rules appeal to me. Should I buy system no one plays, and if I happen to like rules go convinvicing other wargamers they should try it? What am I, made of money?

CyberShadow
22-04-2008, 20:59
I want to like LoTR, I really do. There is currently one main barrier to me getting into it. Yes, I already 'play' far too many games, and yes, I am not wild about the background, but these are not the issues.

The problem with this is the same reason that I dont play Warmachine - I dislike the emphasis on heroes in the game. This kind of cinematic game just doesnt appeal to me. What is really frustrating is that the other off-shoot of the LoTR is one of the other few backgrounds that I dont like - cowboy. Surely, if Warhammer Historical makes another version, I must like it. They are running out of game themes that I dont like! ;)

(One thing that was mentioned in another thread was a Samurai version of the rules. Yes please!)

Lord Damocles
22-04-2008, 21:05
Andyalloverdaplace said something interesting I had forgot to mention: when LotR arrived I gave it a lifetime of maximum 5 years, 3 during the movies and two to die the specialist game death because people moved on to the next fad. I was wrong - good for the LotR players ;).

Is it really 'alive' though?
Around my way, it's a bit like a mouldering corpse in the corner which GW poke with a stick every so often to try to revive interest in it.

I thought it would be gone fairly quickly as well - and from what I can see of it it did die quite a while ago. GW just keep on releasing supplements and existing models in new poses (this months release will be Gimli line dancing;))
My local store seems to shift less LOTR stock than it does Dark Eldar:eek:

W0lf
22-04-2008, 21:17
10 Things i hate about LoTRs:

1. The models. Single pose and for the most part uniteresting to me. None of the models catch my attention.

2. Scenarios. The game without them isnt worth mentioning. The game with them seems to quickly degrade into: Ive got more models near/on/past 'X'.

3. Pre-measuring. Right so theres no skill in the movement phase exept winning the roll for priority.

4. Combat system. Just a set of roll ofs followed by another set. Seems more like rolling dice then playing a game.

5. Heros. They are just all wrong. Kill too much, unkillable and ether worthless or game winning dependant on scenario.

6. Army lists. Too open, dosnt really feel much like there are 'races' per se. Think warhammer where High elves, Dwarves, Empire and Brettonians are all one army list.

7. The player-base. Purely from my experience in my area - no offence intended. Generally played by 10-13 yr olds, prefer the more mature audience Fantasy attracts.

8. Random made up stuff. The background and models that GW pulled out of the blue annoy me. A whole corsairs list when you see them for about 10 seconds over 9 hours of film.

9. The turn system. I dont like my opponent moving in what i percieve to be my turn. Im more of a 'i-go-you-go' person then 'lets-go-at-the-same-time'.

10. The whole game dynamics. The first 2-3 turns of just moving. The way you can pre-measure so get to pick ALL fights if you have higher movement. The way i can pick all the fights and still lose/kill nothing. Rolling off for who attacks... lack of saving throws....

Just hate the game. Feels too much like rolling dice for the sake of it then an actual game to me.

Temprus
22-04-2008, 21:20
Biggest (perceived) strikes against LotR SBG, in random order:

1) It is a LotR (or a fantasy) product.

2) It is not based on Warhammer.

3) People believe that if LotR did not exist, Specialist Games would somehow be active again or some other Warhammer offshoot game would be the "third" GW game of the moment.

4) Apathy towards LotR because it did not turn out to be the usual fly by night "third" game.

5) People see it as a beginner/kiddie game.

6) Most non heroes only come in 4 poses or less (this one I totally agree with).

7) Too many models of the "main" Heroes (especially Aragorn, Gimil, Legolas).

8) Not enough time to give to another system/game/modeling project/etc.

9) GW does not support it as well in most non UK countries/stores. Here in the USA, you would think that the game went out of print decades ago based on how people talk about it it not being at there local store/place to game. ;)

10) People claim it is too slow (which people say of both WH and 40k, I find it faster, even with 40+ models on a side).

11) "LotR sucked/sucks resources better used on BLANK" (this one is the most ironic, if not for LotR sales, GW would have been in a world of hurt financially and GW would not have the newer plastic mold tech, as they would not have been able to afford it).

12) Smaller scale than Warhammer.

13) Can't mix LotR/Warhammer parts in tournaments/paint contests (this one might not be anymore, I have lost track).

14) Too many/not enough heroes during play.

I am sure I missed a few. ;) I like LotR myself, I would like to see a 40k version. :angel:

Note: Too many people got to post while I was writing this and so already covered some of the points (stupid work, stop interferring with my hobbies!). ;)

CyberShadow, there is also the recently released Pirate version, it tends to be less hero centric.

Kaihlik
22-04-2008, 21:27
Where I live LotR is coming back to the vets. It was popular in the shop for a while until the guy who got us into it had his bag stolen with all of his stuff in it. Since there was also hundreds of pounds worth of Magic cards in that bag he stoped playing LotR and everyone sort of lost interest in it since it hadn't really had time to get itself going. Now the guy who got us into it the first time has new stuff and we are all playing LotR again (if he wants to play a game it seems that everyone else starts playing).

I think that one of the reasons is that Lord of the Rings is very rarely given a fighting chance when it comes to playes. Everyone already has a Fantasy and 40K army but no one had anything for LotR. I think is it gets itself established in gaming groups it has a very good chance of holding its own.

One thing is that I think the Legions of Middle Earth book is essential as it gives some structure to the armies which is good for encouraging players of other game systems to give it a try.

EldarWolf
22-04-2008, 22:25
1- Not terribly impressed with most of the models.

2- Models wrong scale for me to use my other LotR figures with, or any other fantasy figs.

3- The shop staff are the only people over the age of fourteen who play it at the shop. No one at my club plays it, I can't find anyone who'd give it a try even if I did buy both armies.

4- On the other hand there is no shortage of people willing to play Legends of the Old West which uses the same game system. LotOW by the way is a good game which I play regularly.

grickherder
22-04-2008, 22:28
I've bought some of the miniatures to use with other rules. They're great for generic fantasy miniatures. The Uruk Hai Scouts box is awesome.

Don't like the rules. While they could be modified into something cool, they have their problems and I found playing them to be unsatisfying.

Also, while the movies are cool and all that, I've never been one to be really drawn in by a movie or a book series. Despite the 40k background being quite derivative and full of 80s cheese and overdone darkness/edgyness, I find I like it a lot better than the movie rendition of LOTR.

Mr. Smuckles
22-04-2008, 22:40
Eh, I already play fantasy.

Templar Ben
22-04-2008, 23:31
As a resident hater I just wanted to point out that this is in my opinion the best game GW makes. I have huge armies and will no doubt spend a few hundred more on Mordor next month.

Angelwing
22-04-2008, 23:50
I decided not to to invest in Lotr because I didn't have the time or resources to devote to it. I've picked up a few of the models for use in other games, and will get some more in due course
I feel I was justified to an extent as I've only seen one game of Lotr played in my local club for months. None of my close gaming circle play either.

Draconian77
23-04-2008, 00:20
Me and my brother tried this for a while, got into it when the Two Towers was released. Tried it a few years later and it was even worse rules wise.

Didn't find the rules balanced at all. Just our personal opinions.

ankara halla
23-04-2008, 00:58
Of all the things GW have done over the past several years, LOTR had interested me the least, yet I have come to the conclusion that it is by far their best product.

I actually really like the models, the troops look good and are fast and easy to assemble and paint to a good standard. The heroes have variety and are IMHO among the best sculpts GW has done in years (I dunno, maybe realistic proportions are growing on me, WH and 40k just seems to look... odd ...when compared to LOTR characters) and from what little I've dabbled in the rules, they do seem to be the most solid set by far (then again, I have no real experience in the system, only brief introductions and look thrus of the rulebooks) GW has ever made.

So, to put it this way, it seems to be on par with Warmachine to me (for different reasons but all the same...) AND if I were to seriously invest into a new paintingandconvertingminiesandgamingwiththemwithmy friends hobby LOTR would definately be on a very short list.

starlight
23-04-2008, 01:00
Lack of:

Get off my butt, finish painting a force, hunt down opponents.

That's it really.:(

I have the rules from the release of Return of the King, and a bunch of models from that era. Never made it past that point. :(

Imperialis_Dominatus
23-04-2008, 01:21
Just not terribly interested in the LotR universe. If you're into WH or 40k for the rules (which I see touted as an advantage for LotR, grats, that's like beating a retard at golf)... you're in the wrong game. I love 40k's mythos and rule-of-totally-****in'-badass. I really did enjoy the movies and the books (up till I lost RotK), but I don't feel like gaming it.

That's the biggest bit, honestly. Plus I can't afford to have any more hobbies, no matter how cheap LotR is in comparision.

I have no comment on the rules system as I've not seen it, though it doesn't seem to be my cup of tea.

Can I stop justifying my use of apparently inferior products yet? :eyebrows: Because I think the first reason is the only one I need.

Hellebore
23-04-2008, 02:41
I like the LotR rules (although they really need to come up with formation rules to make it easier to play anything other than a skirmish) but I'm just not that interested in the background.

It's the story that sells it for me and although LotR is famous and I don't mind the books, I just don't really like Middle Earth that much.

Using the LotR rules (or components of them, like the turn sequence) for WFB and 40k though are another matter.

Hellebore

Finnigan2004
23-04-2008, 03:01
Simply put, I have to say that the biggest reason that I do not play is that there are no opponents. In addition to this, other systems compete for limited hobby dollars-- particularly hordes at this point, and probably warmachine at some point in the future.

scarletsquig
23-04-2008, 03:34
4- On the other hand there is no shortage of people willing to play Legends of the Old West which uses the same game system. LotOW by the way is a good game which I play regularly.

Glad someone mentioned that one. I just got a copy of Legend of the High Seas, and it looks excellent.

The rules are a combination of the best bits of LotR and Mordheim (tweaked LotR combat system, Mordheim army-building and campaign rules).

I used to play some LotR, it's great at the skirmish level, but doesn't hold up as well at the "mass game" level, at which point the 1-on-1 combats start to drag too much.

I loved the fellowship book and all the scenarios, small games with scenario play are where LotR really shines.

When the two towers was released, I thought they'd release a new rules set to cover mass battles instead of skirmish games, but instead they kept the same one. Big mistake, IMO.

After the films were done, I had trouble finding opponents, and the models are now stored away. Still have a nicely painted rohan force.

I agree with the LotR background being somewhat more restrictive than fantasy or 40k's. It feels like absolutely every major event/ battle that ever happened in the LotR universe has been meticulously detailed somewhere in the Simarillion or one of the other dozen background books, and to go against that with random wargaming is somehow not really right. While it's fantasy, it has a very "historical" feel to it.

Anything But A One
23-04-2008, 04:50
I'm too into 40k and LOTR just doen't do anything for me personally. I'd rather get into fantasy first.

ehlijen
23-04-2008, 05:13
The way I see it, the game was works best in 'heroes only vs mooks only' mode (which incidently the MoM box set offers) with scenarios that mean more than kill each other, ie the bad guy surrounding the hero with mooks can actually win by delaying the hero from doing what he wants enough.
As a battle game, the presence and caliber of heroes is too unbalanced vs the average trooper. So basically, it's more along the lines of games such as Hero Quest or Space Crusade rather than WFHB and 40K. The problem with that is:
-You can get those games (or at least, those types of games) for cheaper overall in complete set
-If I want heroes vs mooks in a more complex and story involved way, we'll play an RPG instead

It tries to blend RPGs and tabletop wargames, but it offers neither the freedom of character creation, nor the freedom of army creation each of those games have on their own. No, I don't think being able to freely mix and match all good or all evil things is freedom. Most people will go for either killer combos regardless of whether that'd happen or not (and waac powergamers aren't fun in any game) or stick to one theme. And if you stick to one theme you usually have: foot soldier with 2 or 3 weapon options, mounted soldier with 2 or 3 weapon options and one type of something bigger. Oh and a half dozen prewritten hero characters.

I like rpgs because they let me make my own characters.
I like wargames because they let me make my own armies that have a chance against character fests.

LotR offers neither of the two to me :(

(Though I was tempted to make a Khazad Duhn (spelling?) Riot Police army)

Occulto
23-04-2008, 05:19
Just not interested and even if I was, I can't justify spending more on another game system.

Griffo
23-04-2008, 06:57
I enjoy playing LOTR, just not as much as Fantasy and 40K. It's awesome when you play big games.

I collect Mordor Orks, by the way :)

Bookwrak
23-04-2008, 08:23
In a nutshell... cos its ***** that was aimed at infants & they squeezed every lat penny out of it they could & as a result the rest of their ranges suffered.

This thread went from 0 to :rolleyes: in only a single post. That's gotta be some kind of land speed record.

I don't play because I really don't need to pick up a fourth GW system to pursue, and I've already had a couple people try and talk me into taking a look at Blood Bowl.

It's too bad that the raging and ignorant keep on thumping around, because it really is a nice little system.

Osbad
23-04-2008, 08:24
I play LotR, and don't play 40k or WFB anymore. LotR craps all over those latter two games systems.

In fact there are LOTS of people who play LotR. (check out www.thelastalliance.com if you don't believe me). The problem is they tend to stay well away from the many bigoted cretins who often play GW's other games...

Just my 2p

Brother Loki
23-04-2008, 08:45
I already have 40k, Warhammer, Warmachine, Hordes, Necromunda, BFG, Mordheim and more. I've got starters of Epic and Infinity and have never played either. Of those I only ever seem to play 40k and occasionally Warmachine. I made a conscious decision not to buy into another game I'd probably never play. I do know that the LOTR ruleset is quite well respected in the wider wargaming community (unlike 40k) though.

Pacific
23-04-2008, 08:54
I play LotR, and don't play 40k or WFB anymore. LotR craps all over those latter two games systems.

In fact there are LOTS of people who play LotR. (check out www.thelastalliance.com if you don't believe me). The problem is they tend to stay well away from the many bigoted cretins who often play GW's other games...

Just my 2p

Haha yes.. sad but true, LoTR has definately received its fair share of biggoted opinion.

In my view, the problem with LoTR tends to be the kind of opponents I can get to play with my gaming group. There is one guy at my local store who is an absoloute LoTR nut; he has a comprehensive amount of every army, beautifully painted, and has gone to great lengths to re-create famous locations from the story in his gaming boards.

Playing 'themed' games against him (i.e. recreating battles from the books/film) has been some of the most fun I have ever had playing any kind of tabletop game, 40k and WFB included, simply because of the effort put into the game.

That said, I think this type of game is in the minority and goes some ways towards papering over the cracks of a system that is quite limited compared to WFB (I wont say 40k, because nowadays that system has as much depth as elton john's hairline). My only other option for games seem to be against 12 year olds who have orcs with their faces painted all purple, which doesnt strictly appeal.

Osbad
23-04-2008, 09:34
To be a bit less reactionary, I would say that the whole aesthetic of LotR is very different from 40k and WFB. There is less customisation inherent in the modelling, and less "cartoonishness" there as well, so those that like that aspect of the hobby don't see it in LotR. Similarly, while LotR has received much objective plaudits as a game system from (say) historical gamers (who have received GW's Legends of the Old West, and the new Pirates edition with open arms), 40k in particular is a very different type of game. Certainly if you value such elements as game balance and a lack of brokenness you will want to stay away from 40k, but on the other hand if you like lots of "customisable" heroes and units and the whole personalisation of an army, then these things are present in spades in 40k but rather absent in LotR.

So those that have played 40k and WFB and enjoyed them find LotR a very different experience, and tend to revile what they don't understand or find too different. Which is why I used the phrase "bigotry".

As a LotR-player since 2001, in the early days (pre-2005) I found much actual hostility against the game in GW stores, and in fact even from many of the redshirts. It is much less of a problem amongst the staff, but still there are many 40k and WFB players who constantly demonstrate their ignorance and lack of social grace by vocally expressing their contempt for a game that is just "different" to their own game.

I know many people online and in Real Life who play (or have played) LotR. Too many to count really. And almost universally they all stay well away from GW stores to play their games, preferring clubs and their own or friends houses for their games. It is because GW stores tend to have an atmosphere of a 40k/WFB frathouse and they are just not pleasant environments to play LotR in. Similarly, LotR-players tend to stay away (not totally of course, but largely at least) from established WFB/40k fansites such as Warseer, Dakkadakka and the like, because they tend to be populated with people who don't like their game so what do they have in common?

Arguably LotR sells as well as WFB, so there are clearly lots of players out there (as well as collectors), but they just don't have much of a presence in stores as they don't play there if there is any viable alternative. WHich explains why many believe LotR to be a "kids" game. I'm pushing 40 and have many (on- and off-line) friends of a similar vintage. We play LotR. It is palpably NOT a kids game, it just emphasises different aspects of gaming (tabletop tactics over list building for instance, because the points system works a lot better), aspects that tend to appeal to "traditional" wargamers rather than the GW-clone variety. These players though have long stopped going anywhere near GW stores (as we view them with our own brand of bigotry largely as stinky pits inhabited by weird, unhygenic kids who play ridiculously childish, broken games such as 40k). However the n00bs have no established gaming cronies and so only can play in GW-stores - hence the only people you see playing in-store are 12-year olds.

As a whole LotR is a different experience to the other two "core" games, and it tends to appeal to a different stripe of gamer.

And I can't help but think that if LotR had come first and 40k was the "new kid on the block" no doubt there would be the same level of derision levelled against 40k and its players by the established LotR players, as there is currently the other way around.

Huw_Dawson
23-04-2008, 10:00
One other think I see about the LoTR community is that they do odd things like build Helms Deep out of Hirst Art bricks. You just don't see that in Warhammer or 40k as often.

- Huw

DonkeyMan
23-04-2008, 10:35
Well as strange as this may sound, but it simply didn't made "click" in my head!
There is something inside my head, that makes me like a game.
Whenever I look into something to start, this "click" inside my head needs to happen first. This "click" makes me like it.

It happened for Warhammer Fantasy over 20 years back. It happened for 40K when RT was released.
It happened for Rackham's Confrontation and it happened for Warmachine&Hordes.

I think it's the backround that makes this "click" happen the most. If I really like it, I'm all in.

It didn't happen for Infinity or LotR (or many other things).

If it doesn't happen it doesn't mean I dislike the game (I do like the LotR books and movies), but it just doesn't interest me at all.

Now, most of you people will think me a mad man and probably you're right! :D

Flying Toaster
23-04-2008, 15:19
I dont play it for two reasons;

a) It has to be set in a certain place/age etc that limits your imagination as everthing has been done for you already with the background.

b) the models are slightly smaller than the other ranges and alot harder to convert since they are not simple multi-part arm swaps.

Thats my opinion.

dancingmonkey
23-04-2008, 15:27
too much demoing it when ROTK came out. Got fatigued playing 12 Minas Tirith vs 12 orcs slug fests...

I tried, but my ability to roll nothing but ones killed any fun I could get from it. Plus we didn't get full staff discount on it :angel:

totally agree with Donkeyman, it jsut didn't zing like other games did to me.
Likewise I jumped on the R and PP bandwagon... different strokes people.

