PDA

View Full Version : LoTR Warhammer - more popular?



Hero adamite
23-11-2009, 03:41
A red shirt recently was saying how LoTR warhammer in general is becoming more popular, do you agree? I was just curious.

TheSanityAssassin
23-11-2009, 05:22
War of the Ring has boosted the popularity a bit, and lots of kids still play, but there isn't, and I doubt ever will be the kind of broad community support that there is for Warhammer or 40k

lorelorn
23-11-2009, 07:33
Please don't call it Lord of the Rings Warhammer.

Warhammer is Lord of the Rings Warhammer.

More importantly, Warhammer is not a synonym for 'fantasy tabletop wargame'. It's just one of the crowd, and far from the best.

To your question - presumably the redshirt would know. GW rarely break down their sales by game type, and I haven't seen such a breakdown since 2004. Last I heard in these parts LotR minis made up 10% of local sales for GW Oz. At its height it outsold Warhammer.

jaws900
23-11-2009, 08:22
as much i would love to say that WOTR is more popular it isn't. WOTR is not only way better but sicne i was a LOTR player from the start i could play it nice a quick however the number of modals needed is way more than Fantasy and also Fantasy is jsut more...soildified in the minds of people. However saying thsi i have noitced fewer Fantasy players around and more WOTR players (Tho still no new SBG players :( )

Nuada
23-11-2009, 10:21
The problem with both SBG and WotR is that people are reluctant to start collecting/painting figures for a whole new game. This has a knock on effect, if a few people are reluctant then their friends will also stick with the system they're currently playing (either 40k or WHFB) Otherwise they'd have hardly any opponents. So even if SBG/WotR is a better game, most people will stick with 40k and WHFB

SBG did sell very well (much better than predicted) that system paid for all the machines that make all the new plastics.

Baggers
23-11-2009, 10:32
I agree with Nuada. Only 5 of my wargaming buddies have a LOTR army for either system. The rest won't touch it despite it being a great game. Which is a shame really. Warhammer is a lot more popular and 40k even more so. Its the way it and most likely the way it will always will be.

Edonil
23-11-2009, 14:57
Honestly- this holds true in our area. I've seen three pickup games of fantasy since WOTR came out, but I've seen a good couple dozen of WOTR played. We don't have a lot of new people coming into it, but we have six regulars on Saturdays, and more guys on other days who are going to be showing up for our 1500 point tournament we're doing. A big part of the problem with getting new people is the money- the rest of our folks are either:

A) Waiting for unequivocal proof that we're not dropping this game.
B) Waiting for the time when they have the money to play.
C) Have no interest whatsoever because they're 40k purists.

We've been waiting to start regular tournaments, which is really our sign that 'this is here to stay' until an FAQ came out, but, as we all know, that's wishful thinking for the near future. So, in the meantime, we'll be working our own out as a group, and going from there. I think next year we'll look into doing an escalation league for the game, this is something we did for 40k and it worked brilliantly for getting some new people in, and getting other people starting new armies. I honestly think, done properly, that WOTR would be an excellent escalation league/map campaign system.

smaul
23-11-2009, 18:42
We started with none in my area and now have 3 and we havnet even played at any local stores yet, just word of mouth so I think WOTR will catch on around here.

wilsongrahams
23-11-2009, 19:37
WotR doesn't interest me at all, but SBG has always been enjoyable to me, just not in a tournament setting because certain forces will never stand a chance - Numenor versus Uruks for example.

I have found that Warhammer is a game for the general, whereas LOTR SBG is a game for the wannabe hero and the best skirmish system that has ever been designed. Might/Will/Fate are the best abilities for any character in any game - 40k and Warhammer should have it!

Xelee
23-11-2009, 20:38
To offer an alternative perspective: Crazy though it may seem, there are more games out there than GW.

At our club, WOTR is generally not played by the Warhammer (either flavour) crowd, which as a group tends to ebb and flow a bit and is younger. Many own it, but haven't really got into it. LOTR has traditionally been the juniors game at our competitions and WOTR was a 1500 pt event at the last one, for the first time.

