PDA

View Full Version : Transposing WotR on WFB



sandinista
10-04-2009, 16:23
Hey all, I wanted to toss this out there and see some other opinions: after picking up the new LotR War of the Ring rulebook this past weekend, I have to admit I'm fairly smitten with the new game (the first time a LotR product has really captured my imagination). Yet my heart is more firmly fixed to the Warhammer world, at least background wise, and it wasn't long before I began thinking about how a synthesis of WotR dynamics could 'improve' Warhammer. Not that WFB needs improvement, necessarily, but there are things about WotR that really speak to me, both in rules and otherwise.

For one, I like the breakup of the phases in WotR, particularly the split between movement and charging, with shooting in between. In a way it streamlines the whole stand and shoot issue, and offers skilled riders a chance to get off a volley before charging in (dark riders, pistoliers? yes please). And speaking of shooting, archer in WotR seems streamlined as well, and the whole idea of shooting pushing back a unit (as opposed to causing panic) seems a bit more interesting, tactically.

I also like the loose sort of 'rock-paper-scissors' approach to infantry, cav, and monsters: instead of just being quick and beefed up infantry, cavalry in WotR seem to be a more tactical element, strong against (non-pike) infantry, weak against other elements. I also really like the emphasis on charging overall: it seems both appropriate and balanced, and I'm not sure simply striking first is enough benefit for a unit thundering down on another.

Of course, I'm more of a collector/painter than a gamer, and for me the biggest appeal of WotR is aesthetic. I really like the scale of the game, the sheer massiveness of it, and while WFB can be scaled up, it is cumbersome (and expensive, I admit). WotR is designed for those large armies, even in the size of formations , and to me, the larger the force is (while still being usable) the more compelling it is.

Perhaps most important to me, as minor as it may seem, is the WotR movement tray: it is an absolutely better way to display a unit than the cramped shoulder-to-shoulder block of WFB. For one thing, WFB models are more detailed and expressive than LotR models; I think the WotR unit trays would just be a great way to retain the flavor of the individual models (and help those damned orcs rank up). One of the reasons, as a modeler, I'm attracted to 40k is because of the round base and the individuality of a model: I know that marine or nid will stand on its own. In WFB, the unit, crowded together, squished and unnatural, almost becomes a model in itself, with most detail unseen. I think WotR style units would let those gorgeous new Greatswords breath a little, and be soldiers in their own right.

I'm not trying to slag off WFB, but I think GW has really done something cool with LotR (for once) and it's got me excited. Any ideas? Any comments? Any plans for adapting WotR rules to fantasy?

Urgat
10-04-2009, 16:38
Well, can't really say, I don't know the WotR rules, and I'm not buying White dwarf anymore, care to elaborate a bit on how it works? Are statlines the same as in WFB, for instance, things like that? Do the units work the same way, is there ranks, or CR for that matter?

edit: afaik, though, all the (human sized) units have the same bases, which could be a bit unfair to 20mm based units from WFB for a straight conversion. plus things like templates would completly off.

Llew
10-04-2009, 16:51
I know that the guys I play with, all long-time WFB players, have been approaching the idea of adapting all of our WFB armies into a LotR format. We've discussed some basic ideas, but hadn't gotten far with it. Our original impetus was that was wanted to play our games in and on our scenery, not just around it.

With the introduction of WotR, I fully expect us to do some fairly major conversions and army lists so that we can use our thousands of WFB miniatures in a game that flows more quickly and seems to have more emphasis on the battles.

While I think WotR really shines at showing the heroic characters off, I think the core of the system will make for fun and tactical battles already.

For anyone wanting to know more about WotR, there's a quickstart guide on the GW website, plus many, many threads about it in the LotR section of this very forum.

Chaos and Evil
10-04-2009, 16:54
Why would you want to?

WotR is a much less tactically complex game.

W0lf
10-04-2009, 17:01
All i will say about WoTR is that 8th edition magic phase could seriously benefit from a similar system to WoTR magic. The magic is handled VERY well.

sandinista
10-04-2009, 20:09
Why would you want to?

WotR is a much less tactically complex game.

Complexity is fine, in some cases, but there's something to be said for having huge, flowing battles at a decent pace. At any rate, I'm not saying completely replace anything, just that there seem to be certain elements of WotR that could really improve WFB, if the system were tweaked.

As far as the base size/ template issue: why, really, is a chaos marauder on a larger base than a empire soldier? Only to suit the ranking up of models. WotR formation trays eliminate the ranking up issues. As for templates, I hate them: too fiddley. Why not simply switch to a way to randomize hits? D6+3 hits for dragon's breath, is that really so much harder than trying to hold a template whilst peering straight down at it as it balances on saurus spearpoints?

Gaargod
10-04-2009, 20:28
I disagree about the magic.

It works well in this system, but only because wizards are very expensive - 3 or 4 x a normal unit. Against units without epic heroes, its often very dangerous and its effects can be very devastatng (wings of terror, dark fury etc) if used well.
More importantly, there's very little you can do to stop it other than casting a counterspell or having your hero resist it 50% of the time, or hoping to God that very good caster manages to fail his focus test.


Whereas in fantasy its a case of small unit vs wizard hero, who to be fair costs a hero choice. The wizard can get dispelled but he can dispel as well. As he's only a max of lv2, he's gonna have problems casting the really destructive stuff. Magic is complicated, but is balanced with the cost and rules.


Oh, and magic army of doom from Mordor, without being horribly OP:

Sauron
Khamul ringwraith
Tainted ringwraith
Queen Berthier (or whatever she's called, the 100pts lv2 caster)
Druzhag
2 Units of Warg riders with shields.

The 4 casters sit in the wargs for first turn, until Druzhag summons up some new units for them to run to. Magical death, then Sauron hits stuff with his S10, F10, D9, A6 as a monster, and blows it up. Spamming Sunder Spirit + Visions of woe is really harsh too...

Urgat
10-04-2009, 20:32
The base size allows, for instance, more goblins to fit against chaos warriors. With the way WotR does things, you'd pit them one versus one. good luck, goblins!
As for the template, I agree, excepted that... yet another random element, just blah :Ž

Dark14
10-04-2009, 21:08
WOTR is WFB for 8-12 year olds.

Master Stark
10-04-2009, 22:59
Why would you want to?

WotR is a much less tactically complex game.

Absolutely it is.

And yet simultaneously it is much more tactically engaging and challenging.

Isn't it funny how complex rules simply make for bogged down and convoluted game-play?

Llew
11-04-2009, 00:39
I would say that WotR relies much less on special rules. However, it relies far more on making real tactical decisions.

WFB is not a tactical game. It relies mostly upon hoping that one opponent or another can't guess ranges. That's not really a tactical problem.

only joking...
11-04-2009, 00:47
:rolleyes:
Why would you want to?

WotR is a much less tactically complex game.

Thats something of a point of contention, especially if one wishes to play a game using large forces. Just because the rules are simple it dosn't make it a less complex game IMO.

Erethor
11-04-2009, 00:53
WOTR is WFB for 8-12 year olds.

Really? How many games of WOTR have you played so far? Because I'm almost certain that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I find WOTR to be the most fun system to date. Don't get me wrong, me and my 5000pts of Empire have great fun, but so far, WOTR has offered more fun that any game of WFB or 40k has. Granted it hasn't been out for long, but the other games were never so easy to learn yet difficult to master.

The rules certainly are less complex, but they are also less cumbersome. WFB has several archaic rules that do nothing except drag on the game needlessly.

The combats of WOTR are much quicker, more fluid, and easier to remember. If anything, WOTR is an evolution of massed battles that seeks to eliminate a lot of what makes WFB so inaccessable, not just to the younger crowd, but to any gamer. I find the game to be insanely fun, and your statement to be completely ignorant of the subject matter.

only joking...
11-04-2009, 00:59
Really? How many games of WOTR have you played so far? Because I'm almost certain that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I find WOTR to be the most fun system to date. Don't get me wrong, me and my 5000pts of Empire have great fun, but so far, WOTR has offered more fun that any game of WFB or 40k has. Granted it hasn't been out for long, but the other games were never so easy to learn yet difficult to master.

The rules certainly are less complex, but they are also less cumbersome. WFB has several archaic rules that do nothing except drag on the game needlessly.

The combats of WOTR are much quicker, more fluid, and easier to remember. If anything, WOTR is an evolution of massed battles that seeks to eliminate a lot of what makes WFB so inaccessable, not just to the younger crowd, but to any gamer. I find the game to be insanely fun, and your statement to be completely ignorant of the subject matter.

QFT as WoTR seems to take the best elements of the two other core systems, streamline them, thus creating a brilliant game. To say its for kids is just going with the vogue without evidence or justification.

sandinista
11-04-2009, 02:11
I'd say I appreciate the complexity of WFB rules more in theory than in practice: I like that bows and handguns and handbows all have different stats and different affects at different ranges, until it comes time to use them. It's difficult to accept that simplicity is a good thing sometimes.

But sometimes it isn't: I absolutely appreciate the individuality of WFB armies, special rules and all. Anything that adds to character, I'll put up with (cold blooded, eternal hatred, etc.). It's the core principles that, to me, could always stand to be improved.

It's not a matter of one game vs another, but a matter of trying to acknowledge what really works best in a given situation.