Putty
23-04-2008, 15:31
as much as i love the balrog and witchking on fellbeast models, i can't afford to start another gaming system.

currently, i'm supporting 1 40k army and 2 fantasy armies and that already puts a strain on my wallet.

with my marriage and 30 year mortgage coming up soon, i am sure as hell will not start another army or indulge in another table top gaming system or army.

i sure envy those guys out there who have bucket-loads of cold hard cash to put into this hobby because lets be honest here.... this is one expensive hobby.

one tip for you guys out there: FINISH buying your armies before getting married. xD

Sir_Turalyon
23-04-2008, 15:35
I think it's the backround that makes this "click" happen the most. If I really like it, I'm all in.


What DonkeyMan said. Unlike some people I don't think LotR ruleset is "simple game for children"; but I do think that Tolkien's work is a glorified fairy tale, from which proper fantasy only evolved. Things like elves who spent most time wandering through forrest singing idiotic songs, very existance of Tom Brombadill or indeed amount of dumb cutie songs and poems in books makes it hard to treat setting seriously. Warhammer / 40k settings are not perfect, but they at least try to treat themselves seriously; LotR merely capitalizes on fact it was first.

I just made thought experiment, asking myself if I would try a game using LotR rules but set in medieval Europe or some decent fantasy world like Wheel of Time, and answer was hell yes! So it's game world that puts me off.

philbrad2
23-04-2008, 16:08
I tried it and to be honest didn't like the rules for it. Plus I'm not a fantasy player. As a dyed-in-the-wool Sci fi nut there's only one primary 40K ruleset for me ....

My biggest gripe is GW allocated a lot of resources to flogging LoTR at the expense of their other systems and this doesn't get much favour from me. Sure GW made a heap of money but they let their two core games suffer for several years because of it IMO.

PhilB
:chrome:

Pacific
23-04-2008, 16:09
Haha yes indeed, who can forget TOM BOMBADIL!

The most powerful creature ever to feature in any game ever created by GW (perhaps only challenged by the WFB 3rd ed. Staff of Nurgle insta-kill weapon).

All hail Tom Bombadil, bloodthirsters of Korne and titans do tremble at the sight of him!

yabbadabba
23-04-2008, 16:27
I just made thought experiment, asking myself if I would try a game using LotR rules but set in medieval Europe or some decent fantasy world like Wheel of Time, and answer was hell yes! So it's game world that puts me off.

Try Legends of the Wild West of the new Pirates game - both are based on the LoTR mechanic from what I understand.




My biggest gripe is GW allocated a lot of resources to flogging LoTR at the expense of their other systems and this doesn't get much favour from me. Sure GW made a heap of money but they let their two core games suffer for several years because of it IMO.


There is no proof of that other than 40K and WFB being on a general decline in my eyes anyway. In fact most years GW have supported 3 games, the third being a specialist game. And many of those have had as much released - if not more - in a year as LoTR.


Haha yes indeed, who can forget TOM BOMBADIL!

The most powerful creature ever to feature in any game ever created by GW (perhaps only challenged by the WFB 3rd ed. Staff of Nurgle insta-kill weapon).

All hail Tom Bombadil, bloodthirsters of Korne and titans do tremble at the sight of him!

But, he is in keeping with the background. On his own turf, Tom is the Daddy of all Daddies.

Etienne de Beaugard
23-04-2008, 17:20
Many of the things that kept me away from LotR originally are no longer a concern (longevity, support, price), but I'm kept away from the game by how closely it is tied to Tolkien's work and characters.

What keeps me away is the close attachment to Middle Earth. I like Tolkien's books and world, but for some reason I don't like gaming in them. I've seriously considered working up stats for historicals using the LotR gaming engine, but LotR as a game just doesn't work for me.

mav1971
23-04-2008, 17:30
I think warhammer fantasy and 40k allow for more creativity when it comes to painting and conversions. For the most part all I ever see of the LOTR figures are painted to look like the movies. In my opinion thats kind of boring. Though I do like how the rules work.

twj
23-04-2008, 17:31
Mainly because I have a massive painting backlog - 2,000 odd point mech IG army, 1,000 odd point small Bret army, assorted Empire models (General on Griffon, Outriders, Halfling Hotpot, 16 old state troops)

HiveMaster
23-04-2008, 17:32
I only play 40k, thats my game, so through choice i choose not to play fantays, LOTR or any other gaming system in face (aside from Axis and Allies, although thats completely beside the point)

I do find however that alot of the 'veterans' (read saddos) not only refuse to play lotr because 'its for kids' 'too easy' 'not purist' enough yadayadayada but actively seek to upset those who do play lotr. I have seen these geeks scoff at people playing lotr, or pick up peoples models and say some sacastic comment like 'oh the beards not even as well sculpted as my proxied dwarf lord muhuwahaha' to which he recieved a chorus of childish giggling from other fully grown men who then set up next to the lotr, take out their meticulously painted 10000 pts dwarf army and spend the whole of the game behaving like ****s to the lotr players.

The rule system isnt worse, its just different, thats why its a different game, idiots.

The models are actually very good (yes they rae one or two pieces, but unless your a complete 'every characters gotta have a name, 10 page background about them' person does that really matter) (i should say theres nothing wrong with doing this though if you want to)

I guess its just through personal choice that people dont play lotr. However it may just be that the majority of players wouldnt visit forums lke these (i know the last alliance does brilliant lotr game only forums) and the warseer crowd probably contains its fair share of the afformentioned ultra purist vets who hate naything not walking in power armour nad having a 3+ save

my 2 cents (pence) :chrome: (love that smiley)

DhaosAndy
23-04-2008, 17:53
I love the books, I use the Rohan models in my Saxon army and the other models aren't to bad. I just don't like the rules. Just can't be doing with the lack of rules for formed units in an ancient/medieval setting. A game of the size I'd be interested in doing would just take to long if every model fights every other one on one.

philbrad2
23-04-2008, 18:11
There is no proof of that other than 40K and WFB being on a general decline in my eyes anyway. In fact most years GW have supported 3 games, the third being a specialist game. And many of those have had as much released - if not more - in a year as LoTR.

Yes there is ... the 3rd to 4th edition 40K 'gap' the lack of resources open to the Studio (because they were tied up on LoTR) delayed the 4th ed release - the required revamp of the 4th ed rules after Andy C's departure didn't aid this either.

The LoTR game was a case of GW being in the right place at the right time and I can see the business sense of them exploiting the license. But up to GW releasing LoTR we'd seen a steady flow of games from GW, some good and some bad but LoTR has seen the demise of such titles as Mordheim, Gorkamorka, Battlefleet Gothic ... we've not seen a game of their likes since and that to me is sad.

Plus. I just don't like LoTR ... films are fine but the fluff and games leave me ... meh!

PhilB
:chrome:

de Selby
23-04-2008, 18:29
Well, the rules seem solid and some of the models are great (others suffer from one-piece-itis).

I love Tolkien's stories, they got me into genre Fantasy as a kid. However I have little interest in replaying scenes from the book as games. I'm not into historical wargaming either. There are a plethora of named character models in LOTR but if I'm going to spend hours modelling and painting something I'd rather have more creative control, so I'm not interested fo the same reason I don't have any 40k special character models, don't play a named SM chapter and never got interested in Warmachine.

It just... doesn't appeal. It's Tolkien's world. There's no room to let loose with rule-of-cool stuff. So I've painted the occasional mini but that's it.

Death Korp
23-04-2008, 19:01
LOTR is my favourite Game System.

You see, it depends on where you're from. In the Leeds GW, its not played at all i think, but at GW Wakefield, it is played quite a bit (well, when i went there it did, only 5 mnoths ago or so).

It is a better game system then 40k OR Warhammer IMHO, because of its simplicity, but it is quite hard to master them. The Heroic values (might will and fate) really add another level to the game, and it has some of the most comedic moments of my Wargaming history. I can see where people are coming from with the one piece models, but i like them, because of the simplicity of making a decent force in no time at all.

Another reason is that my dad works alot of the time, i have lots of coursework, and we don't have alot of time to Wargame. But, when we play LOTR,we can have a 700pt game in an hour, and have more fun then a 2000pt WFB or 1500pt 40K game.

Don't get me wrong, there has been some bad things out of LOTR, and fantasy and 40k have some better aspects (TANKS!), and have played many game systems which are very good. But in my opininon, LOTR is and always will be my favourite game system. :)

DK

Grimtuff
23-04-2008, 19:08
I do find however that alot of the 'veterans' (read saddos).

The rule system isnt worse, its just different, thats why its a different game, idiots.


This people is an example of how to win friends and not making sweeping generalisations. :rolleyes:

Or not.....

OperationTarpit
23-04-2008, 19:19
I suppose I'm not interested in it for a number of reasons, most already stated.

1. Tolken's world is too much of a fake fairytale, Pure good verus pure evil is too black and white and just unbelieveable. Warhammer has factions, infighting and politics altogether much more natural.

2. Too much focus on the heros and not on the individual infantry grunts both in models and playstyle.

3. As has already been mentioned, have always experianced GW dropping new games after the initial period is over so I never get involved as the game is normally dead before I finish painting the models. I am actually surprised the LotR has survived so long but I still expect GW to drop it eventually.

- Human
23-04-2008, 19:43
I just don't like the theme that much, and the models don't appeal to me. I like the background and figures for WHFB and 40k much better.

Llew
23-04-2008, 20:00
... Just can't be doing with the lack of rules for formed units in an ancient/medieval setting...

This is sort of a misperception, and one I held for a long time too. There aren't rules saying, "if you put these guys in a box shaped like this, then you get this benefit." However, using formations is actually encouraged by the game mechanic, and often in more elegant ways than WFB. Forming into units does offer advantages of a wide variety of sorts, and it just "feels" more like a massed unit than sliding a tray around. (At least to me it does.)

You can actually intersperse your spearmen with other troops, not just use them in big pike-like blocks. (Which you can do too if you like.) And if it's important to hold a section of line, your heavy infantry actually have a way to try to do that rather than just getting good armor saves.

I've found the game to be slower than WFB, but at the same time, it's not nearly so slow as one might think. In WFB, I'm usually moving & fighting with 7-12 units. In LotR I'm usually fighting with 30-50, but it doesn't take me 3 times as long to play the game.

Honestly, it's a rich, adaptable game system (Tolkein, cowboys and pirates?) and it really does allow to not just have special rules for formations, but for you to find advantages in the basic mechanics and find which formations work for your force.

Malorian
23-04-2008, 21:02
I don't play LoTR because I feel it's dragging down GW in general.

I've convinced a lot of people to play warhammer (be it 40k or fantasy) and my 'selling points' usually hang around how it's a game of tactics like chess mixed in with axis and allies.

The thing that keeps them away is the thought of being a nerd. The idea of a geeky teen playing games of dungeons and dragons in the basement is not the way people want to be seen, and when you mix in lord of the rings they go straight to that image.

I can show people tanks, knights, marines, archers, missile launchers, and spearmen and they feel like it's more like being a general and using your brain to outsmart your opponent. But once they see frodo that fades away and I might as well be trying to convince them to play DnD...

That is why I don't play.

Imperialis_Dominatus
23-04-2008, 21:09
This thread went from 0 to :rolleyes: in only a single post. That's gotta be some kind of land speed record.

God-Emperor, I want to sig that.

LuciusAR
23-04-2008, 21:11
Bit of strange answer because I do play LOTR. I'm going to list the reasons why.

I) A nice change of pace from WFB. The lack of whizbang ott special rules make the game more tacitcal than WFB. When I win its because I have understood and played the game in a superior fashion to my opponent. Not because I have a crafty combo of magic items that are greater than the sum of their parts or rolled a 10 on the artillery dice at the right time.

II) Flexabilty, with WFB I can play a pitched battle or.....a pitched battle. With LotR I can play a massive variety of true objective based games. I can play a pitched battle if I want, but this is a very dull and unimaginative way to play the game as far as I am concerned.

III) True balance. In LotR any 500 point force can beat any other 500 point force, it makes no difference how they are composed in my experience. In WFB army selection army selection is generally more important than way you play the game. In LotR no matter what you select, your in with a fighting chance.

IV) No moaning about faction A being broken or unit B being uncompetitive. Never heard a cheese related complaint about an LotR book, whereas every WFB/40K release seems to bring a new wave of moaning and doom mongering.

v) Simply yet effective rules, I rarely needed to consult the book in an LotR games, in WFB this happens at least once a game especially as each book contains large numbers of items and special rules which contradict or break the main rules. In LotR evreything works within the main rules, this also helps with the balance issue.

Its also the only rule set that handles 20 model games and 100 model games with no need for additional rules. The main rules handle one on one fights and formations equally well. Just because there are no specific rules for formations doesn't mean that there are no formations in the game. Formations also triumph or break for the same reasons they would in reality, no modifiers needed!

VI) The models. I love the real scale models and cant understand the scale related moaning. Its a game with miniatures based on real people (actors not the characters) so why one earth would GW use heroic scale? Heroic scale suits WFB and 40K it doesn't suit LotR. The level of detail is nothing short of fantastic, the plastic miniatures are reasonably priced. Whats not to like.

I could go on but I think I've said enough. The only downsides to LotR is the ridiculous notions some people have regarding its players (most are adult) and the way it is treated in store.



I can show people tanks, knights, marines, archers, missile launchers, and spearmen and they feel like it's more like being a general and using your brain to outsmart your opponent. But once they see frodo that fades away and I might as well be trying to convince them to play DnD...

That is why I don't play.

Totally the opposite in my experience. Most people Ive met who didn't know anything about the hobby sniggered at the idea of space marines or skeletons but as soon as they saw something they recognize from the film they showed an interest. When I was a redshirt I lost count of the number of people who wandered in off the street, with no prior knowledge of GW, on the strength of recognizing something from LotR in the window. Ive never known that happen with WFB or 40K.

Chaos and Evil
23-04-2008, 21:28
I don't play LOTR because in my area it's only played by kids.

LuciusAR
23-04-2008, 21:32
I don't play LOTR because in my area it's only played by kids.

Your probably not looking hard enough, or basing this assumption on what you see in your local GW. I'm confident there are plenty of adult LotR gamers in your area, they probably just avoid GW stores. A quick search on any of the dedicated LotR forums will help you find local gamers.

Freakiq
23-04-2008, 21:36
I'm contemplating selling my 500+ pts warmachine force and getting a Lotr army.

I already bought the Mines of Moria boxed set and I love the models, very detailed for being plastic even though the troll was kind of skinny and Legolas pose was a bit strange.

Some friends of mine played some games while I watched and I love how smooth the rules are and how you can use real world tactics rather than using big blocks of infantry.

Partisan Rimmo
23-04-2008, 22:15
Honestly, I honestly appreciate the Lotr is a good rules system. Maybe even a great one. But my problems, as you are curious for, go as follows -

1) In mind opinion, Middle Earth is less appealing as a setting as the 41st millenium. I'm more of a sci fi man than a fantasy man. The people who know the gist of the Silmarillion will get a lot more out of anything lotr based than those who don't.

2) Big one here. It is finite. GW have reached the end of what they can do with lotr. The Khandish mercenaries made me raise an eyebrow. The Corsairs of Umbar had me spitting in derision. And what do we have to look forward to next week? Mordor. Wait, that's Orcs again. They have actually repeated themselves entirely. Sooner or later, and I wager sooner, GW will have to come to terms with the fact that lotr has been milked dry as a bone.

3) Lastly I like scale to my games. Lotr is a skirmish game really. I'm more of a battle man.


Honestly, I feel the time the studio have spent on it all over the years would have been much, much better spent further developing GW's own IP. 40K and Fantasy could have had a couple of new races each! But, such is the fact of matters.

Templar Ben
23-04-2008, 22:32
1. Tolken's world is too much of a fake fairytale, Pure good verus pure evil is too black and white and just unbelieveable. Warhammer has factions, infighting and politics altogether much more natural.

Right because good forces and evil forces were in lock step. You know except how the humans and elves were not together until Helm's Deep. Or how Rohan and Gondor didn't trust each other. Or how the Rangers of the North were viewed as untrustworthy. But yeah evil was tight, except that bit about Mordor and Isengard.


2. Too much focus on the heros and not on the individual infantry grunts both in models and playstyle.

Depends on the hero. Generally speaking heros are there to give a push not to herohammer across the table.


3. As has already been mentioned, have always experianced GW dropping new games after the initial period is over so I never get involved as the game is normally dead before I finish painting the models. I am actually surprised the LotR has survived so long but I still expect GW to drop it eventually.

That would be 2 months before they go under?


Honestly, I honestly appreciate the Lotr is a good rules system. Maybe even a great one. But my problems, as you are curious for, go as follows -

1) In mind opinion, Middle Earth is less appealing as a setting as the 41st millenium. I'm more of a sci fi man than a fantasy man. The people who know the gist of the Silmarillion will get a lot more out of anything lotr based than those who don't.

That is fair.


2) Big one here. It is finite. GW have reached the end of what they can do with lotr. The Khandish mercenaries made me raise an eyebrow. The Corsairs of Umbar had me spitting in derision. And what do we have to look forward to next week? Mordor. Wait, that's Orcs again. They have actually repeated themselves entirely. Sooner or later, and I wager sooner, GW will have to come to terms with the fact that lotr has been milked dry as a bone.

Well except they still have Laketown, Smaug and Lonely Mountain. There are the elves of Mirkwood. The two blue wizards. Once they finish that they could do 2nd and 4th age.


3) Lastly I like scale to my games. Lotr is a skirmish game really. I'm more of a battle man.

See to me WHFB is the same way. You are moving some blocks of men but it had may as well just be a 30 wound monster with 5 or 10 attacks. To each their own though.

Lord Raneus
24-04-2008, 02:29
I can show people tanks, knights, marines, archers, missile launchers, and spearmen and they feel like it's more like being a general and using your brain to outsmart your opponent. But once they see frodo that fades away and I might as well be trying to convince them to play DnD...

That is why I don't play.

Try showing them Orc Siege Bows, Mahud Blowpipemen, Gondorian Bolt Throwers and Trebuchets, Arnorian Rangers, the Spiders, Trolls, Rohirrim with Throwing Spears, and Nazgul instead of Frodo, then. I play all three of GW's core systems, and in my opinion LoTR is indeed the most balanced, and the best. The only problems can be with some of the really OTT heroes such as Aragorn, due to the fact that as long as he can roll a 6, he's golden, but these heroes do not pop up often and games of LoTR are often tactically exciting. Smashing your opponents back and then leaping forward to sieze the initiative and flank their shield-or-spear-wall is awesome. I honestly can't recall a more intense moment in any GW game then rolling off for Heroic Moves when the main bodies of infantry are stuck in and you just need to move first. As mentioned, Might adds a whole 'nother level of depth to the game that 40k just can't match. Fantasy, with its (IMO) better ruleset than 40k comes closer, but, again, fails. Trying to decide if you should use that point of Might, or call that Heroic Action, or even volley fire at the Knights or shoot at the enemy bowmen, are all options that you get only in LoTR, and grant you far more tactical depth, I have found, than either 40k or Fantasy. Both often turn into, unfortunately, games of "ram my uberunit down my enemy's throat and laugh as he chokes on it", but as mentioned, apart from a few very OTT heroes, LoTR simply lacks super-powered cheesy unit combos, from what I've seen so far.