Over half the WOTR comp players here (the half with no LOTR background) have come from our historicals group and it's a supplement to FOG and FOW. This group is growing, now that there is some confidence of getting adult opponents. Sometimes you just want a lighter game on your gaming night. We aren't talking huge numbers, just regulars, who will play week in and week out.

SirSnipes
23-11-2009, 21:46
my group HATES wotr

Avatar of the Eldar
23-11-2009, 22:19
As much as I love it, WotR hasn't grabbed in my (sizeable) gaming store (yet).

Almost to a man, the WFB players view it with disinterest or mockery. They're hard core tourney WFB tourney players and are just so deeply invested in that system.

Interestingly, most of the players with WotR armies are 40K players. I assume this is because a) they're interested in a ranked unit/fantasy themed game and b) the WFB crowd that they co-exist with is just too intimidating. Only a couple have ventured across the 40K-WFB chasm.

My belief is that WotR needs a champion to stir the pot and keep stirring until folks get comfortable with it. Otherwise it's just too easy for them to default to the system they know the best - 40K.

I've been too busy with work and family, but I just finished paingting my 2000 pt Gondor army and my Mordor/Fallen Realms forces are well under way.

I plan to show up with both and offer to walk folks through practice games. Letting them win if at all possible. :p

HsojVvad
24-11-2009, 01:00
my group HATES wotr

How can you hate something you havn't tired?

Emeraldw
24-11-2009, 01:00
No one at my store plays it and I doubt anyone will for awhile, which is a shame as it looks like a great deal of fun and the models are gorgeous.

Only reason I haven't gotten into WoTR is due to lack of popularity and ability to influence my local group. I will get a box of Galadrhim elves sometime, even if I don't do the game. Just too pretty.

smaul
24-11-2009, 21:40
So Far Im 4-0 on those have showed it to, liked it, one cant afford it right now but is willing to play against me when he has time, and the other 3 are building.

So far for us, those who have actually played a game have really enjoyed it.

Steve

Pacorko
24-11-2009, 22:16
Hmmm... First things first: It's not LotR warhammer. It's War of the Ring, the system is very similar, yes. It's made by the same company, yes... It's just not its official name... or "feel" for that matter.

Second: Compared to what?

As pointed out by many here, it still tails a lot behind WHFB which in turn is quite a lot less popular than World of Warcraft or DnD.

So, if you meant to ask if the system is on the rise I'd say yes, in a few places. Not in many more. Personally, I think it has some of the very best minis GW has put out in along, long while and that are a lot more well-proportioned than anything made for WHFB.

Man, I'm on the brink of selling my Orks, BAs and OKs to buy lots of LotR plastics and have a really big brawl going. I mean, with 200 bucks, you'd get a ginormous plastic army for any of the major factions, while the WHFB equivalent would be a "starter" brigade box which is a rather nice deal, but you still have to buy some extra 100 bucks worth of special characters and warmachnes and whatnot...

So, WotR can't be beat price-wise, at least.

Besides, my wife looked at the minis and went wide-eyed saying: "Now, those are really nice!"

Mind ye, she likes night gobbos 'cause they are silly-looking, but that's it. She doesn't like anything else I own for any of the other two major systems but playe once in a while anyway; so that can be a pointer about what she would play with me more often than not, and that's always a plus. I hang out a lot more with her than with my gaming buddies who travel frequently, are relocating farther into the outskirts of the city and have wives that aren't as supportive/understanding as mine about this little vice we all seem to share... which predates all of them, I must add.

Pavic
25-11-2009, 00:34
Personally, I think it has some of the very best minis GW has put out in along, long while and that are a lot more well-proportioned than anything made for WHFB.

WHFB models are designed to not be proportional. GW has specifically stated on a number of occasions that the oversized hands and heads are specific design choices for WHFB and 40K, so one can't really say that LOTR models are better simply because they are correctly proportioned.