Dark14
11-04-2009, 04:20
i played it before it was out actually... worked at GW so i had to learn it all and know more rules i would bet than you.

Jind_Singh
11-04-2009, 06:00
i played it before it was out actually... worked at GW so i had to learn it all and know more rules i would bet than you.

I've been playing WFB for since 2nd ed and I'm totally in love with the game. I love the fact that it's tactically challenging, it's got wonderful diversity, it's an amazing game! I love it so much that 40K never was able to claim me as it's own, WFB all the way.
Yet it's got it's flaws - theres some rules which just slow down the game, and some rules in certain situations are annoying! (eg a lone character is standing 1" behind a friendly unit, 30 strong, yet can be casually picked out by someone on a hill 20" away - like how on earth would you spot him! This is were I'd like to see true line of sight for some situations, makes it more realistic.
I also think that a split movement phase would be amazing - as in War of the Rings - as it adds a new element to the game rather than turn by turn - and I think ever the shooting phase would be good this way.
Though overall the rules are much simpler in War it does mean that you concentrate on the overall flow of the battle formations, which is a neat idea.
As for the gentlemans comment above that he worked for GW and hence knows more about it - and still say it's for youngsters speaks volumes for him! I used to work there too, I've seen the new book and it's a great game system. It's very easy to pick up, so youngsters will be able to pick it up, but at the same time to master the system will take a tactician.
And yeah I know that theres a pure 'hero hammer' elemenet to War, but it's a system whose fluff is built around these heroes of legend - so what do you expect!
And sorry, just because someones pre-read the rules and ran some demos doesn't allow for a full understanding as NO ONE has even played proper games!
We tried out our 1st game on a proper game table and it's pretty damn entertaining! It's not WFB, but then again it's not meant to be. But it would be great to see them take some of the new rules and apply them to our beloved WFB to make it run quicker.

Staurikosaurus
11-04-2009, 07:47
I would say that WotR relies much less on special rules. However, it relies far more on making real tactical decisions.

WFB is not a tactical game. It relies mostly upon hoping that one opponent or another can't guess ranges. That's not really a tactical problem.

If you've played WotR or LotR you'd know the following FACT.

He who rolls the most 6s wins. It doesn't matter how well you build your list, how much you out manouvre your opponent. If he/she rolls more 6s than you, you lose - all of your "tactical decisions" won't mean jack.

Worst
System
Ever.

Urgat
11-04-2009, 07:59
To be fair, isn't that like that in Warhammer too? Pretty obvious anyway, the moment you use dice to deal with results, it's obviously the one with more luck that wins.
The other day my brother managed to charge his pegs into my squig hoppers. He didn't kill a single one, and I killed and overran his unit. That summed up the whole battle (rubber lance FTW). No matter what tactics I would have used, I'd have won. So judging a system superior or inferior to warhammer based on the number of 6's needed to win, is pretty unconvincing.

Staurikosaurus
11-04-2009, 08:00
except that you can win combats despite failing every roll.

VerifiablySane
11-04-2009, 08:06
If you've played WotR or LotR you'd know the following FACT.

He who rolls the most 6s wins. It doesn't matter how well you build your list, how much you out manouvre your opponent. If he/she rolls more 6s than you, you lose - all of your "tactical decisions" won't mean jack.

Worst
System
Ever.

If you've played [insert wargame here] you'd know the following FACT.

He who rolls the most 6s wins. It doesn't matter how well you build your list, how much you out manouvre(sic) your opponent. If he/she rolls more 6s than you, you lose - all of your "tactical decisions" won't mean jack.

Worst
System
Ever.

Staurikosaurus
11-04-2009, 08:08
Congratulations on your ability to completely ignore my last post. Kudos. :rolleyes:

VerifiablySane
11-04-2009, 08:14
To be fair, you hadn't posted that last post while I was reading the others and responding to yours.

The point still stands - I've played plenty of games of Gothic against my friend's Marine fleet where it came down to being a game of 6's. So what? I had to rely on tactics to give myself the best chance of getting as many dice rolls as possible, while denying them to him.

Avatar of the Eldar
11-04-2009, 16:40
except that you can win combats despite failing every roll.

And that's a good thing? Fact: WFB (and 40K for that matter) is an over-engineered clutter of special rules and ever escalating power dynamics.

I'm one of those that has played WFB almost exclusively for the last eight years. But what I and others here find so refreshing about WotR is that it's a delightfully clean, straightforward set of rules. By comparison, WFB is clunky and, at times, byzantine.

I disagree with the poster with the hypothetical "hero-hammer" assertion about WotR. Granted, I only have a few games under my belt (but in the room full of blind men, the one-eyed man is king) but what I like about the Epic Heroes is that if you take too many of them, you won't have enough troops to a) hold objectives and b) protect your heroes from getting swamped.

I'm in the camp with the originator of this thread in that I too have wished that WotR could reshape WFB for the better. Not sure that will or even should happen. After all, as evidenced by some opinions on this board, the WFB rules, with all of its accretions and encumberances, appeals to many gamers.

To each his own. I play both, but right now I'm finding WotR MUCH more compelling and enjoyable. Time will tell.

O&G'sRule
11-04-2009, 17:34
you can't put WOTR rules into fantasy, there'd be no point playing both

Sarah S
11-04-2009, 18:02
I just finished posting this in the new Lord of the Rings forum here:

I think it's probably the most tactical of GWs games.
There are rock/paper/scissors moments, but the fact of the matter is that ANY unit can be the rock to ANY other unit's scissors.

Reinholt got it right when he said "the lethality index in this game is very high." That's the best way to describe it that I can think of. The only way this game is like Apocalypse is that dozens of models will be murdered every single turn. How they are murdered will make all the difference to who wins and who loses.

Being able to measure at any time and the freedom granted by phased "I-GO-U-GO" system means that if you get into a sticky situation, it is due as much to your own error as to your opponent's good play.

The moderate level of resource allocation in the form of might points, and even positioning of heroes is something that I think will quickly draw a line between experienced and non-experienced players. I haven't quite gotten the hang of it myself, but I have a suspicion that there is gold in those hills. Just the use of Might points for Heroic Move is one of the most incredible things I have seen in a game. A good Heroic Move might be the difference between victory or defeat. On the other hand, keeping that might point to modify a single D6 roll later in the game could also turn the entire course of the game. I am actually in awe of the decisions a player is forced to make in this game.

The casualty allocation rules will be another goldmine for experienced players, letting them take advantage of mistakes made by their opponent to deal with Epic Heroes that would otherwise be a thorn in your side.

Heck, even the simple priority roll at the start of the turn is gut-wrenching.
Sometimes it is a huge advantage to have the first move phase if you plan on setting the tone of the turn and dictate how your opponent responds.
Sometimes it is a huge advantage to have the second move phase so you can see what your opponent is doing, and react accordingly.

Sometimes it is a huge advantage to have the first charge phase so you can make your charges before your opponent, tying his units down and getting your bonus attacks.
Sometimes it is a huge advantage to have the second charge phase so you can make counter-charges and really make your opponent pay for committing his units first.

I think a skilled player will be able to make the most of the advantages presented by the turn system, while a weaker player will attribute their sufferings to "BAWW I lost priority because of a stupid die roll and lost the game."

There's a smart way to perform every single action in every single phase. Equally, there is a stupid way to do so. Because the game is so damn dangerous, and because so many models are killed by rolling so many dice, it may appear that it's the dice doing it.

In my opinion, so many dice are rolled, and so many casualties are taken that the game nearly approaches statistical averages on almost every single action. The game seems to me to be a lot less dependant on dice rolls than WFB or 40k, simply because players roll so many. When you roll 40 dice to attack, chances are pretty damn high that you will get between 16 and 24 results of 4+. The standard deviation is much smaller relative to the sample size. I haven't had a single combat yet, where it didn't go almost exactly how I expected it to. A few times a formation did a little better than I expected, a few times it did a little worse.

Being able to measure at any time means you can have a pretty good idea of what fights you are going to get into. The way fights are resolved in the game should give you a pretty good idea of how each fight is going to go. This lets you plan for combat in a pretty unique way.

The few exceptions in the game where rolling relatively few dice can be determinative of victory are Heroic Duels and Panic Tests. But this brings us back to might points. Since these results are singe dice rolls, expenditure of might at the right time, to use abilities, alter stats, change the roll, etc., will often mean the difference between life and death.

Hell, even the victory point and terrain system used in the different standard scenarios, in my opinion, require tactical foresight to be competitive at them all. Infantry can capture objectives with priority over cav, and monsters can't capture them at all? Play a game from the long table edges? Play a game where units move on from random table edges over the course of the game? To account for all of that will not only require flexibility from the army list (which is also great, because due to their disparate nature I think the pick-up game scenarios require at least nominally balanced lists), but from the player as well.

So to sum up my thoughts on the matter, WotR seems to me like it is incredibly fertile ground for tactical play, and in my opinion, victory will almost always revolve around player skill.

I can certainly understand how some people might consider the game to be "rock/paper/scissors lol dicefest!" on a quick glance, simply because of the number of dice rolled and the speed at which casualties are sustained. I do think that there's a lot more going on behind the scenes which lead to those casualties, and there's always a way that it could have been dealt with.

Urgat
11-04-2009, 18:03
except that you can win combats despite failing every roll.