Coragus
24-04-2008, 03:23
I dont play LOTR because of one simple reason. I'd be the only person in the seven county SE Michigan region who bothered to play, and it's difficult to play a miniature game by yourself.

LordCypher
24-04-2008, 03:53
I don't play it because the miniatures are horrible. On top of that it's based on the movies. You feel like a jackass actually trying to save a miniature Elisha Wood. It's cool that GW has released a few characters that weren't featured in the movies but now they are just making up characters and monsters which is lame. I don't know how they get away with adding stuff to the tolkien universe but it's sad what they are doing to a game that could have really kicked ass.

starlight
24-04-2008, 03:58
What have they added that doesn't exist in the Middle Earth universe?

I'm curious because there's a wealth in there, so I'd be surprised that they'd go and make up new stuff...

LordCypher
24-04-2008, 04:41
What have they added that doesn't exist in the Middle Earth universe?
I'm curious because there's a wealth in there, so I'd be surprised that they'd go and make up new stuff...

I agree. There is plenty of existing stuff in the tolkien world for them to use. Some things I will let slide like unit names and stuff like Hashrin etc. since they are just unit names, but adding characters is lame imo. So far they've released the following models that are of their own creation.

Dalamyr, Fleetmaster of Umbar
Suladan the Serpent Lord on Foot and Mounted
Gulavhar, the Terror of Arnor
Buhrdûr, Hill Troll Chieftain
Castellans of Dol Guldur
Shadow Lord (not released yet)
The Black Marshal (not released yet)

ORKY ARD BOYZ
24-04-2008, 07:53
I agree. There is plenty of existing stuff in the tolkien world for them to use. Some things I will let slide like unit names and stuff like Hashrin etc. since they are just unit names, but adding characters is lame imo. So far they've released the following models that are of their own creation.

Dalamyr, Fleetmaster of Umbar
Suladan the Serpent Lord on Foot and Mounted
Gulavhar, the Terror of Arnor
Buhrdûr, Hill Troll Chieftain
Castellans of Dol Guldur
Shadow Lord (not released yet)
The Black Marshal (not released yet)

You forgot the model which created a LOT of drama.

The Isengard troll

lucidnonsence
24-04-2008, 08:30
LotR has caused GW a lot of financial problems due to IP rights etc etc, but at the heart of it is the best rules system GW has. Or what I should say is the best SKIRMISH rules system GW or anybody else for that matter, has.

I also play Legends of the high sea's and Legends of the old west, but of which employ the same rules/turn system, and both of which are very easy and very complex at the same time. They also should appeal to older gamers who have discovered that lots and lots of other companies make really cool miniatures apart from GW.

I understand the 'kid' aspect of LotR, and I aggree that if you walk into any GW in the UK chances are there are a bunch of 8 year olds playing LotR.

Trouble is the way they play it...

Get a bunch of beards together, and suddenly you have an uber technical game with Might Will and Fate points being banded around and ultra precise measuring of EVERYTHING.

Personally, I think ALL 40k or WfB players should all play LotR, at least once, and against someone who really knows how to play. That way if you do decide that the rules have something to offer, you could always choose pirates or cowboys & Indians over Hobbits....

Afterall, how many people in you local GW have even heard of Erol Flyn or John Wayne....

OperationTarpit
24-04-2008, 09:47
That would be 2 months before they go under?


GW is a business and here to make a profit, should the LotR line sales decrease to a point that it is no longer producing a profit then the LotR line will be dropped without a moment of hesitation. GW has stated that the bubble is decreasing, I am just wondering if the LotR game is going to go the way of the Starship Troopers game.

Unfortutnately since GW does not release any information regarding the actual quantitative health of it's individual line sales, I the customer feel nervous heavily investing in a line whoose future remains uncertain.

GraemePaul
24-04-2008, 11:08
I dont play LotR because it holds no interest for me. Dont play Warhammer for the same reason.

I do play lots of other games though 40K, Blood Bowl, Battlefleet Gothic, Necromunda, Tyranid Attack, Call of Cuthulu, SLA and now Epic.

Do I dislike the games I do not play, no. There is nothing wrong with them, its just they hold no appeal. Did I stop reading White Dwarf because of the LotR coverage, no. I stopped reading the mag because of the decline in content.

LotR will stay around for as long as GW can make a profit and good on them. Think about this. If another manufacturer had brought the LotR licence at the time all those sales would have gone to them and imho to the detriment of GW. As a result they had little choice but to take it on.

Also, for everyone who states they dont like it here is a question. Have you played it?

Havesome
24-04-2008, 12:11
I don't like the models. That is enough for me to not play it.

njfed
24-04-2008, 13:07
Bit of strange answer because I do play LOTR. I'm going to list the reasons why.

III) True balance. In LotR any 500 point force can beat any other 500 point force, it makes no difference how they are composed in my experience. In WFB army selection army selection is generally more important than way you play the game. In LotR no matter what you select, your in with a fighting chance.

IV) No moaning about faction A being broken or unit B being uncompetitive. Never heard a cheese related complaint about an LotR book, whereas every WFB/40K release seems to bring a new wave of moaning and doom mongering.

Interesting. When I started playing 40K and WHFB I looked at LotR. I never bought the rules for two reasons:

Given GWs record with balance in Warhammer I did not hold out much hope for LotR. Way too many factions and the heroes would just complicate things even more. Do I really want to build a nice balanced fluff based army just so I can face an army made up of two war elephants and 6 archers? No, I don't know if this would even be possible. I just know how easy it is to create a cheese army in Warhammer. I would be very surprised if LotR was as balanced as you claim.

Second, I took some time at the Baltimore GT to wander over to the LotR matches and have a look. I started talking to a player. What he told me may have been total BS, but it was believable. His claim was that their was one guy who managed to build the unbeatable army. He was known for winning many GTs. His rep had grown to the point that he was treated as an autority on the game and everyone else just bowed down before him. I never did check into these rumors, but it sure sounded possible. Since I was too busy with my Warhammer armies I never cared.

I would like to believe that LotR is balanced. Anyone else who plays the game care to comment on this? Can you create an unbeatable force?

Lister of Smee
24-04-2008, 13:13
I tried to get into it but didnt like the game system. Its more Hero Hammer then any game I have played
Aragorn can easily beat 20 Uruks at once, yeah right
hmm legolas killed 3 orks with 1 shot, every turn :confused:
A hero is around 10 times harder to kill then a basic trooper for no aparant reason

I think Lotr has gone on too long, GW has started adding things that arn't from the book or movie

I like warhammer because the common soldier can take down a hero. The peasant can kill the knight.

The boyz
24-04-2008, 14:42
I dont really know why, I never really got into LotR's. The miniatures look pretty good IMO, the rules are ment to be fun to play and easy to learn. Its just, there always seems to be apart of me that goes, meh. When ever I consider starting LotR's.

Osbad
24-04-2008, 15:18
Second, I took some time at the Baltimore GT to wander over to the LotR matches and have a look. I started talking to a player. What he told me may have been total BS, but it was believable. His claim was that their was one guy who managed to build the unbeatable army. He was known for winning many GTs. His rep had grown to the point that he was treated as an autority on the game and everyone else just bowed down before him. I never did check into these rumors, but it sure sounded possible. Since I was too busy with my Warhammer armies I never cared.

I would like to believe that LotR is balanced. Anyone else who plays the game care to comment on this? Can you create an unbeatable force?

In short: "no". There are small issues over multiple Spider Queens, and around Rohan Outriders, and Rohan as faction is a bit points-expensive for the abilities: but having played the game for 7 years I can confirm the "Ultimate Army" just does not exist. Generally speaking the LotR points system works well, and it definitely works a heck of a lot better than the points systems for WFB and 40k when it comes to balancing armies. Take any 500 point force and you are likely to have a good, balanced game against any other given 500 point force. the game system favours "horde" armies with a scattering of minor heroes as being the best all-round combination, whatever your faction.

Sure you can produce an uber-hero-heavy build if you try hard enough, but even going to ridiculous extents (at previous UK GTs someone took the Fellowship, and others I know off took 9 vanilla Ringwraiths) if you know your army you will get a good result, but you will struggle against the "normal" armies and only gain your victories by very good generalship and luck.

You can also take a "broken" army that just ignores the fluff, if the tournament organisers permit it (for instance mixing a three deep line of Uruk-hai with shields at the front, with spear-wielding goblins in the middle and Uruk-hai pikes at the rear) but they are more sneered at because they break the spirit of the game than because they confer a massive tactical advantage. Legions of Middle-earth removes the grosser of these abuses. But because there are no "army lists" as such, and the game relies on players playing in the spirit of the background, some may consider mixing different factions that didn't mix in the stories to be legitimate, but feel free to mock those mercilessly. It's like mixing Orks and Marines in the same army. Just stupid, pathetic and childish, and about as close to "cheating" as it is possible to get without deliberately ignoring rules.

The UK GT winner (who has won it every year since the competition started), has taken in each case competitive but pretty balanced lists, and not a cheese board. Every year he has won because of his skill, general character and a bit of luck. No one challenged his army selection as the cause of his winning streak.

While not perfect, LotR more than any other GW core game favours good generalship over list-building.

Anyone calling the LotR system's balance inferior to the other 2 core games' is just spouting absolute rubbish and clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.

yabbadabba
24-04-2008, 15:57
The UK GT winner (who has won it every year since the competition started), has taken in each case competitive but pretty balanced lists, and not a cheese board. Every year he has won because of his skill, general character and a bit of luck. No one challenged his army selection as the cause of his winning streak.

True. I have seen him at work and he has good armies, balanced lists, a great personality and a bit of luck (which all tournament players need). Overall though he knows what the scenario needs to be won.


Anyone calling the LotR system's balance inferior to the other 2 core games' is just spouting absolute rubbish and clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.

Gonna have to sig you on that one mate!

njfed
24-04-2008, 16:23
The UK GT winner (who has won it every year since the competition started), has taken in each case competitive but pretty balanced lists, and not a cheese board. Every year he has won because of his skill, general character and a bit of luck. No one challenged his army selection as the cause of his winning streak.

While not perfect, LotR more than any other GW core game favours good generalship over list-building.

Anyone calling the LotR system's balance inferior to the other 2 core games' is just spouting absolute rubbish and clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.

Thank you very much for the information. The fact that one person has won every year is a bit of a shock. You would expect luck to have stopped him at least once. And I mean no disrespect for his accomplishment. I was simply passing on what I had been told.

As for balance, that was mostly just speculation on my part. If GW actually created a game that is that balanced it upsets me for two reasons. First, the game seems to be in its twilight years, but this may change when the Hobbit movie comes out. It would be a shame to have the game fade away like so many specialist games have. My local shop, not a GW store, dropped LotR a long time ago. It would take a lot of work for me to convince anyone I play with to pick it up.

Second, if GW could do it with LotR, why is Warhammer and 40K such a mess? Maybe, just maybe, the release of 5th edition will bring with it the forgotten FAQs and the balance will return. I'm sure GW must have had discussions down at the local pub about pulling a D&D and scrapping the system for a total rewrite. I am talking about such a drastic change to the main rules that every codex would become invalid until updated to the new system. As long as the new system allows us to use our current models, I could deal with the pain for the long term goal of fixing some of the major problems/loopholes in the rules.

LuciusAR
24-04-2008, 18:15
I tried to get into it but didnt like the game system. Its more Hero Hammer then any game I have played
Aragorn can easily beat 20 Uruks at once, yeah right
hmm legolas killed 3 orks with 1 shot, every turn :confused:

+ + Deleted by the WS =I= + +

Hero's can beats multiples of the basic troops, true. But lets face it, this is exactly what they do in the movie. Hence the reason Aragorn costs the same as about 7-10 Uruk-Hai. but if only about 3 Uruk-Hai get the drop on him, trap him and roll right thats one mushy hero.

Aragorn cannot beat 20 Uruks and Legolas cannot kill 3 Orcs per shot, pointless hyperbole isn't welcome here.


A hero is around 10 times harder to kill then a basic trooper for no aparant reason

Other than cost about 10 times as many points?



I like warhammer because the common soldier can take down a hero. The peasant can kill the knight.

As already shown this can also happen in LotR if you use your hordes correctly, and position them to trap your opponent.

You've clearly never played this game and are looking to score cheap points with inaccurate generalizations.

CapitanGuinea
24-04-2008, 18:44
I collect som of LOTR, but I don't play it for two main reason.

1) I hate the marketing operation based on LOTR Book... It dequalified to me all Tolkien work, putting it in a very low grade of respect.

2) as a Game, Lotr take the resource of Specialist Games, something I was profoundly in love with. The result was a consequent HATE! that last today.

the third reason is that wrong economical policy in GW, caused by Lotr caused many trouble at other game system adepts....

Huw_Dawson
24-04-2008, 20:29
Gah, why must there be bickering on Warseer? It just detracts from the topic...

I think that this notion that it is in its twilight years is a bit silly - when GW run out of things to do, they'll go back and write a new rulebook and re-release it all again, with more stuff! :p

Besides, they haven't even touched Children of Hurin or The Hobbit yet, and I believe they own the rights to the second one...

- Huw

CyberShadow
24-04-2008, 20:31
2) as a Game, Lotr take the resource of Specialist Games, something I was profoundly in love with. The result was a consequent HATE! that last today.

Actually, my understanding is that this was the other way around. I dont know the facts for sure (few people do) and I am a huge SG fan, but I believe that the LotR push actually channelled money in, which allowed SG to build up. I think that the current SG trouble is partly because LotR is currently on the decline.

Darnok
24-04-2008, 20:40
On topic: because I don't have the time. I hardly manage to paint some miniatures for games I already play (40K, WHF, BFG), I do study every now and then, and have some social live. Right now there is just no time for yet another pet project.

Second big issue: the movies are great, and I don't want to spoil that experience with some not so great models. Compared to the stuff they want to portray, most of the miniatures are quite crappy.

Last, but by no means least: I enjoy sci-fi and proper fantasy too much. If it can't wield a lasergun or some fireballs, it ain't worth it for me. LotR is too realistic for me.

However, the model range for LotR is not bad at all, and the game system is quite tempting too. Maybe next summer, when I have time again...

TheBigBadWolf
24-04-2008, 20:44
Really, despite the fact that this myth has been disproved time and time again at every turn!?

40K and WFB have done very well off the back of the cash injection LotR brought in. Even if you don't play the game you should be thankful for its existence.

No, it really is ***** for kids, ive never seen anyone older than like 12 play it, to be honest ive never even seen anyone buy anything for it.

And i'm not thankfull for it, and im not sure you will find many people that are.

If there were, do you really think there would be as many of these threads if people liked it,

They just dont, deal with it.

Imperialis_Dominatus
24-04-2008, 20:48
No, it really is ***** for kids, ive never seen anyone older than like 12 play it, to be honest ive never even seen anyone buy anything for it.

Because your limited experience speaks for the whole world.


And i'm not thankfull for it, and im not sure you will find many people that are.

If there were, do you really think there would be as many of these threads if people liked it,

They just dont, deal with it.

Same argument used for the continuing crying over the new Codices, Editions, models, etc.; 'if people complain, there's something wrong.' No. It just means that people complain. Especially over the Internet.

Just because someone complains about something doesn't give them credibility.

TheBigBadWolf
24-04-2008, 21:00
Because your limited experience speaks for the whole world.

Same argument used for the continuing crying over the new Codices, Editions, models, etc.; 'if people complain, there's something wrong.' No. It just means that people complain. Especially over the Internet.

Just because someone complains about something doesn't give them credibility.

yes, and your experiance of gaming in the UK is what exactly

And i think you should look at the title of the thread, Why dont YOU play Lotr, and im saying its because i think its *****, thats my opinion, and an opinion i know many people share.

LuciusAR
24-04-2008, 21:06
yes, and your experiance of gaming in the UK is what exactly

And i think you should look at the title of the thread, Why dont YOU play Lotr, and im saying its because i think its *****, thats my opinion, and an opinion i know many people share.

Yes we know, you've repeated this several times.

and yet you've never attempted to justify this position. You've simply repeated ***** over and over again as if its a coherent argument.

Put up or shut up.

RampagingRavener
24-04-2008, 21:11
And i think you should look at the title of the thread, Why dont YOU play Lotr, and im saying its because i think its *****, thats my opinion, and an opinion i know many people share.

Except you have gone beyond stating your oppinion, and rolled right into stating your oppinion as a fact. Which, frankly, is rubbish. And as for "do you really think there would be as many of these threads if people liked it", yes. I think plenty of people like LoTR, and I think it's a perfectly fine skirmish wargame. But I'm pretty sure a minority of people willing to complain about it loudly will always drown out the majority of people who just enjoy quietly playing their prefered game system without getting into e-fights.

TheBigBadWolf
24-04-2008, 21:16
Yes we know, you've repeated this several times.

and yet you've never attempted to justify this position. You've simply repeated ***** over and over again as if its a coherent argument.

Put up or shut up.

It is a coherent argument, why do think there are so many of these threads, people obviosly think the same as me, there is a lot of hostility to Lotr, you just have to deal with, stop shoving it down our throats, that you think its a great game etc, if we dont want to play it know, we arnt going to want to play it from any of the stuff you say, thats the way it is. Have i said, ohh i play this instead or play that, no im just saying i dont play it nor want to play it.

Also

Never in all my time have i been into a GW store and the staff ask me if i have seen the new Lotr releases, and i have been to a lot of stores. This is an opinion i have seen many times on this forum alone.

RampagingRavener
24-04-2008, 21:38
It is a coherent argument, why do think there are so many of these threads, people obviosly think the same as me, there is a lot of hostility to Lotr

I know it's generally bad for someone to quote themselves, but still.


But I'm pretty sure a minority of people willing to complain about it loudly will always drown out the majority of people who just enjoy quietly playing their prefered game system without getting into e-fights.

For the record? Edinburgh GW, the staffered attempted to cajole me into picking up the Mines of Moria starter set when it was released. Same for the Mumak. So I personally do have experiance of GW staff pushing LoTR, albeit not to the extent of Fantasy or 40k. But then again I've never found the GW Edinburgh staff to be paticularly pushy about that sort of thing anyway.

And I'm quite sure that if you didn't like LoTR players "stuffing it down your throat" then, horror of horrors...don't read threads related to LoTR! Or read it, drop a reply stating your oppinion, and don't bother checking the thread again. Simple. At least, simple for Online happenings at least.

TheBigBadWolf
24-04-2008, 21:49
I know it's generally bad for someone to quote themselves, but still.



For the record? Edinburgh GW, the staffered attempted to cajole me into picking up the Mines of Moria starter set when it was released. Same for the Mumak. So I personally do have experiance of GW staff pushing LoTR, albeit not to the extent of Fantasy or 40k. But then again I've never found the GW Edinburgh staff to be paticularly pushy about that sort of thing anyway.

And I'm quite sure that if you didn't like LoTR players "stuffing it down your throat" then, horror of horrors...don't read threads related to LoTR! Or read it, drop a reply stating your oppinion, and don't bother checking the thread again. Simple. At least, simple for Online happenings at least.