Second, have you seen some of the WHFB kits that GW has been putting out lately? The stegadon, doomwheel, steam tank, greatswords, corsairs, cold one knights, and temple guard are all stunning kits, and all far superior to any of the LOTR plastic kits.

Pacorko
25-11-2009, 02:46
So says... who? Of course, I've seen them, I own a lot of them (I play Dark Elves and just renewed my cavalry and I'm rebuilding my Skaven). I just like my figs with better proportions. Must be a thing that comes with age, I don't know. And you seem to have ignored that fact that I wrote "some of the very best minis", not "all of the best minis".

Sure, they improved a lot and the keep upping the ante. Still, the best new minis continue to be disproportionate, and GW's explanations notwithstanding about the whys and wherefores, the LotR plastics are better value for money, and far more "aesthetic and pleasing" to the eye.

Shrapnelsmile
25-11-2009, 05:10
the Lord of the Rings line, including the WoTR option, are aligned to a specific author's universe. So I'm not sure what the original question in this post is asking, but it will by its nature not really ever surpass WFB.

With that said, we just started playing and ordering our WoTR armies. There are plenty of other players out there on various forums. It's not for everyone, but I think more people are WoTR now then when it first came out.

It is an investment in painting, and that will reduce the type of and amount of people willing to give it a go. Just like people are faster to jump into 40K than fastasy, because they perceive there will be less to paint. In reality, that is usually true only initially.

and as someone else mentioned above, the price for WoTR is appealing for the more analytical and seasoned gamers out there. I hope anyone reading this thread that is interested in WoTr gives it a try.

Enfid
26-11-2009, 01:04
As some people have said, don't call it LotR Warhammer. It's demeaning.

I think LotR mini's are more serious-looking than WFB. When painted in a more 'realistic' way, a WotR army looks much like an actual army, or at least something you see in a movie, not just the LotR trilogy movie. Warhammer fantasy, I found, even when painted more realistically, has a lot of that 'fantasy' feel to it and is based a lot around 'rule of cool/funny'.

I found that current 40K/fantasy players are quite reluctant to go into WotR due to the amount of miniatures needed painted. A good sized unit of 3-4 companies need 24-32 models for infantry (which is more important in this game than WFB). On a games night at a GW store, in which you need at least one unit to play a multiplayer game, which seems easier to get into, A unit of 32 Minath Tirith Warriors, or a unit of 10 marines? Even WFB need less models in an average-sized unit (say 5x4= 20 models).

Some people I have talked to think that WotR rules are weird (eg. no 'to hit' and 'to wound' or 'armor saves' which makes logical sense), but I found that in WotR rules, everything interact with everything else in a very subtle way. Combats are resolved quickly with equal opportunity of damage from both sides. Even cavalry should be used more tactically in WotR than WFB. A unit of heavy cavalry in WotR is tough and hits hard, yes, but they get absolutely murdered when facing pikes, and facing heavy infantry, even if the cavalry strikes first, is not really a walk in the park for them as retaliation can be costly. Compare this to the deathstar units of Chaos Knights or Blood Knights.

Give WotR a try. You won't regret it!

Avatar of the Eldar
26-11-2009, 01:49
WHFB models are designed to not be proportional. GW has specifically stated on a number of occasions that the oversized hands and heads are specific design choices for WHFB and 40K, so one can't really say that LOTR models are better simply because they are correctly proportioned.

Second, have you seen some of the WHFB kits that GW has been putting out lately? The stegadon, doomwheel, steam tank, greatswords, corsairs, cold one knights, and temple guard are all stunning kits, and all far superior to any of the LOTR plastic kits.

While I get where you're coming from, I'm with Don Pacorko on this one and I think he was only stating his own preference, not an absolute truth.

Yes, GW has been dropping some gorgeous models and plastic kits. I own a lot of them. And, as you state, their design aesthetic is intentionally what I would call "cartoonish" as in exaggerated, over the top and sometimes comical.