That's certainly very rare though, and then it's only because you've thrown something with high CR against something which had none.

W0lf
11-04-2009, 19:30
A goblin army where the player only rolls 1's is more dangerous then one that only rolls 6's.

Go figure.

Urgat
11-04-2009, 19:38
I'm not sure what you mean by that there 0o

selone
11-04-2009, 19:58
I might see if I can pick up a rulebook cheap by the sounds of it :)

W0lf
11-04-2009, 20:20
I'm not sure what you mean by that there 0o

Goblins rely on static combat res to kill things, bait/flee/flank manovers etc.

If you only rolled 6'S youd fail every break, fear, terror, panic check and lose very easily.

If you only rolls 1's you'd always pass rally (from flee reaction), psy + break checks (so effectivily unbreakable). Meanwhile static combat res would function as usual.

A abstract example but it shows a pt.

EDIT: then again you woul fail every animosity roll.. goddamn. Ok skaven as the example then ^^

Urgat
11-04-2009, 22:04
EDIT: then again you woul fail every animosity roll.. goddamn. Ok skaven as the example then ^^
That's what i was about to say lol, you wouldn't ever do anything if you only rolled 1". You'd also have little problems with everything that ahs random movement (fanatics -well, they'd die on second turn, double 1-, snot pump wagons, not going to mention hoppers since they failed their animosity test :p), and nets would always fall back on you. Don't try magic either, and forget about dispelling. Nah, really, if you only roll 6, it's better, chances are you won't have to take so many ld tests anyway. It's just bad for terror (fear is no problem, you hit on 6 xD).
Anyway, sillyness aside, as far as ld is concerned, it's true for every army, if you roll 6, it's bad, while it's good for about everything else, it's not just goblin related :p

Staurikosaurus
12-04-2009, 06:34
@ Sarah S

That is a well thought out post and I'm glad you posted it and it shows that you feel strongly about the game. However, I have 2 things to suggest in response:

How exactly can you out manoeuvre your opponent when you're all allowed to pre-measure all distances? There is no room for error or bluffing your opponent in terms of range, movement etc in a system like that except in errors of movement (ie> intending to move your unit 6" and accidentally only going 5.5")

I would also like to point out to you, that in fantasy models can come off the board quite quickly as well. I have watched 6 games of WotR played, and played the game 1 time. I found it utterly disappointing and as lacking in strategy and tactics as LotR. He who rolls the most 6s wins irregardless.

@ Urgat


**Originally Posted by Staurikosaurus
except that you can win combats despite failing every roll.**

That's certainly very rare though, and then it's only because you've thrown something with high CR against something which had none.

Actually, your unit need not have high combat rez, just the right combination of static combat rez to negate any resultant wounds caused by the enemy AND negate their static bonuses. It can be done and is done regularly in most games, usually via flank or rear charges.

Sarah S
12-04-2009, 07:01
How exactly can you out manoeuvre your opponent when you're all allowed to pre-measure all distances? There is no room for error or bluffing your opponent in terms of range, movement etc in a system like that except in errors of movement (ie> intending to move your unit 6" and accidentally only going 5.5")

The same way you outmanoeuvre an opponent in chess. You just have to put some forethought into it. You have to have multiple threats on multiple vectors so that your opponent is unable to effectively counter them all.

You can't bluff him in terms of range, but you can bluff him in terms of your intention. Misdirection is very valuable. Also, the driven back rule, application of might, magic and certain unit abilities can provide for both unexpected movement and unexpected charges.

I find the units to be very mobile, and I think a lot of players are playing too aggressively. Just because you can charge him on turn 1 doesn't mean you should. Often times it's better to bide your time a little and set up position.


He who rolls the most 6s wins irregardless.

But it's how to get the most 6's that requires the tactics. In most of the determinative combats in the games I have played, 30+ dice were rolling per side. This is approaching the point where the actual rolled results will begin to approximate the expected results. Certainly none of the combats I have seen went wildly and unexpectedly in the favour of a player because of bad dice rolling. I've seen a few extra casualties here and there, but nothing like WFB has a tendency to deliver against my poor Skaven.

Getting a flank or rear attack against an enemy in WotR is just as (if not more) decisive for a combat as a flank or rear engagement in WFB. With the flank or rear attack, you're cutting the opponent's number of attacks down by huge amounts, and that modifier applies to all companies in the formation. So a single unit on the enemy flank is a massive swing.

You have expressed that you found it difficult or impossible to outmanoeuvre your opponent (or at least your question regarding pre-measuring would indicate that), and maybe it's this that lead to your impression? Formations smashing into each other head on all game certainly won't be engaging.

I am curious to know what points value the games you saw and participated in were at. I think that War of the Ring is best played at 2000+ points and small games means there are few formations on the board, which are usually small, and this can really hurt infantry.

Of course you should take all of this with a grain of salt because the game is so new and I've only had a time for a handful of games, but I really do feel there is at least as much meat on the bones for WotR as there is for WFB.

Staurikosaurus
12-04-2009, 07:13
The WotR games I played and watched ranged from 1500 to 2k.

For half of them terrain was not an issue as the players used elves and uruk-hai. In addition, the use of Might points further made complex manoeuvres next to useless when employed as a salvo of Might would negate them.


The same way you outmanoeuvre an opponent in chess. You just have to put some forethought into it. You have to have multiple threats on multiple vectors so that your opponent is unable to effectively counter them all.

The problem is your opponent can measure them all and as you increase the size of the game this becomes less of an option as you've more formations on the board, restricting your movement - thus defeating the expressed purpose of WotR when compared to LotR.


You have expressed that you found it difficult or impossible to outmanoeuvre your opponent (or at least your question regarding pre-measuring would indicate that), and maybe it's this that lead to your impression? Formations smashing into each other head on all game certainly won't be engaging

No, I have no problem out-manoevring my opponent. The problem I have with the game is that it amounts to nothing. I have REAPEATEDLY seen units bounce off of the flanks of enemy units, simply because the opponent rolled more 6s.

In general, I think that WotR is shiny and new. People will try it out for awhile, realize how incredibly limited it is and drop it - exactly like the vast majority of people who tried LotR did. I don't say this because I'm "anti new game". I've tried many games and play many games over many years (only a few of them GW), some minature hobby games and some not. My own feelings and experience have shown me that LotR and WotR are extremely lacking in depth and complexity. If you are looking for a lighter regimental fantasy combat game then by all means . . . However, if you're looking for depth and complexity I'd recommend people skip WotR.

VerifiablySane
12-04-2009, 08:53
No, I have no problem out-manoevring my opponent. The problem I have with the game is that it amounts to nothing. I have REAPEATEDLY seen units bounce off of the flanks of enemy units, simply because the opponent rolled more 6s.

I really fail to see your continued fascination with 6's - the game of WotR I won yesterday was notable for it's lack of 6's on my part (37 rolls between 6's at one point, it was getting so ridiculous we kept track), but it didn't matter. Misdirecting my opponent and giving him no option but to be charged in the flank meant that his shields meant nothing and my knights were butchering his troops on 4's, and elsewehere my warriors were killing on 5's and 3's (berserkers). There IS some small point to the "6's" argument for SBG, but I don't see it for WotR more than ANY other wargame I've played (and it's also quite a lot).
The argument about it being a new game also doesn't really mean much - it's as new to the naysayers as to the truly excited, so for anyone to make a truly indepth point one way or the other is premature, I feel.

Urgat
12-04-2009, 08:55
Actually, your unit need not have high combat rez, just the right combination of static combat rez to negate any resultant wounds caused by the enemy AND negate their static bonuses. It can be done and is done regularly in most games, usually via flank or rear charges.

Yeah I meant static CR, sorry. Anyway that's still a rare occurence, how many times have I flank charged something, missed all my attacks and lost the fight?
Btw, I don't think it's being tactically superior to win because you can guess ranges better, and the guy missed his charge by half a inch.
Aside from that, I don't know enough of the game to argue, so I'll just stop there.

Master Stark
12-04-2009, 15:30
How exactly can you out manoeuvre your opponent when you're all allowed to pre-measure all distances?

:eyebrows:

The same way you do in any other game. By moving your pieces in such a way that the opponent is trapped.


I have watched 6 games of WotR played, and played the game 1 time. I found it utterly disappointing and as lacking in strategy and tactics as LotR. He who rolls the most 6s wins irregardless.

Honestly, from the way you've been posting I find it hard to believe you've actually played the SBG.


However, if you're looking for depth and complexity I'd recommend people skip WotR.

Now, you can't just flippantly make remarks like that without expecting people to get a touch curious.

What precisely do you mean by depth and complexity? And why do you believe WHFB has it where WotR does not?

Pokpoko
12-04-2009, 15:42
You know, i'v been thinking something similiar like OP, except more primitive-how easy would it be to proxy some WHB armies for WOtR stuff. I generally dislike GW rules, as they'r boring, over-complicated(not complex,just complicated),and generally sad.But a friend showed me WotR,and it seems like a nice halfway-decent massed 28mm fantasy game,that isn't as artificial and silly as WHB(seriously, i'd be hard pressed to find more nonsense movement rules than WHB's-movement should be way of getting from point A to B,with as little fuss as possible,not long,complex process of counting milimeters and forming weaving lines on the field),so i'm actually contemplating giving GW some of my cash for the first time since 2006.