Or you could just shut up and except that Lotr isnt the most liked game that you think it is, now you can try and say that that isnt true, but you will be hard pressed to do so.

Also you have just emphazied my point, they pushed those releases on you what 2-3 years ago, what about all the releases after that, nothing.


Besides, while you're stating your opinion, you don't bring up very strong arguments to support it (i.e. your limited experience as opposed to critique on the models, gameplay, ruleset, background, etc.). Ergo, I don't see why you're surprised that we're arguing it out with you.


And do you know what my experiance is, no, so put up and shut up and stop using that argument, it aint gonna to work

RampagingRavener
24-04-2008, 22:20
Or you could just shut up

Or, I could not. How about that? Yea, I think I'll go with the "not shutting up" thing, thanks. :)

I didn't say LoTR is the most liked game. Truthfully I think most people who play GW games have no strong feelings either way about LoTR; they don't play it, but they don't grudge it's existance or think it's a 'bad' game. Much like my own oppinion on the subject is, though it probably sounds horribly egotistic to say.

But I'm pretty sure that there will be far more people who do like LoTR, that the number of people who bitterly dislike it. Only, given human nature and the nature of the internet, those who don't like it will be far more likely to put their oppinion across, especially in a loud, aggressive way. Because people like complaining about things.


Also you have just emphazied my point, they pushed those releases on you what 2-3 years ago, what about all the releases after that, nothing.

I ain't done anything of the sort. By then I'd shopped there regularly enough for the staff at GW Edinburgh to know that I'm not interested in the hard-sell. So apart from the odd new guy trying it on, they don't bother me with it any more.

Darnok
24-04-2008, 22:27
Could you all please just get back to a civilised discussion of the topic, instead of derailing yet another LotR thread into a hate fest? :eyebrows:

Bookwrak
24-04-2008, 22:32
yes, and your experiance of gaming in the UK is what exactly

And i think you should look at the title of the thread, Why dont YOU play Lotr, and im saying its because i think its *****, thats my opinion, and an opinion i know many people share.

That doesn't make it any less silly.

TheBigBadWolf
24-04-2008, 22:32
especially in a loud, aggressive way. Because people like complaining about things.

Much like the SNP then ;), you will know what i mean

I dont buy WH at all but it doesnt stop the pushing of new releases, GW staff just dont seem to push Lotr

LordCypher
24-04-2008, 22:36
Use warhammer fantasy miniatures with Lotr rules. Problem solved ;-P

Imperialis_Dominatus
25-04-2008, 05:42
And do you know what my experiance is, no, so put up and shut up and stop using that argument, it aint gonna to work

:eyebrows:

Walk away, I_D, just walk away...

HiveMaster
25-04-2008, 07:16
Why? Because i've played for a long time? I could mouth off at you but I won't and ill just report your post.

Hows that for a "saddo?"

I really think you misunderstood my first point.

I was saying that alot of people i know (in the flesh, at gaming stores) refuse to play the game and actively seek to distrupt those who do (particularly younger players) and i was attacking those for both their elitist attitude and immaturity.

If you were offended by my original comments then you are guilty of the same behaviour when it comes to LOTR gaming? If i am wrong then i apologise, but i dont really think your half-sarcastic unfunny comment in your original reply was required in the first place, was it?

Huw_Dawson
25-04-2008, 07:37
As I said before in the LAST thread I made that got derailed:

My Thread, My Rules. DON'T MAKE ME BEAT YOU.

I asked why people on Warseer had so much hostility to Warseer. I did not want this topic to devolve into a petty hatefest, especially as one member decided to justify their logic with a circular arguement.

Stay on topic or I WILL lock this thread.

- Huw

Osbad
25-04-2008, 07:45
I think "TheBigBadWolf" amply demonstrates my point, why LotR players are hard to find in GW stores.

Doesn't mean they don't exist: In fact LotR sales are holding steady and are roughly on a par with WFB sales.

But ignorant, bigoted, opinionated loudmouths with no manners, such as him inhabit GW stores playing 40k and WFB, and while they do so, LotR players will continue to stay away from GW stores, and forums such as Warseer...

That you don't like LotR is fine. Everyone has their own taste in models. Everyone also is entitled to their own opinion as to what is good or bad in a game. WFB/40k are to many the apogee of gaming. That's fine by me. In fact, as a LotR player there is much about the game and how it has been marketed that I really hate myself.

But, if you are an adult (as opposed to a spoilt child) you must accept that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Going all tribal about a game is just plain stupid behaviour.

It is demonstrable that LotR IS very popular (3rd or 4th best selling fantasy wargame in the world after WFB and Hordesmachine, depending on who's stats you believe). Just because you haven't seen anyone play or buy it means jack****. It just means you walk around with your eyes closed.

If LotR IS popular then it has a right to exist as a game. Live with it. ANd if people talk about it on a forum you inhabit, then the "grown up" thing to do is to discuss it sensibly, and if the subject doesn't interest you then don't investigate it further. Much like I don't go hunting out threads on "How to beat your oponent with the latest brand of cheese"...

EDIT: Having just read Huw's last post, I apologise for continuing OT. I'll cease and desist. I just hope we get better answers to the original question (which is interesting and legitimate) than "because I do (Space Marienz rock! Hurr!)" Just bear in mind that many on Warseer DO like LotR, and in answering the question consider how you would have reacted if the OP had asked "Why do so many on Warseer dislike WFB/40k?" If I'd posted the last question on www.thelastalliance.com for instance, I don't expect many Warseer devotees would enjoy reading the responses... "Sauce for the Goose" as I say...

horizon
25-04-2008, 07:49
a) I only play Battlefleet Gothic.
b) I almost sold everything 40k & fantasy related.
c) I have LotR miniatures on display because I love them, yet I don't play the game, see a)

Huw_Dawson
25-04-2008, 10:20
EDIT: Having just read Huw's last post, I apologise for continuing OT. I'll cease and desist. I just hope we get better answers to the original question (which is interesting and legitimate) than "because I do (Space Marienz rock! Hurr!)" Just bear in mind that many on Warseer DO like LotR, and in answering the question consider how you would have reacted if the OP had asked "Why do so many on Warseer dislike WFB/40k?" If I'd posted the last question on www.thelastalliance.com for instance, I don't expect many Warseer devotees would enjoy reading the responses... "Sauce for the Goose" as I say...

Oh no, you can carry on discussing reflective reasons for why LoTR seems to be so unpopular, just don't end up going into "BECAUSE IT IS <insert curse>" arguements. ;) I prefer logical debate to hyperbole.

- Huw

dancingmonkey
25-04-2008, 10:40
Wow, its getting warm in here isn't it...

One other thing that just occoured to me regarding LOTR is regading vets nights.

I (as most of you now know) am ex staff, and used to run the Maidstone Vets nights pretty much every week. (If not I would be there any way)

We had a strong core of LOTR players, but one of the real problems was they were slightly exclusive. Not attacking them or anything. but they were part of some global LOTR site that was recreating the whole arc in miniature form. They didn't want to play "pick up and play" type games, it was all part of their global plan or not at all.

We ran a LOTR battle co thing for a few weeks, and most of the 40k/fantasy vets got involved, but the LOTR group were not interested as they had done all that about a year before (can't remember if they were involved in its creation or some such thing.)

We all attended a club nearby also, and pretty much the smae thing happened. They had their own tables/scenerey/rules etc, and they came and got on with it. Note I am still not attacking them, they were a well behaved bunch, plesent to talk to etc... but they had their game and we had ours and sadly the twain were destined not to meet...

One or two of the vets did infiltrate the gorup in the end... but found it very hard to keep up with the whole campaign system...

carry on...

Jon

Templar Ben
25-04-2008, 10:50
Actually I have not seen a LotR player that didn't like the models. LotR models don't have pumpkin heads or mitten hands. They also do not have steroid horses.

You can tell that the sculptors for LotR know what a body actually looks like proportion wise.

Osbad
25-04-2008, 11:27
Kudos for the last two or three posts. I think I might know who you mean dancingmonkey, there are a few TLA members from the Maidstone environs that I know used to enjoy "vets night" and had their own organised routine.

TBBW and TB: the issue of "different scale" and whole aesthetic value altogether is a good one. Yet another difference between the two groups of games. LotR appeals to those who like "realistic" proportions in their models and aren't so bothered about the whole conversion and "creative painting" and more exaggerated, "comic" proportions and ethos that is promoted more within WFB and 40k. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

I can see how someone who has been into the whole "customise my army" thing that is so much of 40k and WFB would not appreciate LotR. And someone who wants to really get into a story-based game would prefer LotR to WFB.

What does surprise me is how tribal some get over it.

Many will prefer one side over the other. Doesn't mean the other side is invalid. And if you happen to like both sides then wonderful. Although I suspect that there are fewer "crossover" players than GW initially expected. One of the reasons the "Bubble burst" was that GW's business in the period 2003-2005 was predicated on the assumption that all these new players that were buying LotR would convert to WFB/40k, which were much more financially demanding systems to play. The fact was they didn't and over the period WFB and 40k sales continued to fall. The crossover sales just never materialised. People tend to like LotR OR WFB/40k and not both (or even all three - there is of course often rivalry between WFB and 40k players as well). Again, I believe that LotR is closer to a historical wargaming mindset than to anything that GW has otherwise produced in the last 15 years or so. And trying to treat all the players as one homogeneous bunch causes problems in understanding.

njfed
25-04-2008, 11:44
I think that this notion that it is in its twilight years is a bit silly - when GW run out of things to do, they'll go back and write a new rulebook and re-release it all again, with more stuff! :p

I use the term "twilight years" because the movies are over (until Hobbit was announced) and thus the glory days of an increasing player base are over. Sure, you will get some new players now and then. However, I would think that most players who have been playing the game for some time have already collected an army or two. So we will not see an actual increase in sales until Hobbit comes out.

You did mention the one thing that could get players to pick up the game and that would be consolidate all the publications. LotR is not like WHFB or 40K in that you can buy a rule book and one codex and be done. Fluff and options seem to be spread out in many books. I would like to see GW reduce the number of books by reorganizing them. This would go a long way toward reducing the perception that the up front investment is too high to bother.

Maybe GW will get to the point where LotR is treated like some of the Specialist games. Give away the fluff and only sell the core rules and miniatures.

yabbadabba
25-04-2008, 14:49
I think in a "discussion" like this, any points over GW business decisions, policy or impacts are largely pointless and a distraction. The simple reason is nobody on here is in a position to comment as they are not a recognised part of the GW senior management structure (they might be on here incognito tho!).

You can't prove any connection between LoTR and impacts on SG, 40K or WFB. So why bother talking about it? It doesn't add to this discussion and merely acts as an inflamatory catalyst.

However personal opinion on the product itself is totally appropriate, and as such one persons opinion is just a valid as another - you can't be right or wrong on what you enjoy aesthetically as it is totally subjective.

So my opinion -
I love the game and I don't play it enough. The bonuses it has over 40K and WFB is that it is a more comprehensive and coherent rules set that allows you to play "heroic" games far more effectively and realistically than the other two.
I think that while some of the models aren't all that, the range is on par with the best from 40K and WFB. And they don't have hands like comedy gloves.
With more supplements coming out I am finding more opportunities to do what I really love in this hobby - adapt, create and modify rules and army lists.
Finally for appeal it is nice to walk inot a GW store/Online store and not look at something through the 40K/WFB game mechanic filter - as they are fairly similar in design. LOTR is something outside the box from GW.

philbrad2
25-04-2008, 16:18
Keep your posts constructive and without personal attacks. If further instances of personal attacks are reported, action will be taken against the posters.

Lets keep this on-topic and civil.

PhilB
:chrome:
+ WarSeer Mod Team +

FAQ
http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php
POSTING GUIDLINES
http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_posting_guidelines

Gwedd
25-04-2008, 17:01
Comrades,

Well, I don't play LotR. I also don't play WHFB, or D&D or anything with a Fantasy theme. It's not that there aren't lovely models and interesting rules sets. I just have zero interest in the fantasy genre. Seriously. I can appreciate the wotk and skill required for many of the miniatures, both by the original sculpters and the folks who purchase, assemble and paint them. I have no problems with folks who play fantasy-themed games. The genre simply bores me to tears.

My own tastes are historical wargames with miniatures, especially ancients and Napoleonics, or WH40K. I also like all the Steampunk Genre, Starship Troopers, etc.

When Tolkein's books came out big in the late 1960's (yes, I sadly remember them.. I am that old) I tried reading some, but again, they simply did nothing for me. Same with the movies, the books, etc.

Having said that, however, whatever floats your boat is fine by me. I have no issues with anyone who plays those games, and hope they have a wonderful time and win many battles. It is simply a genre that I have no use for.

I have to admit, however, that watching one crowd of gamers attacking another always gets me to laughing. Seriously, it's like two groups of Trekkies arguing over who is the most "realistic". It's a game, a diversion, something meant to be fun and not taken too very seriously.

Play what you enjoy, and be happy you have the opportunity to do so.

Respects,

Llew
26-04-2008, 05:23
No, it really is ***** for kids, ive never seen anyone older than like 12 play it, to be honest ive never even seen anyone buy anything for it.



Well, there's a good chance you won't see a lot of older players playing it. I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for my group of friends. We have all been long-time WFB players and spent ridiculous amounts of money on it. We even started a yearly gaming weekend (Nerdvana) just to play Warhammer. This year, while we'll probably still play a bit of Warhammer, LotR, Warmachine and a hacked up version of Man O' War are at the top of the list. You would never see us play it.

Probably a lot of older players have the means to play outside of stores.

Your eyes probably don't give you very good information.

BrainFireBob
26-04-2008, 05:54
Three reasons:

1. It's based on the movies, not the books. I find the books much more appealing.

2. The world itself IMO doesn't lend itself that well to wargaming. Also, with the current range of models there's not much more you can do than recreate the battles in the books - and even then you can't come even close to recreating the largest ones, since they had thousands of combatants.

3. I already play 40k and various RPGs. I just don't have time for more games.

Add

4. Budget versus hobbies

5. Not quite liking the system- it feels too much like the game plays itself

6. Strong feelings about the things Pete Jackson changed

and you've got me.

I've been tempted intermittently since the Knights of Dol Amroth release. I would have leaped all over Harad, liking the aesthetic, but the way Jackson treated the Mumakil and the Dead- which had nothing to do with the Battle of Pelennor Fields- just ticked me off. I'm a geek purest.

Codsticker
26-04-2008, 15:03
I have to admit, however, that watching one crowd of gamers attacking another always gets me to laughing.

It is bizzarre but true. The vast majority if of the population seems to find the whole wargamming hobby a juvenile adventure and when a wargammer makes a statement such as this:
In a nutshell... cos its ***** that was aimed at infants.
...it can be hard to argue against that.

Hellfury
26-04-2008, 19:31
The rules are good.

The setting somewhat stinks.

It appears that the LOTR rules combined with mordheims campaign rules make a good game that is actually fairly popular, due to the combative subject matter of a more generic fantasy, ala pirates and cowboys.

Legends of the Old West/High Seas is gaining alot of popularity here. I like it myself.

AllisterCaine
27-04-2008, 04:36
The fluff (not necessarly the book) is stupid.

And Tom is singing and singing, and still singing...oh my god next chapter...hes still singing...and singing.

Good vs evil. I guessing that Originality was not Tolkien's friend.

Mordor is finally defeated and its leader dead. Somehow it rises back with more troops than the good ever had. Of course the good guys were absolutely clueless as to where the million strong evil army came from.

Sir_Turalyon
27-04-2008, 08:40
Good vs evil. I guessing that Originality was not Tolkien's friend.


Actualy, back in Tolkien's days LotR was original (shudders).

Swifty
27-04-2008, 09:00
One simple thing, I already know the end of the story. I have always really wanted to play Mordor as I love LoTR's version of orcs but knowing that no matter how many times I win in games or campaigns my army is doomed to die anyway, so whats the point.

Also where did all the made up s**t come from like shamans and feral uruk hai? Apart from that it is a really fun game system to play except its impossible to do any of the big battles because its a small skirmish game and nothing more.

BrainFireBob
27-04-2008, 09:11
And it wasn't written as fantasy, so holding it to the standards of modern fantasy- which is heavily informed by Tolkien- is rather inane.

Most of the juicy material was in the appendices and the Silmarillion- props to GW for mining those sources.

But yes, some of the additions- such as feral Uruk Hai- bother me.

I'm not up-to-date, but could someone confirm the existence of Olog Hai? Because if GW missed that reference, I need to drop them a line regarding, I believe, Appendix D- On Languages, under "The Black Speech."

Swifty
27-04-2008, 09:18
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't olog hai just uruk hai trolls?

Temprus
27-04-2008, 15:11
I'm not up-to-date, but could someone confirm the existence of Olog Hai? Because if GW missed that reference, I need to drop them a line regarding, I believe, Appendix D- On Languages, under "The Black Speech."
Sadly that is not a part of the book they have access to. They have access to the entire "The Hobbit" and 7 parts of LotR (The Prologue and Books One to Six) as that is all that Tolkien Enterprises has IP rights to. This is why you won't see anything outside of of this in the games and why the old game IP owner I.C.E. never expanded much outside the boundaries of The Last Alliance of Men and Elves to the end of the Third Age. It is also why New Line missed out on giving us four or five more "fade out to black the movie is over, no, wait, there is more stuff to show after all" scenes such as the what happens to Legolas, Gimili, or Sam, or how Aragorn and Awren's marriage ends. :D

LordCypher
27-04-2008, 23:35
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't olog hai just uruk hai trolls?

Something the movies got totaly wrong was what Uruk Hai were. They were created by Sauron not Sauruman to be bigger, faster, and able to operate in the sun light. Sauron did the same thing to Trolls and created the Olog Hai. Half orcs seem to have been ignored in the movies and the game altogether. As well as Sauromans forces in the shire. They have the rights to the properties yet they leave out these characters and why? Because it's a movie game and movie games always suck either on the table or on a video game console.

BrainFireBob
28-04-2008, 03:31
Uruk hai are warrior orcs, a breed of orcs developed and improved upon. They do not fear the sun, and are as large and strong as men.

Olog hai are a similar improvement on trolls. They do not turn to stone in sunlight, are disciplined, and are the only servants of Sauron other than the Nazgul and Sauron himself to speak the Black Speech as their language, although certain loan-words remain in the tribal languages of orcs, such as "gnash"- fire.

Koryphaus
28-04-2008, 03:45
Its funny, I have never been interested in LoTR as a game. I love the books (just reading the Children of Hurin now, plan on reading the Silmarillion soon), I love fantasy books such as Wheel of Time, but I have no interest in the LoTR game itself.

I love my W40K, I adore Fantasy. I really enjoy D&D. It's just the LoTR seems so.. I dont know..

The OP wrote that the models are cheap. IMO, its because they're utter crap. Sure, the character models are nice and well sculpted but the models are for the most part, single piece models. They dont seem to have the detail, or the life that GW's other games have... I don't want an army that only has 2 or 3 different poses. I hate the models from Battle for Macragge as well, but thats off topic.. Also, I have my own ideas about what the characters look like. I don't neccessarily want Viggo Mortensen or Sean Bean or Elijah Woods on my table, I would want frodo as I imagine him to be, or Legolas as I've imagined him, not looking like Orlando Bloom.