When I first came across WFB, it was when LotR just came out and I was bummed that it was a skirmish game because I prefer the realistic proportions.

And, while it is a committment to paint in terms of numbers, the models are much more simple and I've found I can slam through them (and the movement trays) much faster than it took me to paint my High Elves with all the gewgaws and bangles.

In sum:
- A bit cheaper to collect
- Easier to paint
- Cleaner ruleset/no kaleidescope of special rules
- Based on the fantasy world that started it all - the "Urquelle" as our German friends would say

I'm hoping that it gets just enough traction to hang in there. I doubt it would supersede WFB, let alone 40K. But it could be a fun middle ground.

Pacorko
26-11-2009, 03:26
Enfin, my man. You've said it all... This game is a lot more realistic in its approach to tactics and therefore, more demanding for the players to become strategists, not min-maxers or combo-kingpins (which, is nice one in a while, but always the same "ubber" units pulling the same tricks, gets old really quick... Maybe that's why I lost interest in 40K about a year ago, and find WHFB less and less appealing now with the continued transtion to hero/monsterhammer we see with every new army book.

Now, I don't blame the game... it's just the "hardcore" players around the store the ones that have taken some of the magic out of it all when it comes to the Big Two.

Yet, after playing a small game with WotR rules set, it came back all of a sudden. I found something that demands commitment without breaking your budget, passion without becoming an overcompetitive jerk (as the aforementioned local players), and sound integral tactics--as in you need to think in terms of your whole army, where nothing is "just a speed bump", "ablative armour", "cannon fodder", et al.

So, while I won't get rid of everything I have for 40K or WHFB (I'm not getting rid of my Druchii or my Orks, no way!), I'm downsizing the rest to buy me lots of units for three armies, at least.

nagash66
26-11-2009, 20:22
IN my LFGS we have a grand total of 4 WOTR players, all of whom are belowe the age of 16.... we then have around 16 fantasy and 20 or so 40 k players, all of whom ( i am in here as well) see no point in spending more money in fantasy ala Tolkien. Sorry GW nice try but no. I have a game with fantasy creature battle it out its called Fantasy, and 40k for when i wanna go into the grim dark future. I have never seen the point of LOTR game.

No offense here, just my 2 cents and youre welcome to not agree.

Edit: oh and the only 2 factions thing really put people off.

lotrchampion
27-11-2009, 00:09
I can personally count 10 factions for the WotR, each of which can ally which another 4. WotR/SBG has a flexibility to army lists that no other games system produced by GW has, as far as I can recall; certainly outside of the like of Apocalypse.

Personally, I'm a SBG person myself, with Fantasy as my second system at the moment. What has put me off WotR a little is the beta-ness of the rules set. By that I mean that its so full of loopholes and gaps that need fixing that it doesn't work outside of extremely friendly games. I can still field armies for it, and occasionally do, but its so far not got my attention as much as the SBG has. I'd like to change that over the next few months, and try and play it a bit more, but its as time allows, and at the moment, my LotR GT army and hopefully my Skaven army are higher priorities.

nagash66
27-11-2009, 00:48
I am sorry but the factions are 2, good and evil. Each has many diferent army lists. Gondor and sat Erebor are not however diferent factions. Simply diferent lists of the same faction.

Pavic
27-11-2009, 01:16
So says... who? Of course, I've seen them, I own a lot of them (I play Dark Elves and just renewed my cavalry and I'm rebuilding my Skaven). I just like my figs with better proportions. Must be a thing that comes with age, I don't know. And you seem to have ignored that fact that I wrote "some of the very best minis", not "all of the best minis".

Sure, they improved a lot and the keep upping the ante. Still, the best new minis continue to be disproportionate, and GW's explanations notwithstanding about the whys and wherefores, the LotR plastics are better value for money, and far more "aesthetic and pleasing" to the eye.