Avatar of the Eldar
12-04-2009, 17:55
In general, I think that WotR is shiny and new.

True, that.

People will try it out for awhile, realize how incredibly limited it is and drop it - exactly like the vast majority of people who tried LotR did.

Time will tell, won't it?

I don't say this because I'm "anti new game". I've tried many games and play many games over many years (only a few of them GW), some minature hobby games and some not.

We share this profile.

My own feelings and experience have shown me that LotR and WotR are extremely lacking in depth and complexity.

There's a significant difference between "complex" and "complicated" and that folks confuse the two. My experience is that WFB is complicated - i.e. cluttered and encumbered by years of asynchronous and uneven revisions, updates, nerfs and buffs. (Perhaps influenced by mixed motivations.)

If you are looking for a lighter regimental fantasy combat game then by all means . . . However, if you're looking for depth and complexity I'd recommend people skip WotR.

My way of looking at this is "If you're looking for a regimental fantasy combat game supported by clean and elegant rules, I'd recommend you skip WFB and try WotR." And this from a dedicated (and admittedly weary) WFB player.

Besides Tolkein's works are the ultimate source that spawned the genre that results, in a fairly obvious straight line, to Warhammer. I'd bet there are many of us for whom this is what we really wanted for a long time and WFB with it's cartoonish take on orcs, dwarves, goblins, elves etc is just a proxy. Not to denigrate all the creativity that's gone into it at all. It's just the scale and style of the models is a little OTT and the fluff can be "heroic" on steroids. That's fine, but feels "cartoonish" next to Tolkein's works, which is my first love and the one that brought me to the fantasy gaming dance.

Well that was more than I intended to write. I should go do something productive.

Avatar of the Eldar
12-04-2009, 17:58
(seriously, i'd be hard pressed to find more nonsense movement rules than WHB's-movement should be way of getting from point A to B,with as little fuss as possible,not long,complex process of counting milimeters and forming weaving lines on the field),


That's well put!

Staurikosaurus
12-04-2009, 18:54
:rolleyes:Here's an idea. Instead of arguing my point against 6 ppl who are intent upon trying to discredit my OPINIONS as stated in post previous. How about we start this thread up again in a year and see how many of you are still playing the best thing sinced sliced bread? ;)

As an aside

My experience is that WFB is complicated - i.e. cluttered and encumbered by years of asynchronous and uneven revisions, updates, nerfs and buffs

Funny how any game with an extended run experiences this. Take a look at LotR.


WFB with it's cartoonish take on orcs, dwarves, goblins, elves etc

I suggest you get a bit more up to date with your background reading.


Honestly, from the way you've been posting I find it hard to believe you've actually played the SBG

You can't just flippantly make remarks like that and expect me not to respond. With how the majority of you in the pro WotR camp are I can't expect any of you to have actually read the rulebook or played a game.


isn't as artificial and silly as WHB(seriously, i'd be hard pressed to find more nonsense movement rules than WHB's-movement should be way of getting from point A to B,with as little fuss as possible,not long,complex process of counting milimeters and forming weaving lines on the field

Why bother having terrain on the board at all then eh? Or for that matter cavalry - or anything that moves differently than a standard move distance. Those things get in the way of smashing models together. :rolleyes:

Pokpoko
12-04-2009, 19:26
Why bother having terrain on the board at all then eh? Or for that matter cavalry - or anything that moves differently than a standard move distance. Those things get in the way of smashing models together.
Okay, this is what you think i wrote. What i actually wrote is that the purpose of movement rules, is to deliver unit X from point A to B on the board. if it can be done by simply measuring the distance, taking into account the terrain you move through, and then placing the unit in the desired place, then adding things like wheling and so on, which lead to the SAME result of placing unit X in point B, is simply adding rules for the sake of rules-they have no effect on the shooting or close combat that follows the move,since you only count the final position for it.

All the effects that WHB players are so proud of, and are often claimed to make the game superior to the more plebeian 40k and LotR, can be recreated just as easily without the baroque layer of special rules that permeat WHB's system.Flanking should be effective not because it lets you "negate CR" or somesuch,but because you'v managed to bring a full frontage to enemys vunerable flank, which wil result in more,easier kills. If you need to add more incentives then you're doing something wrong in the first place. And to be honest, it's WHB that has problem with cavalry-before adding special rules by the dozens, a cavlaryman is simply a fast infantryman, which he obviously shouldn't be.

Avatar of the Eldar
12-04-2009, 20:46
:rolleyes:Here's an idea. Instead of arguing my point against 6 ppl who are intent upon trying to discredit my OPINIONS as stated in post previous. How about we start this thread up again in a year and see how many of you are still playing the best thing sinced sliced bread? ;)

As an aside


Funny how any game with an extended run experiences this. Take a look at LotR.



Yeah, I agree that it feels like a gang up. :( That's not my intention and I see this is just bandying our opinions. No hostility from me, cuz.

And yes, time will tell. In fact, my one fear for this game is not that it will prove too shallow, but rather it will succumb to the WAAC mentality that can distort the other two systems. Against that, my hope is that the general affection for Tolkein's work will act as a contravening force against such shenanigans. Certainly it provides a strong reference point to negotiate the shape of games played.

Now I'm going to light a votive candle and pray GW doesn't organize tournaments for WotR. (Given GW is getting out of the tourney business for a while.)

With enmity towards none, and goodwill towards all. (Except the WAACers) :p

Mouldsta
12-04-2009, 22:51
I play all the GW game systems (from warmaster to war of the ring, and some non GW stuff to boot), and have been playing WoTR ever since the staff first got their hands on the rulebook, so I'd say I probably have a decent grasp on the rules, and have a decent number of games under my belt with various armies at various size games.

I like WoTR, and do feel that it gives a decent ammount of tactical flexibility. I'm yet to find one killer combo unit or tactic that is default win, although only time will tell if one emerges.
The rules are streamlined, but actually offer a lot of depth. Just because it's not written down as a rule doesn't mean it's not an option - there is no option to flee for example, but a well timed heroic move can pull a "bait" unit out of harm's reach, leaving the enemy open to be charged.

Regarding the idea that whoever rolls the most 6's wins, the point is to swing the odds in your favour - cav rear charging infantry (equalish stats) would have something in the region of 30 dice against the infanry, while only receiving 9 in return (needing 2 to kill each cav).
If it was the other way around, with the infantry rear charging the cav, the infantry would have in the region of 30 attacks, while the cav would only have 3!

Clearly he who out plays his opponent is at an advantage.

Now obviously you could completely fluff all your rolls while your opponent gets 3 6's with his 3 dice meaning you lose, but that's the element of risk.

Fantasy has the opposite problem - you can make units that other units simply can't beat regardless of what gets rolled (hence the deathstar problem). You can be the best tactitician in the world, but 2 dark riders can NEVER beat a fully ranked unit, regardless of what angle they charge in on. You can also get penalised for outplaying your opponent; If I charge a unit of chaos warriors with some cold one knights I'll do alright. If I've manouvered a unit of harpies behind the CW's and charge in the rear with them at the same time I'll lose the combat, because they're easy CR.
This can lead to the brilliant "tactic" of simply making a huge unit and waiting for your opponent to bounce off it.

The main problem so far with WoTR is the same as LoTR - there's loads of tactical subtlety there for those that look, but it gets promoted as "run as fast as you can straight at them, look you get lots of dice!" or some stupid example like Boromir vs a goblin (the fantasy equivalent would be a chaos lord on a dragon vs a gnoblar), with the brilliant description being something like "if Boromir gets a 6 he wins!" (technically true). If fantasy was described as "if the gnoblar gets anything except a 6 he loses!" (also technically true) then everyone would think fantasy sucked balls too.
You then get someone pick up the words "you just need a 6" and assume that that's all you do, since they've usually never played it, or at least never played it against a competent opponent who actually likes it, and just announce that it's obviously for kids. Others then just jump on the bandwagon, and assume it's rubbish.

Hell I was the same, I thought that LoTR was for kids and rubbish, and all the "examples" people showed me for why it was rubbish just backed that up. It was only when I actually played a proper game against a compentent opponent that I realised that none of the people who had "proved" it was rubbish had the faintest idea.

The equivalent would be if a chav came up to you and said "warhammer's rubbish, you just push models at each other and roll some dice" then you would know he was talking out of his ass and didn't have a clue.

Now anyone who's actually played it propely and genuinely doesn't like it, then fair enough, at least you have an informed opinion.

Urgat
12-04-2009, 23:56
2 dark riders can NEVER beat a fully ranked unit, regardless of what angle they charge in on.

Well, that's just as well. It'd be pretty ridiculous if they could.

Rioghan Murchadha
13-04-2009, 00:07
You know, i'v been thinking something similiar like OP, except more primitive-how easy would it be to proxy some WHB armies for WOtR stuff. I generally dislike GW rules, as they'r boring, over-complicated(not complex,just complicated),and generally sad.But a friend showed me WotR,and it seems like a nice halfway-decent massed 28mm fantasy game,that isn't as artificial and silly as WHB(seriously, i'd be hard pressed to find more nonsense movement rules than WHB's-movement should be way of getting from point A to B,with as little fuss as possible,not long,complex process of counting milimeters and forming weaving lines on the field),so i'm actually contemplating giving GW some of my cash for the first time since 2006.