The rules seem stupid to me as well. I like the W40K and WFantasy system where 1 person has the turn, then its passed over to the other player, not this rubbish of rolling for priority. And pushing your opponent back when you win the fight? That was in Fantasy 3rd Ed for crying out loud!

So yeah, I look at LoTR and just think, why bother? 5th Ed 40K is coming soon, I cant wait to see what that will bring!

Huw_Dawson
28-04-2008, 07:27
Something the movies got totaly wrong was what Uruk Hai were. They were created by Sauron not Sauruman to be bigger, faster, and able to operate in the sun light. Sauron did the same thing to Trolls and created the Olog Hai. Half orcs seem to have been ignored in the movies and the game altogether. As well as Sauromans forces in the shire. They have the rights to the properties yet they leave out these characters and why? Because it's a movie game and movie games always suck either on the table or on a video game console.

See: http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=60041499011&orignav=16

The half orc issue is correct, but they really were a minor force.

- Huw

Osbad
28-04-2008, 08:39
One thing to bear in mind when dissing the LotR "fluff". It is insanely popular "out there", and it is massively more popular than any game-generated fluff by GW or any other company.

Fair enough you personally may not like it, but the odds are that "Joe Bloggs" on the street will actually know who Tolkien is and what Lord of the Rings is, but only a teeny, tiny minority will know about the Space Emperor and his Space Marienz...

Of course that doesn't make LotR "better" than anything else, it just means that those that LotR fluff is "rubbish" are in an infinitesimally small minority.... and opinions should probably be waited accordingly. As a proportion of GW's gamers 40k are a majority, clearly, but as a proportion of fantasy/sci-fi fans, those that like LotR outnumber those that prefer (say) 40k by many thousands to one.

Wasn't LotR voted as the nations favourite book by the BBC poll or something a few years back? It even beat Jane Austen. Somehow I can't imagine anything from the Black Library even charting in the bestseller list, let alone dominating it for decades...

Pokpoko
28-04-2008, 10:05
Comrades,i didn't steal anything, don't call me that:angel:


its impossible to do any of the big battles because its a small skirmish game and nothing more.that's what Battle of 5 armies is for. or do you mean "big battles" as in glorified bar brawls that WHB and 40k is?(a mighty, nation-conquering army of 100 soldiers!:D). at least you have more playing pieces in LotR that in WHB,where you get what, 5 or 6 multi-wound creatures that happen to consist of individual models?

I like the W40K and WFantasy system where 1 person has the turn, then its passed over to the other player, not this rubbish of rolling for priority.funny part? it's the WHB/40k turn sequence that's actually rubbish. you'd be hard-pressed to find a game these days without at least the possibility to interrupt enemy's turn to do your stuff, and quite a few do have alternate activation.

And pushing your opponent back when you win the fight? That was in Fantasy 3rd Ed for crying out loud!
and therefore must be bad idea.:angel:

Lordsaradain
28-04-2008, 10:16
So why don't you play?


Because the models have alot less conversion and modelling opportunities than warhammer, the models are all basically snapfit, and you get no spare parts. Also, the models are the wrong scale so you can seldom add warhammer bits to them either.

Modeling is what makes warhammer cool.

Koryphaus
28-04-2008, 11:15
funny part? it's the WHB/40k turn sequence that's actually rubbish. you'd be hard-pressed to find a game these days without at least the possibility to interrupt enemy's turn to do your stuff, and quite a few do have alternate activation.


I would hate having my turn interrupted, and I wouldn't like to interrupt someone else's. This used to be in 40K (Sort of) by way of the overwatch rules, and I for one am quite glad they removed it.

Koryphaus
28-04-2008, 11:16
Because the models have alot less conversion and modelling opportunities than warhammer, the models are all basically snapfit, and you get no spare parts. Also, the models are the wrong scale so you can seldom add warhammer bits to them either.

Modeling is what makes warhammer cool.

Amen to that

Templar Ben
28-04-2008, 11:36
I would hate having my turn interrupted, and I wouldn't like to interrupt someone else's. This used to be in 40K (Sort of) by way of the overwatch rules, and I for one am quite glad they removed it.

I always hated it in combat too when the other side wouldn't stand still until we could get into position. It was very rude.

Chainsofsigil
28-04-2008, 14:29
After becoming disaffected with WHFB I would of gotten into LOTR if it weren't for my random discovery of Armies of Arcana!

Out of the three core rules, LOTR is the best, but I doubt it'd be much fun working out combat on an individual basis, when you've got a 40 strong swarm of gutter runners fighting. Also, the miniatures are modestly cool and all, but I want to be able to use my Skaven army no matter what, and obviously here this is out of the question.

My biggest gripe comes from another disaffection, my "Elf/Orc/Dwarf fatigue". I think these races have been driven through the mud, taken out back and then shot, in terms of originality. I know LOTR was quite groundbreaking in it's portrayal of these races, but I just find the whole setting a bit stale after experiencing the Planescape universe, and seeing all the fantastic races in Perdido street station (Garuda, Khepri......oh yeeeah :D)

Strix
28-04-2008, 15:01
I initially didn't play LotR simply because it seemed daftly biased to the good side, to the point of most of the actual scenarios in the book amounting to nothing beyond glorified kill clocks.

Admittedly, thats been redressed a lot, but two things put me off playing it:

1: No one in York plays it. At least no one I know, beyond intro games.
2: The background is a bit, well, crap to be honest. Not a fan of tolkien that much, as I think the man really couldn't write. He had a good imagination, its just his writing style that cripples the books for me. Plus tom bombadil, what the hell is that thing supposed to be?

Velsharoon
28-04-2008, 16:03
I dont care for the background and the models are *****

That sum it up :)

Ethlorien
28-04-2008, 16:37
I've put too much money in Warhammer to switch now. Had the original rulebook and it did look quite interesting. But, in the end, it was just one more thing I didn't have the time or money for. Oh well...

Osbad
29-04-2008, 08:46
I dont care for the background and the models are *****

That sum it up :)

Sums it up quite nicely. In fact it coincides almost exactly with my own reasons for staying away from WFB! (Except I put them the other way around...)

Gaz
29-04-2008, 12:18
I haven't got around to it. I bought the mines of Moria boxed set to try it, but I've been sidetracked with new shiny forgeworld models etc

the opponent thing doesn't bother me, I bought MoM and some...of the red and purple dudies to play skirmishes with the missus and perhaps get my D&D playing friend involved small-scale.

I think there's too much stigma attached due to the "zomg its aimed at kids" and in all honesty that's why it's taken me so long to bother having a look. But I thought I'll bite the bullet and even if I only ever play one game, I've tried.

Von Bismarck
29-04-2008, 14:19
I dont play/like Lotr because:

-the models imo look spindely and generally weedy and rubish, they dont make me want to paint them and put time and love into making them look bad ass.

-i am dedicated to fantasy lol, i love the rule set, WFB has problems but for the most part it works excellently if people are mature.

-the restricted nature of the world, now fantasy is pretty open ended no side gains supremacy allowing many factions to exist. LOTR has already finished in my mind badies have been spanked done and dusted. It just doesnt make me want to play ''in the world''.

-i believe LOTR divided the fantasy market, yeah GW sold alot of the back of the films but where are the sustained sales? If they had made a big push of fantasy in the halflife of the films i think WFB would have got an influxe of players wanting to get their fantasy fix, however fantasy has serviabilty.

-if LOTR is so good why did all the people who bought it during the films not continue playing after the films? answer it must have some flaws in the rules or models to turn people off.

-fantasy and 40k are just cooler in my eyes.

Brimstone
29-04-2008, 14:49
Don't play because I've never been into Lotr, I've only seen one of the films and read the books years ago but didn't enjoy them that much. As for the models they look OK but I've only ever used them as conversion parts for WFB/40K.

The ruleset however is fine and some of the other games that use similar rules WH Ancients / Legends of the Old West etc. are more appealing.

Some guy (UK)
29-04-2008, 15:29
-if LOTR is so good why did all the people who bought it during the films not continue playing after the films? answer it must have some flaws in the rules or models to turn people off.


It isn't to do with that, rather the LOTR system attracted many younger fans, and just like with 40K and WHFB pick it up, become bored, and move on- a childhood phase. The difference being with LOTR is that due to being a huge cinematic success, any merchandise simply sold well, causing a massive influx whilst it remained 'hot stuff'. The films ended, and attention and demand reverted to a 'normal' level. Not suprisingly most of the younger players only left the 'hobby' and LOTR once the hype was over, with a solid, generally older player base remaining.

Eryx_UK
29-04-2008, 16:08
I picked up LotD recently and though its not great I think its quite a good game. Why did I buy it? Because WFB is unnessicarily overcomplicated for my tastes, and I can buy a reasonable sized army for a fraction of the cost of a WFB army.

Dragoon
29-04-2008, 16:34
I'd like to give LOTR a try but...I don't really have the time and I've never seen (nor heard of ) anyone in my area play. I just see product sitting on the shelf at the local game stores.

If I was going to branch out from 40k/WFB I would give FOW a go.

mechu95
29-04-2008, 18:43
LotR was (and is) mainly and primarily (is that even a word?) a gigantic block of cash for GW. It has many cheap things, and is appealing because it has nice rules, nice models, and all of us propobally know and love LotR. Why isn't it sooo popular amongst vets? It's because we're too much into other games, or are on a budget. And most kiddo newbies are on a budget too.

de Selby
29-04-2008, 19:21
It isn't to do with that, rather the LOTR system attracted many younger fans, and just like with 40K and WHFB pick it up, become bored, and move on- a childhood phase. The difference being with LOTR is that due to being a huge cinematic success, any merchandise simply sold well, causing a massive influx whilst it remained 'hot stuff'. The films ended, and attention and demand reverted to a 'normal' level. Not suprisingly most of the younger players only left the 'hobby' and LOTR once the hype was over, with a solid, generally older player base remaining.

Many 40k/wfb fans on this site are people who went through a phase as 10-14 year olds (perhaps picking up HeroQuest or Space Crusade) then came back to the hobby as adults. It'll be interesting to see if there's a similar return of young lotr gamers in about ten years.

agent032125
30-04-2008, 02:55
Simply put, the models are 25mm. I would buy the models if they could work with my hundreds of other models, but they clearly don't. I don't play nearly as much as I paint, and I'm not willing to start from the ground up in another scale. Tolkein's estate shot GW in the foot with that greedy idea.

Vaktathi
30-04-2008, 05:22
I've been browsing the net, and it seems to me that it is decidedly odd that very few people here have picked up on LOTR recently. Why? Here is a checklist of "Why I am suprised that LoTR is so unpopular"

1) The basic troopers are cheap.
If you pay for a Gondor army, you can get 24 minatures for £18. That in my mind is fantastic value for what it is. For similar amounts of
2) The character models are stupidly lovely.
I think that the wide range of characters really adds that customised edge to your armies.
3) The ruleset is the best GW makes.
The ruleset is solid, easy to understand, varied and generally uncomplicated.
4) Stupid amounts of variation.
The game can be played between two people with almost anything popping up on the table. You simply cannot predict what your opponent will bring.

So why don't you play? (Aside from "Nobody else does", which would be defeated if you actually went out and bought 2 small armies and got people to learn to play you.)

I simply can't understand. GW gives you a game that basically makes you look at Warhammer 40k and go "Pheh!" and you just ignore it!

- Huw

While I like the background, I'm not interested in actually playing a game based on it. The models are nice, but not really my style either. Every store I've been to has either nothing or just about nothing in stock for LotR, and if I did want to play, nobody else does play it.

Finally, while I like reading fantasy and whatnot, if given the choice between Trolls, Swords and Bows versus Autocannons, plasma weapons, power armor and tanks, I choose the latter.

philbrad2
30-04-2008, 06:36
Many 40k/wfb fans on this site are people who went through a phase as 10-14 year olds (perhaps picking up HeroQuest or Space Crusade) then came back to the hobby as adults. It'll be interesting to see if there's a similar return of young lotr gamers in about ten years.

Very good point. It seems those that get past their 2nd/3rd year of gaming tend to stick with it. Does LoTR hook gamers enough to continue.

A number of themes are coming to light in the posts on this thread.

1) Sci-fi fans don't normally play LoTR/Fantasy (I include myself here.)

2) Miniature quality (good/bad,) integration with other GW systems. After all, some units could be used in armies for both i.e Orcs. LoTR being 25mm don't lend themselves to this.

3) Consensus the ruleset is sound.

4) Like the books/films not the game (gamers already playing other systems seem to pick on this.)

5) LoTR is perceived in a number of quarters as a 'kids' game. A system GW introduced to hook new gamers onto the hobby, they then move on to 40K/FB but how many will or indeed do. But does GW care? We seem to be of the considered opinion GW likes to 'get 'em young' and then let those who continue in the wargaming hobby of their flavour fend for themselves.

6) Opponents. More specifically finding them. Sounds like a number of clubs/groups don't have LoTR players where 40K/FB groups have a number of potential opponents.

7) A general theme of not liking the game, not because of it's background, quality, execution but because of the way its been marketed by GW. If the whole gaming world was a reflection of GW gaming public then one would have to wonder why they continue to produce and indeed offer support for the license.

8) When/if the 'Hobbit' film appears will we see a resurgence of LoTR play?

PhilB
:skull:

Osbad
30-04-2008, 09:27
7) A general theme of not liking the game, not because of it's background, quality, execution but because of the way its been marketed by GW. If the whole gaming world was a reflection of GW gaming public then one would have to wonder why they continue to produce and indeed offer support for the license.

Good question this one. I've been pondering it. Having been around the LotR gaming scene since its inception in 2001 and talked to many players on and off-line of the game, I can say that "the whole gaming world" is definitely NOT a reflection of the "GW gaming public". And while I can't back this up with statistics, my impression is that while 40k is the most popular single wargame out there, there are many more people who play "anything but 40k/WFB" than there are players of the games.

In the early days those who picked up LotR were people who were currently NOT playing 40k/WFB. Players of the existing GW core games generally (I appreciate there may have been some, but I am talking generalisations from my anecdotal evidence of speaking to many, many LotR players) didn't "take" (and still haven't) to LotR. For many of the reasons cited, sensible (such as "I just don't like the models") or otherwise (such as "it took resources away from my game").

I haven't got any figures but I would estimate around 80% of the players of LotR in those early days had either given up on GW's other systems or had not been interested in them to start with. Either they were not interested in GW's existing "culture" or had dismissed it as irrelevant because they already had a culture of their own. Also of course there were many who just collected the models and never played. A factor that is perhaps more prevalent with the film-based imagery of LotR than the GW-invented imagery of 40k/WFB.

Combine that with the LotR-haterz that permiated the GW core-game-environment in the early 2000's and you have oil and water there. Two cultures that just didn't mix.

I would say that overwhelmingly in the period 2001-05, LotR players were simply NOT typical GW customers. They bought GW product, but they didn't generally like "GW culture". And of course, given my points raised earlier, they didn't feel welcome. SHoot, even WD was derisory in its treatment of LotR - often there was only a single article, back in the day when the Dwarf was brim full of stuff for 40k, WFB and the (then) new Specialist Games like =I= and Epic 40k.

LotR appealed to those who traditionally were interested in more restrained (less "in-your-face") fantasy than GW traditionally put out, or even historicals (LotR was advertised in Miniature Wargames magazine for instance.) It's faithful representation of the film appealed to the more "realistic" bent of that type of gamer, as opposed to the more OTT "comic"/"heroic", WAAAAARGH, DAKKA DAKKA type of gaming/modelling that the rest of the ranges catered to.

Since 2005, and the release of Mines of Moria (after GW had begun to recognise that the bubble had burst, and LotR customers wouldn't any more just walk in off the street and spend, spend, spend, but needed actively selling to), then the GW culture switched a little in favour of trying to appeal to LotR players. They recognised that the film imagery was a great hook for younger potential gamers who had an instant frame of reference they could identify with having seen Aragorn and Legolas prancing about on DVD. Essentially they started afresh. Hence we have a generation of LotR gamers that appear to 40k-playing observers as more youthful than their 40k counterparts, as only in the last 2 or 3 years has LotR-gaming been actively marketed by GW as a viable in-store pastime. Prior to 2005, LotR gamers would access their product while trying to stay as far away from GW "culture" as possible. And older LotR gamers still do. Only those in their early teens have not been "burned" by GW's (and GW-fanbois) perceived poor attitude towards them in the early days of the game. In time those early-teenagers may stay and become the later-teenagers/early 20's players that permeate the in-store gaming experience of 40k and WFB.

Again, in the interests of trying to get a balanced picture, it is important to bear in mind that Warseer is permeated by a vast majority of players who prefer WFB and 40k over LotR. Those who's predilictions swing the other way (unless they are clearly mad, like myself) tend not to inhabit forums like Warseer, as they really do not cater much for "their" game. Instead they favour sites like www.One-ring.co.uk, www.thepalantitr.org and www.thelastalliance.com. In those sites you will see the mirror image of this kind of thread - where the "comedy" fantasy sculpts of WFB for instance are mocked, the growing "strength" of the LotR fanbase applauded and the supposed "dying" of 40k loudly crowed over...

One's perception depends largely on one's position in the universe.

In other words "All GW games are not created equal". And just because you like one, you are not likely to like them all.

Gaah. I've waffled on too far. Again. *rolls eyes in despair*

philbrad2
30-04-2008, 16:31
Think it boils down to horses for courses. LoTR is ... how can I say this ... quite unGW. What I mean it uses imagery that GW haven't created. Regardless of what has come along since, the original games were a merchandise element of the LoTR movies, pure and simple. As such GW couldn't/can't put there own twist on the setting. The have a licence with New Line Cinema or whoever and can't deviate too far from it. The actual game aside if ever their was a 'Hasbro' wargame it would be LoTR. 40K and FB are took much a component part of GW and readily identifiable as this hence and number of gamer, I must include myself here, see LoTR as a merchadising tool for a movie trilogy, just as if GW had taken up a Star Wars, Indiana Jones or some other movie franchise and turned it into a game. After all didn't GW produce a ruleset for LoTR in pre-slottabase times before the continents fully formed? They could simply have come up with a game based on the books and characters rather than the films. But of course the game wouldn't look like the movie and possibly not sell so well.


In other words "All GW games are not created equal". And just because you like one, you are not likely to like them all.

Indeed they aren't... and actually is that such a bad thing?

PhilB
:chrome:

Huw_Dawson
30-04-2008, 19:03
I'd say the game is still pretty dark, though. GW have put their mark on the game, even if it is still cheery in comparison to their staple games.

I still think it is great. Maybe if everybody "forgot" it was based on LoTR for a few months, then it might pick up?

Hell, I'm all for another main game - especially if it was based off the LoTR system! Maybe a game based off a slightly Sci-Fi setting, with several nations of Colonists fighting a voracious Alien reistance?

- Huw

Codsticker
01-05-2008, 03:46
Think it boils down to horses for courses. LoTR is ... how can I say this ... quite unGW.