So, are you saying that you prefer the LOTR figures because you prefer proportional models or are you contining to say that WHF models are sculpted poorly because they are not proportional? The first part of your post seems to indicate that it is a preference issue, which is fine, but the second part seems to indicate that it is not a preference issue but instead is due to some lack of sculpting ability on GW's part, which simply is not true. If GW wanted to sculpt 40K and WHF models proportionally, they would. GW simply chooses not to.

I will agree that the LOTR price range is a much better value than 40K and WHF, but I don't feel that they are more pleasing to the eye. I absolutely HATE having multiple models with the same pose, so I prefer the level of detail and part combinations that most of the WHF kits allows one to put together.

Enfid
27-11-2009, 02:03
WotR Factions:

Good-
Gondor
Rohan
Elves
Dwarves
Forgotten kingdom

Evil-
Mordor
Isengard
Misty Mountains
Fallen Realms
Angmar

In any case, it is possible to have a good vs good or evil vs evil game. It is a possibility even in-universe.

If you put it that it's only good vs evil, then I can argue that we can broadly summarize WFB armies in the same way:

Good:
Empire
High Elves
Dwarves
Bretonnia

Evil
Chaos warriors, Beastmen, and Daemons
Dark Elves
Greenskins
Skaven

Neutral
Lizardmen
Tombkings
Ogre Kingdoms
etc.

And still each of these 'lists' in the broad factions can fight each other. The reasoning is just a bit more difficult than good vs evil (eg Empire vs Chaos).

Admittedly, LotR SBG does seem to concentrate a lot on 'good vs evil', but the scope in WotR is much wider than just that concept.

lotrchampion
27-11-2009, 09:03
What Enfid said.

And considering that most of the Good vs Good match-ups can also be taken historically, as can the Evil vs Evil ones, if you are really focussed on the background. For example, Gondor vs Gondor battles can simply reflect the time of the Kin-strife. Elves vs Dwarves can be from the many times where they battled before the alliance of Durin and Celebrimbor. So yes, you do have many possible match-ups, just as you do for Warhammer Fantasy.

nagash66
27-11-2009, 15:34
Well i am osrry i just dont see it that way. When i open a warhammer army book, lets say Empire as you brought it up. I see a nation which has its own political aims, its has ambitions and policys. The Empire battles Bretonia while keeping the nobles in power, all the while fighting the damn followers of ulrik and Taal. Civil is a constant threat for Religious,political or just plain stupid reasons. Bretonnia is a land of EVIL knigts who bleed 90% of the people of said nation dry to keep themselves in power, and when the poor try to get just alittle of it we have said EVIL knights riding them down like animals. Oh and lets us not forget the ever so good Wood elves, who abduct any bretonian childern with magic and train/brainwash the girls to help keep those pesky knights in check by making a cult to the Lady of the lake which is in fact a Wood elf god.

These are the good guys...

Who unite in the face of chaos, which to be fair even brings the damn Vamps up in arms to help defend the old world.

Warhammer has no good guys much like 40k we have shades of grey, each of which would love nothing more then to make the other shades go the way of the dinosaurs.

I look at lord of the rings and while i admit it also share this to a much lesser degree ( mostly in the hobbit), i cant but fail to draw them all in good guys and bad guys. Sure the good guys might fight from time to time. But that will always be the case the ocassional fight. The elves will never try to burn minas tirith to the ground. Rohan will never say hey those hobbits have some badly defended and vastly rich lands can you say suckers?.

We will have Sauron/randowm evil overlord vs the good guys. And that puts me and most of my friends off. Now i am not saying this is a bad thing, just that i dont like it. Heck other people probably ( and by the above posts will) not agree with me on this, but the op asked and i wrote.

HsojVvad
27-11-2009, 16:36
@ nagash66, you were explained very nicely why there is more than 2 factions. If you believe this, then fine, that is your opinion. You say sorry if we disagree. Most of us do disagree with you, but you can't seem to respect that. We respect your opnion, you should respect ours.

For someone who shows no interest in LotR, why are you trolling here? Are you trying to start a flame war or something?