Do it, you won't regret it. (Well you might given how much they charge for command blisters and such ;)) WotR is honestly the first GW product that I've seen in ages that I have pretty much no complaints about.

As far as being outmaneuvered, it's actually easier to outmaneuver someone in WotR than WFB, as you can stagger heroic charges to tie things up, or hit them before they can hit you etc. Where in WFB, you can see everything that's going to unfold and not do anything about it due to the strict UgoIgo turn.

It also avoids what I consider one of the major pitfalls of current edition WFB, and that is distinct lack of casualties. Every WFB army that comes out now seems to have more and more ways of mitigating casualties, to the point that combat is often decided by 1 or 2 kills. In WotR you can end up removing models by the handfull. Sure this is a personal preference, but at least I feel like my guys are doing something other than shuffling around outnumbering people.

In the game I played last night, I lost all but one priority roll, but was able, through judicious application of might, and the fact that sometimes going second can be an advantage, to win the game convincingly nonetheless. (Also didn't roll a hell of a lot of 6's, but the need for that can also be mitigated.)

Mouldsta
13-04-2009, 00:24
Well, that's just as well. It'd be pretty ridiculous if they could.

The previous point though claimed that fantasy rewards tactical manouvering regardless of fluffing dice rolls.

In the above example, tactical manouvering is completely unrewarded, regardless of what's rolled - you simply have no chance.

Now obviously 2 dark riders vs a fully ranked unit should have a very low chance, something like;
Front: 0.05% chance of winning
Flank: 1% chance of winning
Rear: 4% chance of winning

In WHFB currently it's;
Front: 0% chance of winning
Flank: 0% chance of winning
Rear: 0% chance of winning

This therefore doesn't reward outplaying your opponent, it rewards out-writting your opponent's list.

selone
13-04-2009, 01:18
You've killed 3 dark riders. A unit of 5 could win combat no matter how unlikely

Master Stark
13-04-2009, 01:35
Funny how any game with an extended run experiences this. Take a look at LotR.

:rolleyes:

Please, lets.

LotR SBG and WotR are so much more elegant than thier two ugly step sisters.


You can't just flippantly make remarks like that and expect me not to respond. With how the majority of you in the pro WotR camp are I can't expect any of you to have actually read the rulebook or played a game.

Your comments indicate a total lack of understanding of the intricacies involved in playing an actual game of LotR SBG, and apparently WotR. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

Urgat
13-04-2009, 02:14
The previous point though claimed that fantasy rewards tactical manouvering regardless of fluffing dice rolls.

In the above example, tactical manouvering is completely unrewarded, regardless of what's rolled - you simply have no chance.

Now obviously 2 dark riders vs a fully ranked unit should have a very low chance, something like;
Front: 0.05% chance of winning
Flank: 1% chance of winning
Rear: 4% chance of winning

In WHFB currently it's;
Front: 0% chance of winning
Flank: 0% chance of winning
Rear: 0% chance of winning

This therefore doesn't reward outplaying your opponent, it rewards out-writting your opponent's list.

I don't agree, no matter what, two lone riders should not win against a full unit, ever. Besides, you can't buy just two riders. As Selone pointed out, the opponent managed to kill three, therefore giving himeslef the chance to survive the charge of the original 5 riders.

Staurikosaurus
13-04-2009, 08:20
LotR SBG and WotR are so much more elegant than thier two ugly step sisters.


Says the poster with the space marine avatar ;)

How so? Elaborate. (I like how you insist on adding SBG after LotR, note that WFB doesn't need such a disclaimer as it's obvious that is a strategy game ;)) BTW, I play Rivendell Elves for LotR. AKA 6s, I win thanks to their high fight values. I chose to play them to illustrate the gross error central to the game to everyone I play. At the end of the game I've yet to meet someone who hasn't gotten the point.



Your comments indicate a total lack of understanding of the intricacies involved in playing an actual game of LotR SBG, and apparently WotR. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

How so? Your comments fail to address the points I raise and instead attempt to discredit me. Just calling it the way I see it.

@Avatar of the Eldar

Cheers mate, talk to you in a few to discuss how WotR is doing; and yes, intense pain to the nether-regions of WAAC'ers.

Master Stark
13-04-2009, 13:02
Says the poster with the space marine avatar ;)

Sometimes you just want some beer-and-pretzel gaming. And Marines are just totally badass.


How so? Elaborate.

Movement:

In 40K everything moves 6". And then can move another D6". And maybe assault 6". Except when moving through terrain, when you roll 2D6 and take the highest. And of course, there are the ones where you always roll 2D6 and pick the highest. And then there is a whole host of rules to remember for vehicles as well, and the interaction of vehicles and infantry (not to mention beasts, flyers, skimmers, monstrous creatures, walkers, etc)

In WHFB, well, there is a ten page dissertation on movement. All the clunkiness of measuring wheels, reforms, marching, half moves, quarter moves, turns, charges, failed charges, redirected charges, over-runs, fleeing, rallying, stupidity, frenzy, flyers and not to mention the totally random things like squig hoppers or spawns.

Compared to what in WotR or SBG?

Let's take Combat:

40K and Fantasy require rolls to hit, rolls to wound, armour saves, then (depending on the game) ward saves, invulnerable saves, armour save modifiers, adding up ranks, standards, outnumbering, flanks, rears, high ground, magic item modifiers, comparing kill scores, totalling up the modifiers, comparing the results, determine the winners, take a LD test, and apply the reults.

The process in LotR entails less steps, and the natural results of the combat (one side losing, casualties being taken, losers falling back, etc) and it's modifiers are represented as a by-product of the system itself, rather than extra rules tacked on.


How so? Your comments fail to address the points I raise and instead attempt to discredit me. Just calling it the way I see it.

Mate, you didn't make any points. Your argument seems to be "If you roll lots of 6's, then you win!" which is patently ridiculous. I mean, what are you actually saying here? That you shouldn't be confident of winning a fight if you stack the odds in your favour? Or that stacking the odds shouldn't make a difference to the result? I mean, rolling well will always influence the result of a dice-based game. The key is how we, as players, stack the odds in our favour through choices during the game.

Are you saying that the choices made during games of LotR are less important because the dice have too much influence? And if so, why?

Staurikosaurus
14-04-2009, 07:27
Movement:

In 40K everything moves 6". And then can move another D6". And maybe assault 6". Except when moving through terrain, when you roll 2D6 and take the highest. And of course, there are the ones where you always roll 2D6 and pick the highest. And then there is a whole host of rules to remember for vehicles as well, and the interaction of vehicles and infantry (not to mention beasts, flyers, skimmers, monstrous creatures, walkers, etc)


Except that vehicles and jump/jet troops move differently, along with bikes and different vehicle types.



In WHFB, well, there is a ten page dissertation on movement. All the clunkiness of measuring wheels, reforms, marching, half moves, quarter moves, turns, charges, failed charges, redirected charges, over-runs, fleeing, rallying, stupidity, frenzy, flyers and not to mention the totally random things like squig hoppers or spawns.


Which could easily be re-worded as "WFB has a complexity of movement not present in both LotR and WotR. In addition, players are not allowed to pre-measure distances resulting in more complex and interesting movement interactions between friendly and enemy units during a game."



Let's take Combat:

40K and Fantasy require rolls to hit, rolls to wound, armour saves, then (depending on the game) ward saves, invulnerable saves, armour save modifiers, adding up ranks, standards, outnumbering, flanks, rears, high ground, magic item modifiers, comparing kill scores, totalling up the modifiers, comparing the results, determine the winners, take a LD test, and apply the reults.

The process in LotR entails less steps, and the natural results of the combat (one side losing, casualties being taken, losers falling back, etc) and it's modifiers are represented as a by-product of the system itself, rather than extra rules tacked on.


Or the process in LotR can be summed up as follows:

I have 30 moria goblins in base contact with your elven captain. Your elf rolls a 6. You win and roll to wound 2 goblins. ALL 30 GOBLINS ARE PUSHED BACK AN INCH. Yes, what a complex and dynamic combat system based entirely on being able to out-think and out-play your opponent. :rolleyes:



Mate, you didn't make any points. Your argument seems to be "If you roll lots of 6's, then you win!" which is patently ridiculous. . . .
Are you saying that the choices made during games of LotR are less important because the dice have too much influence? And if so, why?

Yes, see my paragraph above.

As I've said before. If you enjoy an incredibly simple game system that is decided entirely by die rolls then play L/WotR. By all means, enjoy yourself. I tend to enjoy complexity in my games beyond how many pips are facing up at me from the tabletop.

We'll see in a year how well WotR is doing. ;)

Crovax20
14-04-2009, 08:09
Up to now there is one thing I hate about WoTR. The shooting phase, you shouldn't be allowed to shoot at a unit that has been in combat the previous combat turn.

Its silly, the units would still be fighting in my opinion, but the loosers would be getting pressed back a bit. Right now its shoot! charge, combat, shoot!, charge, combat. Its just plain silly in my opinion.

I at the doubled vrasku's talons into the flank of a unit that was fighting. Called heroic shoot and decimated it with crossbow fire basically.

Master Stark
14-04-2009, 08:44
WFB has a complexity of movement not present in both LotR and WotR. In addition, players are not allowed to pre-measure distances resulting in more complex and interesting movement interactions between friendly and enemy units during a game.