I actually quite like the fact that it doesn't reek of GW- it is more akin to a historical game. I very much like 40K and although I don't play Fantasy I appreciate it, but there is no need for a third game to be all oversized hands and skulls a-plenty.

Osbad
01-05-2008, 08:40
hence and number of gamer, I must include myself here, see LoTR as a merchadising tool for a movie trilogy, just as if GW had taken up a Star Wars, Indiana Jones or some other movie franchise and turned it into a game.

I can see how you might have this perspective. However, I believe this does the ruleset an injustice. Rick Priestly really did come up with a genuinely good set of rules when he designed the game. Much superior to the "throwaway" rules that (for instance) come with the Star Wars miniature game. Their translation into Pirate and Wild West genres (and critical acclaim in those genres amongs historicals players - a niche market not known for its tolerance of rubbish rules) would bear this point of view out.



After all didn't GW produce a ruleset for LoTR in pre-slottabase times before the continents fully formed?

They came up with a set of LotR figures in the early-mid 80's (I indeed have a few in my collection, being somewhat antedeluvian myself :P), but these were off the back of that execrable cartoon version of the LotR (although not directly based off the imagery - just riding the crest of the interest, like Mithril miniatures and Black Tree Design do today). There was no linked miniatures ruleset (the idea of having specific miniatures ranges tied into a specific game was really not formed fully back then - Warhamster was only in its 1st edition IIRC, and "fantasy wargaming" was generally less popular (although even then, more profitable) than Fantasy RPGs), however GW did sell a version of MERP, licenced from Chaosium in the US, that they could have been used for in small numbers. They were never directly linked though. In those less cynical times I always got the impression they were simply aimed at fans of LotR in general, of which there were many in the fantasy role-playing world at the time.

Koryphaus
06-05-2008, 03:00
i sure envy those guys out there who have bucket-loads of cold hard cash to put into this hobby because lets be honest here.... this is one expensive hobby.

one tip for you guys out there: FINISH buying your armies before getting married. xD

This hobby is cheap. Compared to many others out there, this hobby is very cheap.



Finally, while I like reading fantasy and whatnot, if given the choice between Trolls, Swords and Bows versus Autocannons, plasma weapons, power armor and tanks, I choose the latter.

How awesome would it be though, if a troll could have an autocannon...?

The Three Billy Goats Gruff

Once upon a time there were three billy goats, who were to go up to the hillside to make themselves fat, and the name of all three was "Gruff."

After the troll let the 1st two goats cross the bridge, the Big Billygoat Gruff came along, trip trapping his way.

"Who's that tramping over my bridge?" roared the troll in a loud hoarse voice, and climbed onto the bridge.

"It's I! The big Billy Goat Gruff ," said the billy goat, who had an ugly hoarse voice of his own.

"I'm coming to gobble you up," roared the troll.

The big billy goat said "I don't think so Troll! I'm the biggest, meanest, baddest Goat around! No Troll's going to eat me!"

And then he flew at the troll, who pulled out his Autocannon, and won the fairytale.

Wook
06-05-2008, 08:21
I have no idea why people don’t play LOTR because it is possibly the best rules system that GW have produced. The rules themselves are simple and table free whilst at the same time covering all the types of terrain you will encounter without those annoying Warhammer well what happens now situations. Despite the lack of rules covering unit coherency or formations you have a game that encourages tactics and formations that reflect the shield wall battles fought in northern Europe during the dark ages (exactly the period that Tolkine used as inspiration for his books) in a manner that is accurate and realistic. The main reason that people don’t play LOTR is that is was originally conceived as a scenario based game with un-even points which didn’t suit the 2000 pts WHFB pitch battle brigade. This was coupled with the idea that a game of LOTR would consist of 20-40 models a side (capped at 50) and be about 500 pts. The small games combined with a model cap was madness primarily from a commercial point of view, but also from a players perspective. The battle for helms deep had army of 10 000 attacking a impenetrable fortification so, lets recreate that with 20 Orcs and 5 elves, it doesn’t relay work.

All that being said a massive game with the model cap removed and over 500 models on the table is well worth the effort and is enormous fun.

Koryphaus
06-05-2008, 09:28
I have no idea why people don’t play LOTR because it is possibly the best rules system that GW have produced.

Why would you play a game purely for the rules?

Plastic Rat
06-05-2008, 09:39
I dont really know why, I never really got into LotR's.
...
Its just, there always seems to be apart of me that goes, meh. When ever I consider starting LotR's.

Exactly the same here. I guess if I think about it hard, I can break it down to the following points, in order of severity.

1) I'm so bloody sick of having LotR shoved down my throat by the merchandising machine. When the movies came out, it's like you HAD to be excited about it or they'd revoke your geek license or something.

By the time the last movie had run it's course, I had a burning hatred for hobbits that would have caused me to giggle to watch the little blighters exterminated in a slow and painful manner.

I was sick of the posters, notepads, action figures,mugs, kiddies T-shirts and "Boromir's word of the day toilet paper" being thrown in my face every time I went near a place of trading. (same sequence with Harry Potter by the way)

Seeing every White Dwarf dedicating huge swathes to an IP that made me want to puke more and more every time I saw anything about it just kept that hatred alive quite nicely.

If there ever was any interest in the LotR world, it's been scoured away by the marketing machine a long time ago.

2) The miniatures just don't do it for me. I'm not sure what it is. Maybe it's the scale. It just doesn't feel like they have any soul. They just didn't grab me like 40k, Warmachine or any of the other games I love for the miniatures. Don't get me wrong. I don't hate them... I just don't particularly find anything about them I like either.

3) No customization as far as I know. One of the biggest draws of 40k is the huge lengths I can go to reflect different wargear on my troops. As far as I know, none of that exists in LotR.


All this is really a big pity, since after forcing myself to read the rules through, I have to say I love the rule system. I was really hoping GW could learn something from it for 5th ed 40k. (::INTEGRATED TURNS GUYS! IT'S BIG!:: )

Anyway, I'm rather sad that such a great system is wasted on a game I can't get myself to touch with two measuring sticks taped together.

Darkson
06-05-2008, 13:49
1. Financial - I don't have lots of spare cash, so why start another game that may or may not take off, when I can buy figs for the games I enjoy playing (that I haven't exhausted)?

2. Figures - they're nice, but the scale doesn't fit anything else I do, and as I'm a poor converter, I'd rather stick with the 40K/WFB lines, as they're easier to convert.

3. I've never had the urge to re-fight "historical" battles, which seems to be what the majority of LotR is about (and if it's not, that's bad advertising by GW).

4. To many of the same characters released.

stonehorse
06-05-2008, 15:24
Why would you play a game purely for the rules?

Please tell me you are joking,

Games should be heavily geared towards the 'game' aspect. Otherwise you may as well just go play the latest video game they look nice, and may have a nice background story. but they tend to have as much gaming depth as Paris Hilton's acting skills.

guillaume
06-05-2008, 15:26
I watched the movies and liked them, and just never thought that it would be any fun to "recreate" scenes from the movie, because then you're just playing those same scenes over and over.

I know by now it has grown beyond the movie, but it was first based on the movie. So it was just playing scenes from the movie.

Ward.
06-05-2008, 15:27
I'm not sure if I've already commented in this thread, if I haven't, here go's:

1) I don't like LOTR players, I don't act on it or anything and I consider myself pretty excepting of people's "quirks" it's just I've had some bad experiences with them and I generally tend to disagree with people who later turn out to be LOTR players on many issue's. I could only see this getting worse after We've had a few (My games tend to be around mates over a few beers, incidentally a long neck black label woodstock is the best liquid to fuel your skaven army on ).

2) The movies appealed to me, but the books didn't. The LOTR army books don't appeal to me either, not only that but I like to turn my battle reports/ moments into stories. While these might not be the best stories ever written I still enjoy writing them, something I just can't do with the LOTR rules (Other's are perfectly able to, I can't).

3) I can't change the mechanic of the game, I can't randomly alter a few little rules without it biting me halfway through a game. This is just as true in fantasy but is covered over by fantasies normally "fuzzy" idea of balance, something I like. There should be a Noob crutch that a new player can use for a while until she's won a few battles against the vets.

4) I don't enjoy painting LOTR models.

Mazdug
06-05-2008, 20:36
I tried to get into it but didnt like the game system. Its more Hero Hammer then any game I have played
Aragorn can easily beat 20 Uruks at once, yeah right
hmm legolas killed 3 orks with 1 shot, every turn :confused:
A hero is around 10 times harder to kill then a basic trooper for no aparant reason

I think Lotr has gone on too long, GW has started adding things that arn't from the book or movie

I like warhammer because the common soldier can take down a hero. The peasant can kill the knight.

While I don't play LotR, I do play Warhammer, and I would say that many of your statements here are pretty innacurate. Ignoring the LotR portion of your arguement, the standard warhammer lord level character, if it isn't a wizard, is practically unkillable by a basic(read core unit) troop from most armies. Sure, there are the occasional memorable instances where a dwarf lord is killed by the unit champion from an orc boyz unit, but that involves a whole lot of good dice rolling on the orcs part, some terrible rolling on the dwarves part, and it has to occur over multiple turns. And sure, character can no longer just kill massed troops the way they could in 5th ed WH, but you can still tool up a lot of the lord choices to kill huge numbers of troops (Grimgore comes to mind). Also, from what I gather, the best magic in LotR requires careful strategies to be effective, while as an awful lot of warhammer magic consists of someone pointing their hand at that big unit of infantry, and half the infanty going away. Now, I don't play LotR, so I don't know if Aragorn can kill 10 urak-hai a turn, but I'm under the impression thats not that plausible.

I do agree though, I don't like when they add stuff that wasn't from the books/movie. Tolkien created a pretty large, well fleshed out world, and the notion that they should be adding to it seems wrong. I'm ok with fleshing out how armies fight to some extent, but adding new named characters, patently wrong stuff like the Isengard troll, and that demon/vampire thing, and then running with them, that seems like bad form to me.

Koryphaus
07-05-2008, 00:46
Please tell me you are joking

If you read my post, it said: "Why would you play a game purely for the rules?"

Why would I be joking? If you play a game purely for the rules you strike me as being a little odd. I play games to have fun with my friends and we go in occaisional tournaments. I'd much rather play a game that has some interesting pieces that can be modelled and converted they way I want them to be (or heaven forbid, actually come with variety of parts!:eek:) than play one with (for me) uninspiring and unappealing model, just because it's rules may be better (which, again, for me, they aren't).

While Fantasy and 40K are heavily geared towards the gaming aspect, I'm also involved in the hobby for the modelling aspect of it (which seems to be almost non-existent in LoTR unless you're making terrain).

Have you tried Flames of War? If you play a game purely for its rules, go give that a try. Those rules are excellent, I love them, and they actually make sense. But I don't like the models, so I don't play it.

Templar Ben
07-05-2008, 02:13
You realize you could play a game with different models right? If you are dedicated to pumpkin heads and mitten hands you can break out your fantasy models and play LotR with them.

If by modeling you mean having lots of different plastic bits for one model so yours will be so different then you are right LotR is missing that.

Koryphaus
07-05-2008, 04:12
But I don't like the LoTR rules, and my models are the wrong scale for flames of war :cries:...

grickherder
07-05-2008, 06:50
I see models and rules as being completely independant. I use the models I want with the rules I want. I've got a fair share of the LoTR stuff that I use for various fantasy skirmish rules like Song of Blades and Heroes. I use my 40k miniatures for Fast And Dirty or 5150.

I don't play the LOTR game because I don't like it. Love the miniatures though. I also rather like the single piece poses and the lack of customization. I'm actually a bit sick of the massive amount of bitz other kits come with and think fondly of when a given miniature is cool enough without needing to be customized.

starlight
07-05-2008, 06:53
*jumps back in with a quick question*

I have the rule book from the RotK boxed set. How much different is that than the LotR rule books that are out today? IE if I were to get back into it with the models I have, would I be looking at starting from scratch with books as well?

AllisterCaine
07-05-2008, 07:32
Please tell me you are joking,

Games should be heavily geared towards the 'game' aspect. Otherwise you may as well just go play the latest video game they look nice, and may have a nice background story. but they tend to have as much gaming depth as Paris Hilton's acting skills.

So youre saying that you judge games based purely on its rules system? Huh...that kind of goes against everything that I believe in as far as miniature wargames go and probably the belief of thousands of others but...I guess its still just youre opinion. Up untill this day, I never thought that ANYONE would play a game just because the rules system is "good", which IMO, sucks anyways.

Osbad
07-05-2008, 07:37
*jumps back in with a quick question*

I have the rule book from the RotK boxed set. How much different is that than the LotR rule books that are out today? IE if I were to get back into it with the models I have, would I be looking at starting from scratch with books as well?

The latest rulebook (came out 2005) wasn't that different from the RotK one. Some of the stats had been tweaked a little (hobbits for instance had their Will bonus changed) and it became deemed that everyone is armed (with a dagger, even if not modelled with one - apparantly Uruk-hai Berserkers have one hidden up their wotsits...:rolleyes:) unless specifically described as "unarmed" in their profile. Also the Courage mechanic changed so that once the 50% break point was reached, a Courage check failure meant the model is removed from the board, not just dithered back a move. Although heroes can use their Will to boost their "Stand Fast" rolls now.

Generally speaking these (and other changes which I have now forgotten - 2005 was a loooooong time ago ;)) were mere tweaks and didn't really affect the way the game played at all, or the effectiveness of any given models. A 500 point force in the RotK would still pretty much play as well as the same 500 point force in the new version and vice versa.

Templar Ben
07-05-2008, 11:03
So youre saying that you judge games based purely on its rules system? Huh...that kind of goes against everything that I believe in as far as miniature wargames go and probably the belief of thousands of others but...I guess its still just youre opinion. Up untill this day, I never thought that ANYONE would play a game just because the rules system is "good", which IMO, sucks anyways.

I don't understand why you would judge a game by anything other then the rules of the game. Models are seperate. I judge models based upon the model themselves and not how uber killy it is under these rules.

I know many people that play games that are OOP. They do so because the rules are the best for what they want to play. The beauty is you are allowed to pick and choose what you want.

marv335
07-05-2008, 11:07
I don't play for one reason.
There is nothing about the game that inspires me to want to collect/play it.
I can't think of any models with the "cool factor" that would make me part with my cash.

Forbiddenknowledge
07-05-2008, 11:32
Played it through two editions, got bored of it. The game just boiled down to whoever rolled 6's wins, which bored me.

Whilst 40 isn't perfect, its not simply a matter of roll 6 = win fight. Take Aragon = win fight.

Models are nice, it was really different painting normal scale rather than heroic scale, but I don't play games for the models only, I have to be enjoying them.

Osbad
07-05-2008, 13:13
Played it through two editions, got bored of it. The game just boiled down to whoever rolled 6's wins, which bored me.

Whilst 40 isn't perfect, its not simply a matter of roll 6 = win fight. Take Aragon = win fight.

Models are nice, it was really different painting normal scale rather than heroic scale, but I don't play games for the models only, I have to be enjoying them.

After 7 years of the game, I too have grown a little bored with it. I still play it from time to time, but nowhere near like I used to back in the day.

I don't blame LotR for that, just that no game can hold my attention for ever. I like variety in my gaming life.

However, I would challenge the view that "Take Aragorn = win fight". I would modify that to "Take Aragorn = probably lose fight unless you know what you are doing". It has been my experience that it is easier to win games (outside of specific scenarios) with armies with lower costed captains and multiple troops. But of course that depends on objectives, quality of opposition, willingness to take risks, amount of terrain on the table etc. I can see your experience coming to fruition with large armies fighting simple "line up and kill everything" scenarios with minimal terrain on the table, but not with imaginative play.

If I misrepresent your experience, I apologise, I don't deny that your experience was a real one and that after 2 years play you got bored. I just suspect there is a little more to it than one gaming system is more inherently boring than another.

I would say that LotR, far from being "simple" requires quick thinking on the tabletop to win games, and good understanding of overall "real life" strategy to win objectives and the like. If you turn up to a match expecting just to roll out simple tried and tested tactics, you will likely get taken apart by a player who has a grasp of real life military strategy and can play the odds and think on his feet.

Unlike many other games you simply can't rely on some uber-killy mega-character to blast away all opposition. For instance, Aragorn can (at a very long shot) be killed by a single goblin. Pitch him against his points worth of goblins and the odd goblin captain and he's history. Generally speaking, mobility and numbers count for more than uber-killy special rules. Personally, that is my experience and one of the reasons I prefer it to some other games - such as 40k. FOr instance I can look at the opposition on the board and know what I am up against, rather than finding there is some innocuous-looking character who turns out to be a mega-killy machine armed with psionic powers and the Massive Laser of Death hidden in the back of page 203 of some codex or something.

Ironically, another game I like is Warmachine. Which takes that to the opposite extreme. EVRY character is the mega-killy machine armed with psionic powers and the Massive Laser of Death! But because of that everyone is playing the same game and it works. But I digress...

Grubthegrot
07-05-2008, 13:43
I think the rules for Lord of the Rings are great, better than the rules for 40k and fantasy.
I think the model range is excellent, best thing is that the figs. are all perfectly in scale with another, unlike 40k for example.

BUT I dont feel for the background the same way I feel about 40k and fantasy. I love the Games Workshop home grown settings.
I very much liked the LOTR films/books, but they dont inspire me the same way 40k and fantasy does; if I'm going to build and paint a huge army of troops I need that inspiration.
Simple as that really.

Also the sheer breadth of the 40k/fantasy ranges and backgrounds makes all sorts of conversions possible which is a major plus for me personally.

Koryphaus
07-05-2008, 14:29
I don't understand why you would judge a game by anything other then the rules of the game. Models are seperate. I judge models based upon the model themselves and not how uber killy it is under these rules.

Well plenty of the rules for fantasy and 40k are downright stupid. But I love those games because its a combination of models, rules, fun, tactics etc, that makes the game. Not one part, it must work together as a whole. Rules are very important, but they are far from being the be-all and end-all.

stonehorse
07-05-2008, 15:36
Well plenty of the rules for fantasy and 40k are downright stupid. But I love those games because its a combination of models, rules, fun, tactics etc, that makes the game. Not one part, it must work together as a whole. Rules are very important, but they are far from being the be-all and end-all.

So if rules aren't the be-all and end-all, how would a game with out rules function?

It wouldn't, if any one wants to argue this point... please do.

Here are what a few sites difine as a game.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game

Miniatures aren't needed to play table top wargaming... pieces of Cardboard with what they are writen on them do just as well as miniatures. Miniatures are nice and do have their place, but to say they have as equal importance as the rules in the function of a game just reeks of something that GW would try and impose onto the younger generations. Maybe it is theold crusty Veteran in me speaking, but sometimes I wonder where the main drive of the hobby is going sometimes, Kids these days seem to have the attention span as a goldfish, and an even worse respect for subtle and thought provoking game mechanics.

starlight
07-05-2008, 17:16
The latest rulebook (came out 2005) wasn't that different from the RotK one. Some of the stats had been tweaked a little (hobbits for instance had their Will bonus changed) and it became deemed that everyone is armed (with a dagger, even if not modelled with one - apparantly Uruk-hai Berserkers have one hidden up their wotsits...:rolleyes:) unless specifically described as "unarmed" in their profile. Also the Courage mechanic changed so that once the 50% break point was reached, a Courage check failure meant the model is removed from the board, not just dithered back a move. Although heroes can use their Will to boost their "Stand Fast" rolls now.