Yes we respecet your opnion that LotR is Good vs Evil and you don't like it. We are not trying tell you that you should like it. Enfid explained beautifully and respectfully his opnion, and you are still telling him he is wrong. That is not nice, you are showing no respect for his opnion by still stating he is wrong. How many times do you have to say you are sorry? If you were truely sorry you would respect our opnions and you don't.

When you play a game of LotR or WotR, you can have Gondor vs Rohan if you want. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. Just because GW dosn't say it, dosn't mean it can't be done. Even if GW did say it, you can still do it, because GW makes alot of rules, that people just 'house rules' them anyways.

I kept my mouth shut for a few days now, now it's getting upsetting you are just trying to troll and flame things now. You don't agree, fine. But you are not making any valid points by trying to prove us wrong, for a game you don't even play, and have any interest in it at all.

Can you please stop? Your friend HsojVvad

Nuada
27-11-2009, 16:59
[QUOTE]Empire .... I see a nation which has its own political aims, its has ambitions and policys.
Gondor has it’s own political issues as much as the empire does.


Bretonnia is a land of EVIL knights who bleed 90% of the people of said nation dry to keep themselves in power
You've got forces like the arrogant Numenoreans in LotR. Also Haradrim and Khandish are just men, they've just been talked into fighting for another side. They aren't inherently evil.


Wood elves, who abduct any bretonian childern with magic
Even in the hobbit (a childrens book) a dwarf prince is captured by wood elves, and thrown into a dungeon until he rots.


Who unite in the face of chaos
Basically that mirrors what happens in a small number of years in Middle Earth (that's called the War of the Ring) Remember you're quoting ideas from a very small era. The Istari (gandalf and co.) are sent to middle-earth specifically to unite the free-peoples because they are fighting each other.


The elves will never try to burn minas tirith to the ground. Rohan will never say hey those hobbits have some badly defended and vastly rich lands can you say suckers?
Elves have had a dodgy past, they've had kinslaying wars. Galadriel stays on middle-earth because of guilt. Rohirrim aren't aware of hobbits, they're hidden by the dunedain :)


There's all sorts of unlikely battles in WHFB....If the high elves don't leave Ulthuan, who attacks them apart from dark elves and marauders? OK v's lizardmen etc ... If you look at the warhammer map and see how far apart some areas are battles must be rare unless it's a huge host. But you can always make up some reason why they fight, you can easily do the same with WotR :D

…….point is, if you want a good v good battle there’s nothing stopping you. But if you don’t like the game mechanics then fair enough.

Pacorko
27-11-2009, 17:37
I am sorry but the factions are 2, good and evil. Each has many diferent army lists. Gondor and sat Erebor are not however diferent factions. Simply diferent lists of the same faction.

You keep responding out of prejudices and preconceptions. Because, following your rationale, I'm sorry to inform you that WHFB has the same two factions: Forces of good (Brets, High and Wood elves, Lizardmen, Empire and Dwarfs), and evil, which are all of the rest (Ogre Kingdoms are "savage mercs" so they are "m,eh, pile 'em anywhere, really").

So, even when Sauron is the Big Baddie, Saruman's Isengard faction stands quite apart from Harad or Mordor, the same way that Rohan and Gondor are Allies, but quite as distinc a faction as Bretonnia is from the Empíre, even when both are humans.

Then, there's the Elves and Dwarves, different races and factions... And Moria goblins and Morannon Orcs... sames with WHFB or 40k.

So, nah! You just don't like the system and judge it from the Tolkien canon, while really ignoring what the game system really is and how it work/plays.


--snippety, snip--are you contining to say that WHF models are sculpted poorly because they are not proportional?

You can't read, right? When did I write such a thing? You are misreading/interpreting what I wrote, nothing else.