You have mistaken complication for complexity.

Moving units in WHFB is complicated. Moving units in LotR is complex


I have 30 moria goblins in base contact with your elven captain. Your elf rolls a 6. You win and roll to wound 2 goblins. ALL 30 GOBLINS ARE PUSHED BACK AN INCH. Yes, what a complex and dynamic combat system based entirely on being able to out-think and out-play your opponent. :rolleyes:

:eyebrows:

So, your argument is that Elves roll too many 6's?

No model is going to roll 6's every turn. And you have the option to modify dice rolls with banners and might, giving you more control over the dice results than you have in WHFB. And of course the system is going to punish you when you throw low level chaff like goblins into the teeth of an elven captain.

And with 30 Goblins, you can probably afford to re-fight that combat 20 times, eventually wearing the captain down.

Staurikosaurus
14-04-2009, 10:01
You have mistaken complication for complexity.

Moving units in WHFB is complicated. Moving units in LotR is complex


You have mistaken the meaning of the post. Read it again. I said COMPLEXITY OF MOVEMENT INTERACTION. The meaning is easily understood if you read two of my sentences posted together. COMPLEX, as in a number of intricate and interrelated parts. While a synonym for Complex is complicated, a system that is complex, need not be complicated. In WFB, the movement phase is arguably the most important phase of the game. Not so in L/WotR. For a more detailed analysis, see any of a number of threads on Warseer. I'll put the previous statement here for you to read again.


"WFB has a complexity of movement not present in both LotR and WotR. In addition, players are not allowed to pre-measure distances resulting in more complex and interesting movement interactions between friendly and enemy units during a game."

Neither system has COMPLICATED movement. You use a tape measure and move the unit the chosen distance. Not complicated at all, at least for most people. Complexity of unit movement and unit interaction. Your inability to understand this distinction leads me to believe that you've never played warhammer fantasy against a competent and experienced player, or in fact at all.



So, your argument is that Elves roll too many 6's?

No model is going to roll 6's every turn. And you have the option to modify dice rolls with banners and might, giving you more control over the dice results than you have in WHFB. And of course the system is going to punish you when you throw low level chaff like goblins into the teeth of an elven captain.

And with 30 Goblins, you can probably afford to re-fight that combat 20 times, eventually wearing the captain down.

Ahh, ye olde ignore the context argument. Well played. :rolleyes:

You're right, no model is going to roll 6s every turn. But the examples you give subsequent to that statement make that entirely possible and much more likely don't they? As well, IIRC there are Dwarven heroes with lower F than an Elven captain. As for the bit about wearing the Captain down, not likely as you'll have to be making courage tests at some point won't you. Unless of course you're suggesting you'd stick around if you rolled high enough. Hmm, sounds like more 6s to me. ;) . We can go the other way as well if you like, how about Gil-galad vs Sauron. Or a Balrog vs 50 Numenorians. Same thing happens, he who rolls the most 6s wins.

At the risk of sounding redundant, we'll see in a year how many people are still playing WotR.

Master Stark
14-04-2009, 10:25
You have mistaken the meaning of the post

No, I didn't.

Movement in WHFB is complicated without being complex. There are dozens of rules to remember about how to move your units and how they interact with each other, and next to NONE of those rules add tactical complexity.

It's a case of "I want to put this unit here, in order to achieve this particular goal". To do that in WHFB, I need to consider a dozen factors and implement as many rules.

In LotR or WotR, you simply move your models.

All the complexity in the LotR games is taken away from navigating your way through reams of archaic and convoluted rules, and placed squarely on what you choose to do with your models.


But the examples you give subsequent to that statement make that entirely possible and much more likely don't they?

So which is it, the dice are too random and take away a players control of the game, or the players are able to influence the rolls to make the result of the game more dependant on skill than luck?


Same thing happens, he who rolls the most 6s wins.

Of course it is. And the best player will ensure he rolls the most 6's.

So to summarise, the best player wins.

Pokpoko
14-04-2009, 10:27
You have mistaken the meaning of the post. Read it again. I said COMPLEXITY OF MOVEMENT INTERACTION. The meaning is easily understood if you read two of my sentences posted together. COMPLEX, as in a number of intricate and interrelated parts...
And you know what? Most of those special rules,and "intricate parts" don't add anything to the total result. In the end,it's nearly always the final point on the map that counts,not HOW the model got there. you need to get the unit to a certain point where it is positioned well to deliver that charge. If my rules can get the unit there in three steps, while your rules force me to go through five pages of detailed rules to get EXACTLY the same result(that is unit being positioned to flank charge),which rules are better if the end result is the same?

Staurikosaurus
14-04-2009, 12:51
the best player will ensure he rolls the most 6's.

So to summarise, the best player wins.

Well, that by far is the best summary of LotR and WotR I've seen to date.

Master Stark
14-04-2009, 13:02
the best player wins.Well, that by far is the best summary of LotR and WotR I've seen to date.

I suppose thats something we can agree on, then.

Staurikosaurus
14-04-2009, 13:10
I suppose thats something we can agree on, then.

And the best player will ensure he rolls the most 6's

Master Stark
14-04-2009, 13:25
And the best player will ensure he rolls the most 6's

Yes.

I fail to see how this can be construed as a negative.

dtjunkie19
16-04-2009, 09:37
You have mistaken the meaning of the post. Read it again. I said COMPLEXITY OF MOVEMENT INTERACTION. The meaning is easily understood if you read two of my sentences posted together. COMPLEX, as in a number of intricate and interrelated parts. While a synonym for Complex is complicated, a system that is complex, need not be complicated. In WFB, the movement phase is arguably the most important phase of the game. Not so in L/WotR. For a more detailed analysis, see any of a number of threads on Warseer. I'll put the previous statement here for you to read again.

In WotR, movement is arguably the most important phase of the game. Yes so. I for one argue it, and I know many others at my store concur. The movement phase decides who can charge what, who can shoot what, etc. By outmaneuvering your opponent you can deny them charges, hit them in the flanks and rear, deny shooting lanes, trap units, bait and flee, etc. I would gladly play 100 points or more down against my opponent if I was given the choice to decide priority every turn, and I would feel confident that I would win barring unfavorable dice rolls. Both systems are intricate in the movement phase. WFB does this through a myriad of detailed movement rules, WotR does this partially from the priority turn system and partially from the way combat, shooting and the rest of the game are handled. A good word is subtlety. In WFB movement is explicitly complex. WotR it is more implicit. Movement rules themselves are quite straightforward, but the effect utilizing them correctly has in the game gives it complexity.




Neither system has COMPLICATED movement. You use a tape measure and move the unit the chosen distance. Not complicated at all, at least for most people. Complexity of unit movement and unit interaction. Your inability to understand this distinction leads me to believe that you've never played warhammer fantasy against a competent and experienced player, or in fact at all.


I would argue that fantasy movement rules are rather complicated. There are many things to remember as well as many exceptions to them. Is it prohibitively complicated? Well I can't answer that one myself. It does seem the two chief arguments of disgruntled WFB players are 1. A cluttered and needlessly complicated rules system 2. Large army imbalance.



Ahh, ye olde ignore the context argument. Well played. :rolleyes:

You're right, no model is going to roll 6s every turn. But the examples you give subsequent to that statement make that entirely possible and much more likely don't they? As well, IIRC there are Dwarven heroes with lower F than an Elven captain. As for the bit about wearing the Captain down, not likely as you'll have to be making courage tests at some point won't you. Unless of course you're suggesting you'd stick around if you rolled high enough. Hmm, sounds like more 6s to me. ;) . We can go the other way as well if you like, how about Gil-galad vs Sauron. Or a Balrog vs 50 Numenorians. Same thing happens, he who rolls the most 6s wins.

At the risk of sounding redundant, we'll see in a year how many people are still playing WotR.

Your examples here don't make any sense for WotR, perhaps for LotR but aside from that I fail to see your logic. You say the most 6's will win.

A balrog vs. 50 Black Numenorean's. The BN's need 6's/4's to hit, the balrog needs only 3's. So Your argument of who rolls the most 6's wins is void. Then there is the point disparity, since the Balrog is over double the point value of the BN formation. So yes it should win. However you dont judge the tactical value of a game by comparing 1v1 combats in a vacuum. The tactical aspect comes from things like: What if I cast spells on the balrog, wounding it or otherwise incapacitating it for several turns therefore migating the need for the combat to take place at all. Or what if I charged it with multiple units? Or what if I let it chew through a unit of throwaway troops in a large formation so that the Balrog is essentially stuck fighting the same unit over and over again or being forced to maneuver out of the way?

That is tactical complexity. WotR has it. I'm not going to compare which one has more, however to trivialize WotR as a game for the tactically inept would be foolish. And arguably, it has equal or greater complexity than WFB, the game to all accounts seems to be balanced...at least much more so than the current edition of fantasy. There are no Deathstars in WotR. Just armies of men (and elves and dwarves and orcs and hobbits and well you get the point)... what a fantasy-based game should be.

Staurikosaurus
16-04-2009, 13:14
In WotR, movement is arguably the most important phase of the game.

That's funny, I imagined it was the priority roll. You know, the roll at the start of each turn where you see who rolls highest. Seems by the rest of your argument following that statement that you concur.