Generally speaking these (and other changes which I have now forgotten - 2005 was a loooooong time ago ;)) were mere tweaks and didn't really affect the way the game played at all, or the effectiveness of any given models. A 500 point force in the RotK would still pretty much play as well as the same 500 point force in the new version and vice versa.

Thanks Osbad. :) After I move, I think I'll haul out some of the models and have another look. :)

de Selby
07-05-2008, 18:00
Miniatures aren't needed to play table top wargaming... pieces of Cardboard with what they are writen on them do just as well as miniatures. Miniatures are nice and do have their place, but to say they have as equal importance as the rules in the function of a game just reeks of something that GW would try and impose onto the younger generations. Maybe it is theold crusty Veteran in me speaking, but sometimes I wonder where the main drive of the hobby is going sometimes, Kids these days seem to have the attention span as a goldfish, and an even worse respect for subtle and thought provoking game mechanics.

Koryphaeus isn't saying that miniatures are as important as rules to the 'function of the game', he's saying that they're just as important as the rules to making him want to play the game.

Many people here on these forums have no interest in playing games with little bits of cardboard; they enjoy building and painting their models and taking them out for a tabletop battle. To suggest that this is due to a low attention span is ludicrous, it takes much longer to build an army than a set of abstract counters.

Having found an army (theme and models) that attracts them, 40k and Fantasy players then use the associated rules to represent them on the tabletop. One could play LOTR rules with WFB/40k models, but deciding what should be what and still getting a fair game is a rules design project in itself, which most people don't want to take on, nor should they have to.

Mazdug
07-05-2008, 18:10
I think the rules for Lord of the Rings are great, better than the rules for 40k and fantasy.
I think the model range is excellent, best thing is that the figs. are all perfectly in scale with another, unlike 40k for example.

BUT I dont feel for the background the same way I feel about 40k and fantasy. I love the Games Workshop home grown settings.
I very much liked the LOTR films/books, but they dont inspire me the same way 40k and fantasy does; if I'm going to build and paint a huge army of troops I need that inspiration.
Simple as that really.

From an outside perspective (as someone who doesn't play LotR but is interested in starting), LotR doesn't seem to need a huge army. Maybe moria golbins, but it looks to me like most forces are under 50 models. Now maybe its just because I play orcs n' goblins, but 50 models is less then any 2 of my core units combined. So it seems to me that the time and money investment for LotR is quite small compared to warhammer, which seems appealing to me. I've been looking to collect elves, and from the research I've done, I could have a playable force for under $100, now I'm not going to make myself cry by trying to figure out what I've spent on my greenskins, but its well over $100, and when I say well over, I mean atleast several times that. So I would think that LotR has a huge advantage in that its very affordable and accessible compared to WH or 40k.

stonehorse
07-05-2008, 18:25
To suggest that this is due to a low attention span is ludicrous, it takes much longer to build an army than a set of abstract counters.

That would be true, but I have several observations that go against that thought.

from looking at the lack of painting and modeling quality found at some of the GW stores I have visited in my time, I'm not won over by that arguement. I am Ex staff and some of the horrors I was shown were sickening.

Short attention span as in buying each new army as it comes out at the expense of the previous project, this I feel is partly due to GW's marketing tactics. Also a lot of armies I see for WHFB and 40K tend to be min-maxed as far as the restrictions will allow. This I also feel shows a lack of attention to the finer point of tactics as they are after a quick win with minimum thinking involved... which sadly due to the poor design of the game mechanics forces anyone who wants to have fun while playing an individual who adopts this mind set, will also need to adopt this approach to the game.

Czarchon
25-05-2008, 03:41
LOTR hit its stride, fizzled, and died in my area. No one plays, but curiously many gamers have their armies. They won't sell them.

Perhaps they hold on to hope of a resurgance of interest.

I have found lately it only takes one gamer many times to start a 'rush of interest'.

I have just recently acquired the core book.

I'll have an army of darkness and an army of light. It only takes one gamer, two armies,with the rest of the puzzle to be filled by an unlikely hero.

stonehorse
25-05-2008, 18:51
I think one of the big issues that the game has with the usual GW crowds is that it is in many ways it plays like a Historical game system, and being such is opposed to the typical GW game.

At my club the game is a popular choice with Historic players, and those who have an interest in historic games.

Royal Tiger
25-05-2008, 18:59
the only reason I don't play is for lack of opponents

and the only reason for that is the way LotR players are treated by the god like players of Fantasy and 40k, who would not dare tolerate having there precious boards cluttered by this game they find so insulting to them on such a deep personnel level

LuciusAR
26-05-2008, 19:50
the only reason I don't play is for lack of opponents

and the only reason for that is the way LotR players are treated by the god like players of Fantasy and 40k, who would not dare tolerate having there precious boards cluttered by this game they find so insulting to them on such a deep personnel level

Amen.

The levels of self righteous hatred Ive seen in stores towards LOTR is quite frankly shocking. Whats worse is that some of the staff Ive met hold these same attitudes and are very vocal about them in front of players. Its no wonder many players are buying form on-line indies and playing in their own homes.

I think the main cause of the hatred is because LOTR it truly different to anything else GW have done. Because the rules are simple, difficult to bend and not bogged down by 'bell and whistles' special rules and umpteen bolt on items for each faction, I believe many players simply took one look and went 'does not compute'.

The fact that the game is designed for narrative scenario driven games as opposed to tournament centric competitive games cant have helped either. This mentality seems to have been driven into many GW players.

Its a pity really as the game rules wise is certainly the best of the big 3 IMHO.

Royal Tiger
27-05-2008, 16:51
Its a pity really as the game rules wise is certainly the best of the big 3 IMHO.
agreed with all, especially this bit:D

JLEH
27-05-2008, 21:34
On the flipside, I didn't play any of the big three games really (just BB) but I just picked up the Mines of Moria game. Excellent rules, beautiful (and cheap) miniatures, fantastic source material (obviously) and you can finish a good, exciting game in under an hour. How have GW made such stunning figures and yet priced them lower than WH and 40K?
The thing I love about this game is how the rules work with just a handful of figures each side or two full armies. You don't need to have to wait until you have enough figures to start playing.

Edit: Just watched this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr_i2w0W-ZM)...brilliant. Give me Cate Blanchett talking about hobbits over WH fluff any day.

DigbyWeapon
29-05-2008, 06:27
I hope all the Lotr players realise that soon enough they are going to run out of junk to push at you and you will all just have the same, general list as everyone else.
I mean its not like they can update the Gondor or Rohan army.
Fantasy and 40k will rule supreme!:D

Osbad
29-05-2008, 08:08
I hope all the Lotr players realise that soon enough they are going to run out of junk to push at you and you will all just have the same, general list as everyone else.
I mean its not like they can update the Gondor or Rohan army.
Fantasy and 40k will rule supreme!:D

They ran out of stuff that interested me a couple of years back. But that's irrelevant. I don't need to have a good game like LotR "pushed" on me ....

On the other hand I still need MASSIVE incentive to pick up 40k or WFB... :p

LuciusAR
29-05-2008, 10:47
I hope all the Lotr players realise that soon enough they are going to run out of junk to push at you and you will all just have the same, general list as everyone else.
I mean its not like they can update the Gondor or Rohan army.
Fantasy and 40k will rule supreme!:D


Firstly the term 'junk' is highly subjective. I am personaly of the opinion the majority of new stuff being released is excellent, and Im not alone. The new Mordor releases for example are some of the best stuff ive seen in a long time. The new named ringwraiths for example are fantastic, and will provide an excellent varation on playing some of the older scenarios as well. I've seen plenty of what I consider to be 'junk' released for 40K and WFB though.

As to ending up with same armies as evreyone else, anyone who is familar with the LOTR lists will see this is a sweeping generalisation. Besides even if they did would it be a bad thing? historicaly most armies in any period have had a degree of of symetary, its only in WBF and 40K that armies are so vastly different in terms of compistion and tactics.

Finally, how would updating the Rohan and Gondar armies any diffent to the umpeen varieties of space marine that are constantly released and re-released? The 40K and WFB ranges are constantly re-jigged and new versions of old stuff brought out time and time again. The new LotR stuff at least tends to add somthing new to the faction in question.

Your post seems like a cheap points scoring exersise to me. Why even say Fantasy and 40k will rule supreme? Its not like its a competiton, beleive it or not there is room for more than 2 gaming systems!

Shadowheart
29-05-2008, 11:24
Folks have been using the same arguments since LotR was released. Soon, GW is going to run out of ideas, interest will wane and they'll drop the game. Seven and a half years I've been hearing/reading this. And any moment now it's going to happen, right?

The limitations of the setting compared to the Warhammers are more of a theoretical than a practical concern. In reality, the limits of such things as shelf space, the release schedules, production capacity and the customer base have more effect than the limits of the fictional universes.

And I'll point out that GW has barely even scratched the surface of the material in The Hobbit. Assuming they get the license for the 2011/12 movies, they should have enough to keep them occupied until oh, 2016? By which point LotR will be as old as 40K was when it was about halfway through third edition.

No, Middle-Earth might be limited, but there's plenty in it to support a miniature wargame.

chromedog
29-05-2008, 11:26
I don't play LotR for the same reason I don't play WHFB. I don't dig fantasy. I tried (and gave up on) reading LOTR in grade school, and the movies bored me to sleep. Why would I want to play a game based on ... snore ... zzzzzz ...?

I'll quite happily play Stargrunt, Full Thrust, BFG, 40k, Necromunda, Void, etc because of the SF spaceships, guns & explosions goodies. I like my SF. It doesn't matter how good LOTR is, if the subject doesn't grab me, it's a no-go.

Royal Tiger
29-05-2008, 14:23
I hope all the Lotr players realise that soon enough they are going to run out of junk to push at you and you will all just have the same, general list as everyone else.
I mean its not like they can update the Gondor or Rohan army.
Fantasy and 40k will rule supreme!:D
yeah thats the kinda person I mean, your a good example thank you for arriving so I can make it clear what I meant

Codsticker
29-05-2008, 15:03
It doesn't matter how good LOTR is, if the subject doesn't grab me, it's a no-go.

This is the best reason not to pay any tabletop miniatures game: even if you don't like the minis you could always use different minis or make modifications to the rules to suit you but if the setting doesn't ensnare you it's a no-go.

One of the things that puzzles me (and I have only played two games-I think- of LoTR) is the hatred that is directed at the game- it's a little bizarre.

Osbad
30-05-2008, 10:23
One of the things that puzzles me (and I have only played two games-I think- of LoTR) is the hatred that is directed at the game- it's a little bizarre.

I'd call it "resentment". For some misguided reason a lot of the more ignorant 40k fanbois seem to believe that somehow the success of LotR has caused the downfall of 40k.

It defies all logic, but there you go...

Hatred has always stemmed from ignorance. And "intolerance of difference" ("bigotry" by any other name) is alive and well amongst gamers with an immature attitude on life as it is anywhere.

Pacific
30-05-2008, 23:43
I hope all the Lotr players realise that soon enough they are going to run out of junk to push at you and you will all just have the same, general list as everyone else.
I mean its not like they can update the Gondor or Rohan army.
Fantasy and 40k will rule supreme!:D

..The same thing hasn't stopped Flames of War, which continues to go from strength to strength both in popularity and the quality of their releases.

If GW needs to, there are littlerally years worth of material that they can scrape up from stuff such as the Simarillion, not to mention the forthcoming Hobbit movie that will no doubt be milked for all it is worth.

At the end of that long cycle, they can just re-release the original material for a fresh audience.

anthrax1990
31-05-2008, 00:19
Imo LOTR is a fantastic game, much more fun than 40k and Fantasy even though i havent played LOTR since return of the king was released. (this is because the only person i knew who played it quit the hobby nothing to do with the game)

i think the game flows well and is alot more tactical than 40k. only bad thing about it was convincing others in my club to start playing it. they all thought it was childish which was a shame really as its a good game. i think the only way it could be improved is some multi part plastics to get some more variety out of the plastic kits.

cerealkiller195
31-05-2008, 12:27
i hate to admit i was one of those people that said LOTR was garbage without even trying the game. Eventually i couldn't help but admire the great sculpts they had and decided to try the game a few weeks back. It seems very easy to pick up and requires a bit of time to master which i think is good for quick games.

most people think they can't use other miniatures (GW or not) and use the rules to run quick and fun fantasy skirmish games!

Codsticker
31-05-2008, 15:16
most people think they can't use other miniatures (GW or not) and use the rules to run quick and fun fantasy skirmish games!

Not only that but Wargmes Journal used to run articles on how you could apply the rules to historical settings as well- Arthurian england for one.

Death Korp
31-05-2008, 15:31
Legends of the Old West/High Seas is a good example of that, lots of people like that game and its based around the LOTR rules!

DK

Huw_Dawson
31-05-2008, 15:40
To everybody who hasn't tried LoTR - may I recommend a way that you could get a little experience with the game? Borrow the rulebook and play a few games proxying using 40k/FB models.

That way, you learn a little about how the game actually runs, which is much better than not really being able to say "I haven't played it, but the models don't excite me"

Just a thought. Just go and try it.

- Huw

yabbadabba
31-05-2008, 15:47
..The same thing hasn't stopped Flames of War, which continues to go from strength to strength both in popularity and the quality of their releases.

That's a really good point. You don't see historical players whinging about the lack of potential variety in their systems.

Codsticker
01-06-2008, 01:31
Borrow the rulebook and play a few games proxying using 40k/FB models.



I'd love to see 40K version. :D

Thrax
01-06-2008, 05:39
It may very well be a great rule set, but I won't play it largely for the same reason I don't use special characters in 40K...I wanna use my own characters, not somebody else's.

Getifa Ubazza
01-06-2008, 08:22
I like the rules for LotR, i really do. I was waiting for the new Mordor book to come out as i planned on doing Orcs for every game. 40k, Fantasy, Blood Bowl and Necromunda(I was going to use Goliath rules for them.) But when my new White Dwarf came through the letterbox, i opened it up and just didnt feel it. The LotR Orc models are just ugly, i dont mean cool ugly, like 40k or Fantasy. I mean just plain old straight forward Paris Hilton ugly. I liked the new Black Numenorean Warriors and having them lead by all 9 Ringwraiths would be rather cool. But they are not Orcs, The look more like Dark Elves.

TimLeeson
01-06-2008, 19:31
just not my thing, not interested in the mythology or the models. Nothing against it or anything though, original mythology seemed well written and all but iv never been interested in that kind of thing myself.

EightBall
02-06-2008, 21:01
I started the GW hobby with the Two Towers. I played it exclusively until RotK came out, and after that my interest slowly dwindled as I was lured by the new Bretonnians Book.

I love the character and special models that were made from the movies and some of the models interpreted from the books: Radagast the Brown (which I won a paint comp with), the Barrow Wights, Balin and the Dwarves...really it's the heroes that I painted the most of. More than any troops. After the game started moving away from the Tolkien books and more into GW's interpretations and elaborations of a few sentences from the books, I lost interest in the game itself. I loved the movies and the books and the hobby is how I expressed my interest. After that it didn't appeal to me.

The reason I only play the Warhammer and 40k universes is just that it suits my personal tastes. With WHFB I prefer unified armies and units fighting in formation against each other rather than 6 uruk-hai and Saruman fighting against Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli (I know that's not a real match, just my example). Maybe it's my distaste for skirmish games (mordheim was fun but just not captivating like WHFB).

And of course the reason I play 40k, is simply this: grim darkness, far future, only war. Guns ships and aliens. It comes down to personal taste. I like the open-ended, unique and expansive fluff of WHFB and 40k. With LotR, there are no more Tolkien books, GW can only take it so far, and I get tired of recreating battles. "Oh no the uruk-hai took over Helm's Deep and Aragorn died! What a twist!"

So yeah. It's just a matter of personal taste. I don't have problems with the game or the people who play the game. I really owe GW alot for hooking me with LotR and thus the hobby, WHFB and 40k. I just moved on. And isn't that really the purpose GW had in mind?

DigbyWeapon
03-06-2008, 06:21
Firstly the term 'junk' is highly subjective. I am personaly of the opinion the majority of new stuff being released is excellent, and Im not alone. The new Mordor releases for example are some of the best stuff ive seen in a long time. The new named ringwraiths for example are fantastic, and will provide an excellent varation on playing some of the older scenarios as well. I've seen plenty of what I consider to be 'junk' released for 40K and WFB though.

As to ending up with same armies as evreyone else, anyone who is familar with the LOTR lists will see this is a sweeping generalisation. Besides even if they did would it be a bad thing? historicaly most armies in any period have had a degree of of symetary, its only in WBF and 40K that armies are so vastly different in terms of compistion and tactics.

Finally, how would updating the Rohan and Gondar armies any diffent to the umpeen varieties of space marine that are constantly released and re-released? The 40K and WFB ranges are constantly re-jigged and new versions of old stuff brought out time and time again. The new LotR stuff at least tends to add somthing new to the faction in question.

Your post seems like a cheap points scoring exersise to me. Why even say Fantasy and 40k will rule supreme? Its not like its a competiton, beleive it or not there is room for more than 2 gaming systems!

True, I just dislike lotr.
I didnt think you would get that worked up about it :p

Plastic Rat
03-06-2008, 06:55
True, I just dislike lotr.
I didnt think you would get that worked up about it :p

Key points bolded for the hard of thinking.


After reading this thread, I'm pretty excited to see what can actually be done with the system. Going to try and organize a game this weekend using proxy minis.

As much as I may be less than enthralled by the whole LOTR thing, I sincerely hope GW doesn't drop it or "run out of junk to push". More variety and more options for gamers will never be a bad thing.

New Cult King
03-06-2008, 07:00
Because I'm a heretic and I don't like the setting nor the minis.

Llew
03-06-2008, 14:27
Memorial Day weekend we had our annual Nerdvana festival where some friends and I crash at another friend's house for a weekend of gaming goodness. It was originally begun to have a lot of Warhammer games. This time? One game of Warhammer was played all weekend. And the guys playing it kept looking at our beautiful LotR game and saying, "Man...you guys actually get to fight *in* your cool terrain, not just around it."

Warmachine was much the same.

yabbadabba
03-06-2008, 15:05
Because I'm a heretic and I don't like the setting nor the minis.

That doesn't make you a heretic, just unenlightened :D

heretics bane
03-06-2008, 21:00
..The same thing hasn't stopped Flames of War, which continues to go from strength to strength both in popularity and the quality of their releases.

If GW needs to, there are littlerally years worth of material that they can scrape up from stuff such as the Simarillion, not to mention the forthcoming Hobbit movie that will no doubt be milked for all it is worth.

At the end of that long cycle, they can just re-release the original material for a fresh audience.