So, your preference is quite clear... must I take this you are trolling me into a out-of-topic discussion about something I never stated? Because if it is not, I'd say I wrote what I think and why I like some thing better than others and not what is superior/better, and that should be that.

nagash66
27-11-2009, 18:27
Pacorko & Nuada as I said I see you’re point of view I simply don’t share it, I will not continue on the matter we will simply have to agree to disagree, as i have de railed this thread enought. I would gladly however put my point of view in a more detailed way in a diferent thread on the matter if you choose to make one, or PM me.

One thing tho I do have to respond too HsojVvad, I am sorry mate but this is a FORUM for DISCUSSION. The OP asked If Lotr is growing more popular I simply replied to that. From that a separate discussion grew. I was never and it was never my attempt to troll or start a flamer war. I simply put forward my point of view… on a forum….made for discussion, crazy right? But hey at least i will not be flamed for not sharing youre same beliefs on a subject.

HsojVvad
27-11-2009, 20:12
If you make a topic, on this, then yes we can agree or disagree till the cows come home, it is not for this thread. But if it's in anthour thread, that would be an interesting read.

I don't see how you saying that there is only 2 factions and that makes it a less superior product than warhammer. That is why I thought you were trolling. Please make a new thread on this topic of LotR has only 2 factions, and we can gladly debate it.

I am glad to see you didn't mean to troll or flame. I wasn't shure of it. Looking forward to your new thread, friend.

lotrchampion
27-11-2009, 21:37
Topic created for the discussion of LotR factions here:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4168334#post4168334

I would suggest continuing this discussion over there, so as not to derail the thread further, but not to simply push the topic away.

Has LotR become more popular? Yes, I think it's popularity has risen again somewhat. Not what it was when the films were about, but more than it has been in recent times. Hopefully if the Studio continues to put out material for it, that will keep interest going until a Hobbit movie comes out, and that will be another chance to get people interested in 2 fantastic games systems. However, I hope that LotR can be a long term game without the need for cinematic releases to keep interest.

Pacorko
27-11-2009, 21:43
I would gladly however put my point of view in a more detailed way in a diferent thread on the matter if you choose to make one, or PM me.

What for? You simply don't share our point of view and I--as I can only talk for myself--don't want to try or couldn't care less about convincing you.

Finally, yes, this is a discussion but the inability to understand what others have to say and reject it even when substantiated, attempting to refute it with slanted points of view really just make it a worthless waste of time.

So, enjoy WHFB (I know I do) and keep away of WotR (I know I won't).

On topic, I still have to ask: more popular compared to what? It certainly hasn't taken a substantial amount of players from 40K or WHFB, but the followers remain loyal and new players keep coming in, so I say it has attracting power, it offers an attractive package, and more often than not, its core players have far more relaxed attitude towards the "competition".

I just can say it has a following and this one is on the rise.

Pavic
27-11-2009, 22:34
You are misreading/interpreting what I wrote, nothing else.


Yes, I believe I was.

Ujio
01-12-2009, 10:01
Warhammer fantasy, I found, even when painted more realistically, has a lot of that 'fantasy' feel to it

....lol qft

Darthvegeta800
02-12-2009, 14:28
It is played very erratically over here. Some have an army but WH:F is the dominant game by far, 2nded by 40K (which i mostly play)
Though Lotr seems appealing and especialyl costwise great, I'll probably end up trying WH:F next year due to several factors including playerbase reliability and uncertainty about the game's mid-to longterm future.

Hellfury
10-12-2009, 02:49
I think I am going to go so far as to actually call WotR superior to WHFB for the following reasons:

Even with all the rules ambiguities and the subjective perception that the WotR armies are unbalanced (which I do not agree with, especially with access to allies) WotR is internally consistent, whereas WHFB armies are a *******' mess. Love and fanboy WHFB all you want, but this the majority of WHFB players I know of will agree wholeheartedly with. Any game that has army books is going to fall into the trap of inconsistent and quite broken rules because they were not formed together during their inception.
If you disagree, then think about this: Do you think that all armies should have an equal chance of winning against any other army if the player is good?
I assert that this is required. Orcs, Ogres, etc. have an enormous disparity in terms of competitiveness against other armies. This should be viewed as the true term of 'Broken'.
Until WHFB at least puts all of its armies into one book, designed simultaneously with each other, by the same designers, WHFB will continue into perpetuity as broken.