In WFB movement is explicitly complex. WotR it is more implicit. Movement rules themselves are quite straightforward, but the effect utilizing them correctly has in the game gives it complexity.

You do realize that by definition, something cannot be implicit and quite straightforward simultaneously? In Warhammer, EVERY ASPECT OF MOVEMENT is detailed to allow no confusion. Yes it can be complex to some, but it means that there is no margin of error or misinterpretation.




Your examples here don't make any sense for WotR, perhaps for LotR but aside from that I fail to see your logic. You say the most 6's will win.

If you followed by example, you'd know that I was talking LotR and therefore my example quite readily applies. In fact, the person with the higher fight need only roll a single 6 and what the opponent rolls doesn't matter in the slightest.

That is tactical complexity. WotR has it. I'm not going to compare which one has more, however to trivialize WotR as a game for the tactically inept would be foolish. And arguably, it has equal or greater complexity than WFB, the game to all accounts seems to be balanced...at least much more so than the current edition of fantasy. There are no Deathstars in WotR.

That's funny, I've been hearing a lot about dwarven and sauron lead ones and others mentioned on the LotR portion of this site; not to mention undercosted, overpowered characters and epic formations

Just armies of men (and elves and dwarves and orcs and hobbits and well you get the point)... what a fantasy-based game should be.

WFB has men and elves and dwarves and orcs and hobbits *called halflings btw, and others.

As I've said many times, we'll see how this game is doing in a year. Supporters of WotR are calling the game a masterpiece. Quite a feat for something that hasn't even been out a month and that arguably, many of those supporting it have a lack of experience with.

As an aside, I'd appreciate it if you could give me an example of a completely deterministic combat from WotR? They do not exist in LotR, and as a result is incredibly misnamed as strategy battle game. It is not. LotR is a tactical battle game but completely lacking in strategy. If you can show me a deterministic combat from WotR I will concede that the game has merit, otherwise I'm afraid I can't be convinced.


to trivialize WotR as a game for the tactically inept would be foolish.
If it fails to bring itself out of the gaming mire that is LotR it wouldn't be

Urgat
16-04-2009, 16:29
In Warhammer, EVERY ASPECT OF MOVEMENT is detailed to allow no confusion. Yes it can be complex to some, but it means that there is no margin of error or misinterpretation.

I just want to point out that this is horribly wrong. the amount of things the rules don't cover is astonishing, that's what leads to so many arguments. And that's certainly not confined to the movement rules, too.

In the end, though, you (general you) do realise that you're arguing over tastes? One likes it when the rules are complex, and the other likes it when the rules are simple. I wonder how one can seriously argue that one option is superior to the other, really.

Pokpoko
16-04-2009, 18:50
You do realize that by definition, something cannot be implicit and quite straightforward simultaneously? In Warhammer, EVERY ASPECT OF MOVEMENT is detailed to allow no confusion. Yes it can be complex to some, but it means that there is no margin of error or misinterpretation.

That is hilarious. I'v played quite a few wargames,complex and simple,and WHB is the only one where i'v seen(and experienced myself) people having problems with movement phase,both in ruling and actual execution on the table.Every other game seems to manage this quite seamlessly,only WHB bogs down when something not quite 'as described" is found on the tabletop.

Master Stark
16-04-2009, 22:17
That's funny, I imagined it was the priority roll.

Then you imagined wrong. Priority is no more important than who gets the first turn in WHFB. It just changes the way you play for the turn.


In Warhammer, EVERY ASPECT OF MOVEMENT is detailed to allow no confusion.

Needless complexity for no tactical gain.


As I've said many times, we'll see how this game is doing in a year.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, well, the SBG is still out-selling WHFB, so lets see how it's going in a year then.


As an aside, I'd appreciate it if you could give me an example of a completely deterministic combat from WotR? They do not exist in LotR, and as a result is incredibly misnamed as strategy battle game. It is not. LotR is a tactical battle game but completely lacking in strategy.

Please define what you mean by deterministic, tactical, and strategy as they relate to table-top gaming, and explain why you believe deterministic combats are a pre-requisite of strategy games, but not tactical ones.


If it fails to bring itself out of the gaming mire that is LotR it wouldn't be

Please explain.

Erethor
16-04-2009, 22:42
As I've said many times, we'll see how this game is doing in a year. Supporters of WotR are calling the game a masterpiece. Quite a feat for something that hasn't even been out a month and that arguably, many of those supporting it have a lack of experience with.

Boy you sure are against the new WOTR game. Quite a feat for something that hasn't even been out a month and that arguably, many of those against it have a lack of experience with.

Besides, you keep giving examples of the Strategy battle game, and your examples are wrong or taken out of context of the game. You also keep mentioning 6's. In the SBG, yes, you roll a 6 and have higher fight, you win the combat. Wouldn't it make sense that an Orc fighting at his best (rolls a 6) vs and Elf fighting at his best (rolls a 6) that the elf would win? He's a better fighter, so it seems pretty natural to me.

In WOTR, combat is essentially broken down to 'wounding' rolls as in WFB. So in WOTR, yes, rolling 6's to kill does help out immensely, just as it does in WFB.

Rioghan Murchadha
16-04-2009, 23:58
That is hilarious. I'v played quite a few wargames,complex and simple,and WHB is the only one where i'v seen(and experienced myself) people having problems with movement phase,both in ruling and actual execution on the table.Every other game seems to manage this quite seamlessly,only WHB bogs down when something not quite 'as described" is found on the tabletop.

For example, see turning (not wheeling) any unit that isn't on square bases, like cavalry for example. They actually had to add this to the errata because despite the movement section being so 'complex and describing everything in such great detail' it never dealt with pivoting something like a cavalry unit and the ridiculousness that would result.

Whitehorn
17-04-2009, 00:04
The base size allows, for instance, more goblins to fit against chaos warriors. With the way WotR does things, you'd pit them one versus one. good luck, goblins!

This shows you haven't actually read the rules, as you wouldn't have made such an ignorant comment.

rodmillard
17-04-2009, 00:19
In the end, though, you (general you) do realise that you're arguing over tastes? One likes it when the rules are complex, and the other likes it when the rules are simple. I wonder how one can seriously argue that one option is superior to the other, really.

*applause*

I love WFB, but there are certain things about it that bug the hell out of me: movement being one of them. Everything that bugs me about Warhammer is fixed in WOTR.

I love LOTR (the SBG anyway, I have yet to play a game of WOTR, although I've watched a few) but there are certain things about it that bug the hell out of me: force selection being one of them. Everything that bugs me in LOTR is fixed in WFB 7th ed.

Depending on what mood I'm in, how high I want my fantasy (if any), what kind of army I want to play, and what balance I want between rules complexity and tactical thinking I will play either WFB, LOTR, or Warmaster Ancients on any given day.

To get back to the original point, I think WFB 8th could really benefit from a streamlined movement system as in WOTR, and might benefit from elements of the WOTR magic system (something needs to be done, but I'm not sure that this is it, but that's an argument for another thread). I also believe that the SBG, and to a lesser extent WOTR, could benefit from elements of the Warhammer force selection system: multiple levels of character, with limited numbers based on the PV of the game being played would be a good start, and one that I think many groups will house rule.

As to how well WOTR will be doing in a years time, bear in mind that the LOTR range already outsells WFB nationwide, and GW have just released a rule set that requires players to buy multiple box sets to field a viable army. The fact that you can now use your LOTR minis for two very different systems was a stroke of marketing genius - particularly in the current economic climate, where players may balk at the initial outlay needed for a new game system. I think it will do remarkably well, and WFB sales will suffer as a result.

Staurikosaurus
17-04-2009, 06:29
*applause*

As to how well WOTR will be doing in a years time, bear in mind that the LOTR range already outsells WFB nationwide, and GW have just released a rule set that requires players to buy multiple box sets to field a viable army. The fact that you can now use your LOTR minis for two very different systems was a stroke of marketing genius - particularly in the current economic climate, where players may balk at the initial outlay needed for a new game system. I think it will do remarkably well, and WFB sales will suffer as a result.

Apparently you haven't read this

http://investor.games-workshop.com/latest_results/Results2008/downloads/GW_year_end_08.pdf

LotR = fail. WotR is an attempt by GW to salvage some success from that massive failure. And to quote the GW chairman from that document


"We forgot that we are a company which pursues profit and likes paying surplus cash to its owners."

See you in a year.

@ Master Stark
I'm sure you can figure out the meaning to the complicated words I used, give it a shot.

Master Stark
17-04-2009, 07:02
Apparently you haven't read this

http://investor.games-workshop.com/latest_results/Results2008/downloads/GW_year_end_08.pdf

"Not only was the product much more successful than I ever dreamed it would be (thank you Rick Priestley for a great game design), it has given us a valuable third product line to support Warhammer
and Warhammer 40,000."

Apparently, neither have you...

As for your last post:

Deterministic is the adjective form of Determinism:

de⋅ter⋅min⋅ism
[di-tur-muh-niz-uhm]

–noun
1. the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws.
2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.

Now, of course one could make the case that all dice rolls adhere to the principles of determinism, and are thus deterministic, and that, in fact, all of life is deterministic!