But thats what im afraid of, im more concerned with the great books being milked to there last lumpy dribbles(which is kind of already happening with new charaters popping up). though i do think GW should try and advance the storyline in 40k.....abit

game-gremlin
04-06-2008, 14:38
I don't plat LoTR for three reasons.
1) no local player base
2) I have to much invested in other systems
3) I think its one of the most horrible rule systems I've ever seen (yes I have played the game , about 12 times)

Royal Tiger
04-06-2008, 14:55
3) I think its one of the most horrible rule systems I've ever seen (yes I have played the game , about 12 times)
you mean "roll higher than your opponent"..........which by the way is exactly the same as 40k or fantasy

Llew
04-06-2008, 15:42
I would be interested in hearing what makes it "one of the most horrible rules systems" you've ever seen.

EightBall
04-06-2008, 17:37
1) no local player base


That's the other reason I quit LotR and picked up WHFB. The only players I could find within reasonable driving distance was the regular LotR night group at the local GW about 45mins away with good Denver traffic. It was just unreasonable to have my mom drive me every week to play at the time. My FLGS and school had a more established WHFB and 40k base so I picked up those systems.

Royal Tiger
05-06-2008, 11:09
I would be interested in hearing what makes it "one of the most horrible rules systems" you've ever seen.
but that means your asking someone to back up what they said with reasons:eek:

javgoro
05-06-2008, 11:23
Cheap they might be, but (at least IMO) they're not the greatest models GW has ever made by a long way. In fact I'd put them in the same category as the BfSP dwarfs...
Also I don't really want to have a force made up of four different models, each repeated eight times across my army - I get that already with my Grey Knights:p


There's a wide range of characters in 40K and fantasy too. It also annoys me that there are about ten different Gimli models - can anyone say 'run out of ideas'?


I've heard that the rulesets good... but it takes more than rules to get me to play a game.


See also: 40K, Fantasy, Epic etc.

Just my 2 cents...

All of this post is applicable to my own reasons. Plus, there´s one thing to point out. With LotR, I feel that the story is already written, and set in stone, something that doesn´t happen with 40K or fantasy.

Osbad
05-06-2008, 12:47
Plus, there´s one thing to point out. With LotR, I feel that the story is already written, and set in stone, something that doesn´t happen with 40K or fantasy.

I see this time and again, and I always fail to understand it. It's not like your game of 40k or WFB actually makes any dfference to the storyline.

Why isn't it just as acceptable to say "well, if I was the general at the Pelennor Fields, this would have happened" as it is to say "in the grim darkness of the far future my Space Marine army does this..."?

Having a "closed background" surely makes no difference as you are gaming at a point in "time" when events were indeterminate. In effect you are just pretending the closure of the story hasn't happened yet and seeing if your way of doing things would have made a difference. If you need that sort of justification.

Dismissing LotR for this reason is the same as dismissing Napoleonic gaming or WWII gaming for the same reason - and they are MASSIVELY popular genres.

It just doens't make any sort of logical sense to me I'm afraid. Of course, I don't deny that's how you really feel, just it seems a strange point of view to hold.

Now, if GW were to alter their storyline based on the events of your games, I would understand your POV, but apart from very slight tinkering with the EoT and the Light Drizzle of Chaos, this just doesn't happen, and so in their own way 40k/WFB fluff's lack of determination make games in those genres equally as pointless. Sure you can make stuff up in your own head - as fantasy gamers have always over the decades, and there is nothing wrong with that, it is just strange to me how storyline events that "haven't happened yet" according to the point in time you are playing your battles could possibly affect your enjoyment of a game!

Llew
05-06-2008, 12:52
Plus, there´s one thing to point out. With LotR, I feel that the story is already written, and set in stone, something that doesn´t happen with 40K or fantasy.

It doesn't? So you could kill the emperor in your game and it would really affect the game world?

Any game world that is written by someone other than you is locked down. You can only make up stories that happened off the page or "what if" scenarios. That's true with ALL of them.

This may just be because LotR actually has a genuine narrative as opposed to being a bunch of backstory slung together. There's no pivotal point in the GW back stories. So knowing that the One Ring will be destroyed and Sauron with it could feel more final, but it really doesn't change the practice of gaming in the setting.

In other words, feeling that way is an emotional response, but not necessarily one supported by facts.

jibbajabbawocky
05-06-2008, 13:10
I've been browsing the net, and it seems to me that it is decidedly odd that very few people here have picked up on LOTR recently. Why? Here is a checklist of "Why I am suprised that LoTR is so unpopular"

1) The basic troopers are cheap.
If you pay for a Gondor army, you can get 24 minatures for £18. That in my mind is fantastic value for what it is. For similar amounts of
2) The character models are stupidly lovely.
I think that the wide range of characters really adds that customised edge to your armies.
3) The ruleset is the best GW makes.
The ruleset is solid, easy to understand, varied and generally uncomplicated.
4) Stupid amounts of variation.
The game can be played between two people with almost anything popping up on the table. You simply cannot predict what your opponent will bring.

So why don't you play? (Aside from "Nobody else does", which would be defeated if you actually went out and bought 2 small armies and got people to learn to play you.)

I simply can't understand. GW gives you a game that basically makes you look at Warhammer 40k and go "Pheh!" and you just ignore it!

- Huw

Because I don't want to spend money to play a game for which I care very little for the source material. It's the same reason I don't play Warmachine/Hordes. I don't really WANT to play a game that I can't get into, regardless of how cheap it is to get into. Spending 20 bucks on a game I'll never play is the same as throwing it out.
You say the rules are great? Cool, I still don't give a fig about Mordor, or Gondor, or whatever other faction there are. I'd much rather play (and read WHF, since I find the Universe more compelling than LoTR. find Tolkien to be very dry and boring, the same way I view the Warmachine universe. If they reduced 40k to just rolling a bunch of dice, adding them up, and seeing who wins, I'd still buy 40k Merch, since I like the universe and the authors and artists who produce stuff for it.

As you can imagine, I am not GWs (or PPs) core audience.

Osbad
05-06-2008, 14:05
Because I don't want to spend money to play a game for which I care very little for the source material.

Nowthat's a valid point. Difference in taste is fair enough. If I prefer the colour red and you prefer the colour blue... well there's nothing to say about it. Its just comes down to taste.

As it stands I think that bolt guns and power armour are more appealing to many than Elven songs and so forth. Nothing wrong with that - its just down to taste. Its like preferring Puff Daddy over Mozart really... I may look down on it with snobbery, but its just how people are made I guess. And why you get stadiums full of rap music fans, but only a few hundred or so at a classical music concert...

Royal Tiger
05-06-2008, 18:54
Nowthat'sAnd why you get stadiums full of rap music fans, but only a few hundred or so at a classical music concert...
I laughed so hard my spleen fell out, I ALMOST believed that

jibbajabbawocky
05-06-2008, 19:20
And why you get stadiums full of rap music fans, but only a few hundred or so at a classical music concert...

It's also pretty hard to see classical composers live.

Although I heard the pyro at Chopin shows were BITCHIN.

Torg_OR
05-06-2008, 19:31
not sure if its been said... but because tolkien was a hack... he should have worked for disney

and I am not a fan of LOTR - movies were good/decent... I enjoyed them but not enough to want to play another mini game - esp. fantasy setting.

cerealkiller195
05-06-2008, 19:39
i just started the LOTR and i don't think of the story as already written. Sure i can use it as a reference point to some of my own stories i write, but i never view the story line/rules as canon to what I want out of it.

when it comes to 40k how many times can a player see 'yes the future is even more grim and dire...' then the last couple of editions. Future editions will say 'it is at the breaking point' but really there is no advancement to fluff/ideas just a rewording of the same thing. All fluff is a guideline not law. Hell most people say they are 'into the story' of 40k and just power game without trying to make a 'fluffy' list, so why does it matter?

Mazdug
06-06-2008, 15:10
not sure if its been said... but because tolkien was a hack... he should have worked for disney


Tolkien was a hack? On what grounds?
Its one thing to voice an opinion about his works, regarding your own feelings towards them, and whether or not they are something you like, but to accuse him of being a hack is preposterous. The man had an undeniable influence on the fantasy genre, it was his work that in a large part caused the invention of fantasy war gaming and fantasy role-play, by stirring the imaginations of a young generation of people who may have, at the time, gone in any number of directions with their lives. If the once young men who founded Games-Workshop where not desperate to recreate the Battle of Pelanor Fields, they would not have sat down and started devising rules that now allow our massed ranks of unmanageable greenskins to confront in epic battle the weedy pink defenders of Sigmars once great realm. Who besides Tolkien could make this claim, who else is universally sited as the primary influence in the High Fantasy Genre?

During his life Tolkien was a leading scholar in English, and his research and efforts in the study of the English language, it history, and the importance of pieces such as Beowulf, still has influence today. He, and many of the other Inklings, where leaders in their fields, professors of great influence in top universities. Certainly his interest in these fields, and his enormous volume of work in the study of language lead him to come upon many of the ideas that would shape his stories, and there may be an argument that his work is in part derivative of many more famous and classic pieces, but all great works are built on the backs of those that came before them, and to claim that he was a hack for this reason is to accuse all artists in all mediums, save perhaps the earliest cave painters, of being hacks, and so I would suggest said argument lacks real substance or validity.

So tell, me, on what grounds was he hack? Is it because you don't personally appreciate his work, and are incapable of accepting that the opinions of the majority are more relevant than those cooked up in your head? Or is it because you lack anything better to do then troll forums where there is likely to be a strong pro-Tolkien element and make preposterous statements to attempt to raise the ire of the readers (in the hope to begin some argument and thus briefly entertain yourself in a "debate" online)?. If it is the latter, please, let me know, because I'll drop any further discussion and cede the field to you, for there is little point in discussion with Trolls. If on the other hand, you feel that you have a valid argument for his "hack" status, please oblige me with the details.

EightBall
06-06-2008, 18:00
Well said, Mazdug. I can't add anything to your rebuttal that wouldn't strain out the argument. But I will say that I am a solid Tolkien fan even when his writings (especially in the Silmarillion) tend to drag on with detail and back-story.

It is very important for us as civil humans to always back up our argumentative points with reasons. They don't even have to be established facts, they can be simple opinions. I feel people who argue using "bumper sticker" statements or knee-jerk reactions (nobody specific here, just in general) tend to weaken their side and drag the argument into the mud of heated flaming and unproductive personal attacks...just thought I'd send that out there for everyone to take into account as we discuss a somewhat sensitive topic in our hobby. Take the advice into the real world too. ^_^

I could argue that Walt Disney was the hack. In his more popular movies (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, etc.) he just took old fairy tales and animated them with his own style. He didn't seem to recreate them, as Tolkien did with recreating and readapting old mythology (he did so much more than that, though). Disney simply retold the same stories, creating no fairy tale of his own. But alas Walt Disney was a great icon in culture and entertainment, so I don't affirm the argument that I just made. Just saying it's easier to argue that Disney was a hack than that Tolkien was.

Oh, and relevant to the topic, I miss when LotR was reserved to it's own section in the back of WD. Just as WHFB had it's section first, and 40k had its section in the middle. The new WD format where the order changes every month, and things seem to be interspersed thoughout in no significant order is kindof inconvenient. Oh well.

I realised another opinion I have on the game. I think I like LotR more if I look at it as a skirmish game akin to mordheim or warhammer skirmish. It's just right, you have your well-known heroes and characters in thier well-known situations where you fight it out to an unpredictable outcome. Where I start to loathe LotR is when they bring out mega-battles. It's just too much for a skirmish game.

That is all.

jibbajabbawocky
06-06-2008, 18:45
While I don't think Tolkien is a hack, I find him very dry and boring. I think he would have appreciated the Jackson films since they seem to capture the visuals that Tolkien was spending pages trying to describe. Too bad Tolkien never got in touch with Robert E. Howard (who was dead by the time Tolkien was getting into his groove) I think a Tolkien imagined/Howard written epic would have rocked hard on toast.

Huw_Dawson
06-06-2008, 18:54
I think that Tolkein is a very good writer, who wrote a very long book. If you want Tolkein without the immense detail, but some really memorable characters, may I recommend David Edding's Elenium triology?

This is off topic, though.

- Huw

jibbajabbawocky
06-06-2008, 19:02
I think that Tolkein is a very good writer, who wrote a very long book. If you want Tolkein without the immense detail, but some really memorable characters, may I recommend David Edding's Elenium triology?

This is off topic, though.

- Huw

Actually, I'd think that people voicing their dislike for Tolkien to be a good reason why they don't play LotR. :)

Torg_OR
06-06-2008, 20:00
sorry to step on the LOTR/Tolkien fanboy toes - the thread question was about why we don't play LOTR - Mainly because I don't care for the genre and I don't care for Tolkien. I would have to agree with Jibbaaba - I think he is dry and boring... sums it up.

hack may be too strong - (apparently so in mixed company)... but all his works are build on the backs of traditional existing tales at the time... nothing much if anything was new or fresh. He uses traditional themes and tropes that were being used before his time. No ground breaking material was done... he was/is widely popular (similar to rowlings of today)... but not groundbreaking... Its fairy tale work... and it sells. Comparing him to disney... would be easy ...as they both took traditional stories before them... and redressed them in slightly adjusted ways.

maybe not a hack...again sorry for being too strong in my distaste.... again IMHO.

"hack2 • noun 1 a writer producing dull, unoriginal work." <--- as defined by the Oxford American Dictionary.

-- bottom line... I don't wish to play LOTR because I don't care for the subject material or its creator.

-d

Mazdug
06-06-2008, 20:11
I could argue that Walt Disney was the hack. In his more popular movies (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, etc.) he just took old fairy tales and animated them with his own style. He didn't seem to recreate them, as Tolkien did with recreating and readapting old mythology (he did so much more than that, though). Disney simply retold the same stories, creating no fairy tale of his own. But alas Walt Disney was a great icon in culture and entertainment, so I don't affirm the argument that I just made. Just saying it's easier to argue that Disney was a hack than that Tolkien was.


I wouldn't even accuse Walt Disney of being a hack. His original characters (Mickey, Goofy, Donald, Etc...) all did quite well, he dominated the field of animation, and he made an awful lot of children happy (at a great profit to himself). Its undeniable that retelling classic fairy tales was one of his great successes, but who prior to him at done it in so accessible a form as animation? Also, when he retold them, he changed the stories, made them more "child friendly", whether or not that's good or bad is debatable, but its not so simple as him just being a hack regurgitating the work of others. William Shakespeare did quite a bit of work the was based on that which came before him, that doesn't make him a hack, his success alone is testament to that fact. I do note that you are only stating that it is easier to accuse Disney of being a hack though, not that you agree with it, but I am replying because I left out this part of my argument in response to the original poster. Thank you for your comments on the validity of my argument, and on your suggestions about reasonable discussion. I wish more people would think things out and produce full arguments when they post inflammatory remarks, as that it would at least generate interesting discussion, rather then mindless flame wars.

Mazdug
06-06-2008, 20:24
maybe not a hack...again sorry for being too strong in my distaste.... again IMHO.

-- bottom line... I don't wish to play LOTR because I don't care for the subject material or its creator.

-d

Well, that's a pretty reasonable response. I certainly haven't always liked his stuff. I tried to read the silmarillion when I was a teen, and I got bored senseless and gave up. I'm not against critiquing the work, I just get annoyed when people attack artists based on personal preference, rather then the merits or impact of their work. To say that you don't play a game based on a world that you don't like though, that's plenty fair.

EightBall
06-06-2008, 20:48
Yes I will concede that point of argument on how Disney was such a powerful icon. It seems that we expect things to be entirely unique and unheard of to be good. But really, very few of our stories are unique. What makes them good is a retelling of these stories in ways that makes us understand them a different way or see them in a different light. Tolkien and Lewis used heavy amounts of allegory and metaphor in their works to tell the truths about the past. They used modern language to make them more palatable and in a way, that is a rare skill they had that needs to be appreciated. See, this is a small example of the productive, layered discussion I was talking about! Haha.

But yes I purposefully neglected to mention Disney's original characters. It didn't serve that purpose for the argument. But lets not forget to mention Tolkien's original characters, the adapted mythology of the Tolkien world ultimately arrives on the doorstep of Bilbo and Frodo, who are entirely unique (and strangely familiar) characters in themselves. Tolkien's (and subsequently Jackson's) focus was on the characters of the hobbits and the rest fellowship. The War of the Ring and all the surrounding events is more of a backdrop and a setting for the very focused journey of Frodo, Sam, and the Ring. Perhaps the Strategy Battle Game goes about it the wrong way? I've always thought that LotR would make a better RPG or Warband-based game, where fluff, experience, history, and character is developed rather than having blocks of nameless troops fight it out to an unforeseeable end.

The game could be played in a continuous campaign, with larger skirmishes fought to affect the circumstances of the characters in your warband. I think this way would be more true to the feel of the story itself, rather than the game being a downscaled version of the other systems. Has anyone tried to develop rules like this?

SirSnipes
06-06-2008, 20:49
i ahve played the LOTR game since the day it came outnow it does have huge flaws in its troops( like trolls should be ableto knock over and bodyguard rule should only account towards to broken tests and not fear, terror and specters etcetera) BUT I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!1

LuciusAR
08-06-2008, 14:00
Not being interested in the setting is one of the best reasons not to play any game, and theres nothing wrong with that. Its the reason I don't play Warmachine for example. No matter how good the rules are Steampunk just does nothing for me and so I sold my force after a few months as I just wasn't inspired by it.

However lets not go down the root of resorting to insults. Simply saying you don't like Tolkien is fine, calling him a Hack is not only uncalled for but will swiftly take the thread off topic and may lead to closure of the thread.

Osbad
09-06-2008, 08:49
Disliking Tolkien is fine. Calling him a hack is fine. But what does that make those that create sub-creations based on his work? Tolkien utilised Elves, Dwarves, Dragons etc., that were "original creations" of Germanic myth. Warhammer utilised Elves, Dwarves, Dragons etc., that were the secondary creation of Tolkien...

Point one finger at Tolkien and four point back at Warhammer...

In any case, Tolkien never claimed to be doing any thing much storywise other than utilising mythic archetypes. Where his true creativity lay was in the creation of totally original languages and cultures. His stories were to him little more than intriguing setting for the use of these sub-creations. The fact that many also enjoyed them as stories was a source of unlooked for joy to him.

Calling Tolkien a "hack" just demonstrates ignorance and lack of knowledge on the part of the poster.

Ward.
09-06-2008, 13:28
but that means your asking someone to back up what they said with reasons:eek:

Actually, in this case it'd be asking him to back up his reasons with more reasons.

jibbajabbawocky
09-06-2008, 13:35
Calling Tolkien a "hack" just demonstrates ignorance and lack of knowledge on the part of the poster.

Having read some truly bad fantasy novels in my day, I can safely say that Tolkien was no hack. :)

Llew
09-06-2008, 13:49
Actually, in this case it'd be asking him to back up his reasons with more reasons.


Or, more accurately, backing up an assertion with explanation.

I wasn't challenging his reason: he's perfectly welcome to not play LotR because he thinks it's the worst system he's ever seen. (I'd argue that he must never have seen Ral Partha's "Battlesystem", but that's another issue.) That's a valid reason for not playing.

I'm just interested in what makes him hold that belief.