But I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you use this word in relation to a wargame.

tac⋅ti⋅cal
[tak-ti-kuhl]

–adjective
1. of or pertaining to tactics, esp. military or naval tactics.
2. characterized by skillful tactics or adroit maneuvering or procedure: tactical movements.
3. of or pertaining to a maneuver or plan of action designed as an expedient toward gaining a desired end or temporary advantage.
4. expedient; calculated.
5. prudent; politic.

So, a tactical wargame is one characterized by the use of skillful tactics?

strat⋅e⋅gy
[strat-i-jee]

–noun, plural -gies.
1. Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
2. the use or an instance of using this science or art.
3. skillful use of a stratagem: The salesperson's strategy was to seem always to agree with the customer.
4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.

3 and 4 seem perfectly applicable to all wargames.

Since the way you were using your complicated words doesn't make any sense, I humbly request that you please try and explain what you are on about. Maybe use smaller words this time.

Staurikosaurus
17-04-2009, 07:06
Noun Singular

context (plural contexts)

1. the text in which a word or passage appears and which helps ascertain its meaning
2. the surroundings, circumstances, environment, background or settings which determine, specify, or clarify the meaning of an event


As well, I suggest you read further in the document I linked.

From the document, the VERY NEXT SENTENCE AFTER WHAT YOU QUOTED
"Lord of the Rings product sales have declined faster than we anticipated after the unsustainable levels of the last two years, but we still see them contributing to our sales and expect them to do so far into the future."

I'm not sure if you're deliberatly obstinate or just stupid.

Master Stark
17-04-2009, 07:28
No amount of context is going to make your clumsy use of language make sense.

What is a deterministic combat?

Why is the presence of such combats a pre-requisite for a strategy game?

And why does the lack of them make a game tactical?


"Lord of the Rings product sales have declined faster than we anticipated after the
unsustainable levels of the last two years, but we still see them contributing to our sales and expect them to do so far
into the future."

And yet it still makes up 20% - 30% of their over-all sales.

LotR =/= fail.

Urgat
17-04-2009, 08:11
This shows you haven't actually read the rules, as you wouldn't have made such an ignorant comment.

Heh? Ok, fit 10 goblins against 10 chaos warriors, see if all the chaos warriors are in contact. In case you haven't read my post well enough, and for you to save face, i was obviously talking about Warhammer ton counter the fact that base size had no impact on combat or whatever, I don't really remember, but never mind.

Staurikosaurus
17-04-2009, 08:16
Deterministic combat. A combat wherein the outcome is known before blows are struck. Taken from determinism, that is the philosophy that causality is determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurances. So, a deterministic combat is one in which the dice, or random factor will have no input capable of changing the outcome owing to previous occurance. Find me one in LotR. Oh wait, it doesn't exist. Pursuant to the previous statement, find me one in WotR.

Without deterministic factors in a game, you are leaving the result purely to chance. While you can alter the projected statistical outcome of the game via list design (for all parties involved), without deterministic combat mechanics you are essentially playing a fancy game of snakes and ladders.

Additionally, tactics are the means used to gain an objective. Strategy is the result of multiple tactical engagements on an army level. LotR is a skirmish game and by definition cannot be a strategy game.


And yet it still makes up 20% - 30% of their over-all sales

Proof?

kdh88
17-04-2009, 08:35
Without deterministic factors in a game, you are leaving the result purely to chance. While you can alter the projected statistical outcome of the game via list design (for all parties involved), without deterministic combat mechanics you are essentially playing a fancy game of snakes and ladders.


No. You can maniulate statistics of success/failure in actual gameplay, the exact same way you can in every other game that involves a mixture of chance and skill. See also: Poker, Blackjack, Risk, Flames of War, Axis and Allies, Advanced Squad Leader (the computer version of which is actually used for tactical training by the military), Real Life...

Staurikosaurus
17-04-2009, 08:48
No. You can maniulate statistics of success/failure in actual gameplay, the exact same way you can in every other game that involves a mixture of chance and skill.

As I said above, give me an example.

Whitehorn
17-04-2009, 09:00
or whatever, I don't really remember, but never mind.

If you can't remember, why bother to reply?

I guess your response is a little less derogatory than throwing dictionary definitions at me.

Ixquic
17-04-2009, 13:24
WotR looks neat and all but the models are still ugly and expensive so I'm going to pass. There was a lot of hype amongst the people I know before it came out with new lists being written and all that but now the buzz has totally faded. LotR really needed the movies to maintain interest and I just don't think there are enough fanboys still into it to care about a more expensive version of Warmaster. No one played that back when it came out so I don't really see it being that much more popular now that you have to pay $1000 for a Dol Amroth army.

Urgat
17-04-2009, 15:35
If you can't remember, why bother to reply?

I guess your response is a little less derogatory than throwing dictionary definitions at me.

Mine is certainly less rude than acuing someone of being ignorent while not even understanding the original post. I'm sorry but replying to that was not worth looking for the excat sentence, since I knew the context already. Now go on, you amuse me.

Spider-pope
17-04-2009, 17:22
Noun Singular

context (plural contexts)
*Snip*
I'm not sure if you're deliberatly obstinate or just stupid.

Considering you are stressing context so much, its quite funny that you completely ignored the actual purpose of the thread you are posting in when you helped it degenerate into "my toys are better than yours".

To actually post on the topic of this thread, i havent tried to convert WFB over to the WOTR system, mostly because i like that each of the core systems plays differently. Sometimes a change is as good as a rest, and its nice to take a break from one game system and play another.

Avatar of the Eldar
17-04-2009, 17:53
WotR looks neat and all but the models are still ugly and expensive so I'm going to pass. There was a lot of hype amongst the people I know before it came out with new lists being written and all that but now the buzz has totally faded. LotR really needed the movies to maintain interest and I just don't think there are enough fanboys still into it to care about a more expensive version of Warmaster. No one played that back when it came out so I don't really see it being that much more popular now that you have to pay $1000 for a Dol Amroth army.

Yeah, maybe. In my sphere, it's gone the other way. Not much interest when there was buzz elsewhere and now WFB & 40K players are coming around one by one.

Funny how tastes differ. While I wouldn't say WFB models are ugly (Gods know I've collected enough of them.) but I have always seen the LotR models as better proportioned and more elegant. (Though the Perrys must have been medicated when sculpting those plastic wood elves. The faces are terrible.).

I suspect that Warmaster never took off because 15mm generally doesn't capture the hobbyist imagination - not mine at least. So, bigger scale Warmaster is a good thing in my book.

Expensive metal models in a "massed battles" game is indeed painful (at the moment) but a Dol Amroth army is an extreme example, no? They're a supplementary unit, and there weren't that many of them in the story to begin with.

More plastics could become more available if the game takes off. For the moment I like that it curbs the gamer impulse to overindulge with the elite units.

I think it's too early to say much but I understand and share the hope that the cleaner WotR game mechanics (esp. movement) could influence future editions of WFB for the better. For now, I'm good with both.

Staurikosaurus
17-04-2009, 19:20
Considering you are stressing context so much, its quite funny that you completely ignored the actual purpose of the thread you are posting in when you helped it degenerate into "my toys are better than yours".

To actually post on the topic of this thread, i havent tried to convert WFB over to the WOTR system, mostly because i like that each of the core systems plays differently. Sometimes a change is as good as a rest, and its nice to take a break from one game system and play another.

If you actually bothered to go back in the thread you'd know that I did post regarding the topic at hand. Subsequent posts were in response to my post. I guess that requires reading though. :rolleyes:

Master Stark
17-04-2009, 23:00
without deterministic combat mechanics you are essentially playing a fancy game of snakes and ladders.

I agree with your assertion, but not your conclusion.

Any time the dice are rolled, the outcome is unknown. This part I agree with.

The vast majority of wargames (WHFB included) use dice rolling as part of the way they determine results. They generally use different methods of 'tipping the odds' to allow players to make choices that should favour them.

Now, the assertion that the LotR games leave players with little to no meaningful choices because they must rely on dice rolls to determine the outcomes of individual combats is incorrect, just as it would be if you inserted Warmachine, Flames of War, Confrontation, Epic or Bloodbowl.

This is for two reasons:

1 - The volume of dice rolled. The more dice you roll, the closer the result will be to the average (or mean, or whatever). And in both LotR and WotR you roll lots of dice in every engagement. One could make a strong case that WHFB is more dependant on luck due to the inability to modify roles, limited ability to re-roll, and (usually) smaller volume of dice rolled. A handful of critical bad rolls in WHFB can lose you the game.

2 -The ability to modify your rolls. Using might, banners, hornblowers etc allows you to mitigate the vagaries of luck to an extent, and this 'resource management' aspect of the LotR games adds another strategic layer to the game.


Additionally, tactics are the means used to gain an objective.

It seems to me that the difference is merely about scale. Tactical choices are the smaller decisions about where and when to spend might, whether or not to charge this turn or next, whether or not to go first or second this turn, etc.


Strategy is the result of multiple tactical engagements on an army level.

Whereas strategic choices are more along the lines of 'play defensively in the early part of the game, and hit home hard in the end game' or 'send the cavalry down the right flank while holding the left with infantry'


LotR is a skirmish game and by definition cannot be a strategy game.

It's all about scale. In a LotR game you might have to decide what to do with 50 'units' each turn. In WHFB it might be 12, or maybe 20 in a horde army. So which game has a higher volume of 'tactical' choices to make?