The core mechanics of WHFB are for the most part, extraneous. WotR proves this with, as merely one example, the movement phase. There is no need for detailed movement arcs and etc, where as WotR does away with such conventions. It even removed the convention of unknown distances by allowing measurement to occur at any time for any reason, ensuring that there is a modicum transparency in the position of units. No longer is it a bone of contention to wonder if your opponent is cheating by giving his units extra movement or what have you. You know that if he is 20" away that he has X amount of turns of movement in order to charge you, and vice versa.

Combat as well as magic are incredibly more simplified than WHFB and yet are quite elegant in comparison. Its alost as if WHFB is suddenly a game of checkers where the opponents argue incessantly, while WotR is chess. Granted, a chess game that needs a FAQ... ;)
GW has shown that a wargame doesn't have to be filled with numerous and extraneous rules in order to have a good ruleset with the example of WotR.

I think that when 8th edition WHFB rolls around quite soon, if GW overlook these fundamental flaws, that WHFB will be doomed to fall into obscurity, eventually, when compared with much better rulesets.

Avatar of the Eldar
10-12-2009, 04:05
I think I am going to go so far as to actually call WotR superior to WHFB for the following reasons:

As much as I agree, calling WotR "superior" only ignites the fuses of WFB loyalists. It comes down to preference. (But we know we're right. ;))

WHFB will continue into perpetuity as broken.

It's not "broken" from the perspective that power creep generates a never ending cycle of players starting new armies and buying new models.

There is no need for detailed movement arcs and etc, where as WotR does away with such conventions.

It even removed the convention of unknown distances by allowing measurement to occur at any time for any reason,

These two statements are, to my mind, the most compelling arguments for why some of experience WotR as more enjoyable than WFB (or even 40K).

Ancient/medieval battles did not depend on micro management at the unit level. (Not even well drilled phalanxes, condottieri or maniples.) Sure, occaisionally a formation or wing might pull of something dramatic, but generally it was about arranging your formations according to capabilities or their dependability, throwing them into a big scrum and then watching for the right moment exploit or plug a breach.

And it certainly was never a matter of "How far away do you think those guys are? What? I missjudged it by 5 yards? We're doomed!" Nor did you have the bait/flee dynamic that's central to WFB tactics (again depending on playing a game of chicken with millimeters/quarter inches).

Look at Flames of War. A very tactical, very flavorful wargame and you can measure distances all you want.

The last thing I'll add is that one of the creeping imbalances in WFB is not just the army book cycle, but the importance of psychology. My highly competitive WFB player friends explicitly choose VC and Daemons because ItP takes out a chunk of the statistical uncertainty in their Rainman-like odds calculations.

I think that when 8th edition WHFB rolls around quite soon, if GW overlook these fundamental flaws, that WHFB will be doomed to fall into obscurity, eventually, when compared with much better rulesets.

As much as I would love to see some of the more elegant elements from WotR influence WFB, I'm not going to hold my breath. The die is cast, it's course is set and I don't expect radical course corrections at this point.



PS - WotR Rocks!

Hellfury
10-12-2009, 14:13
While I am sure it will ignite defensive responses from WHFB players, I have given reasons as to why I feel that way instead of the obnoxious assertions based on nothing more than contrariness that are always seen when comparisons between the two are made.

If WHFB players actually do beleive that WHFB is better than WotR, then I hope that they would join in the debate while providing examples as to why they feel that way instead of "Nuh uh! Youre game is made for retards"... among other pseudo ad hominem statements.

As for 8th edition WHFB, I think they are going to try to do something somewhat revolutionary (for a GW game anyways) because if the system was so damned solid already and the problem lies in the army books, then just release new armies books. They make money either way, so may as well ocorrect a few problems.

That of course is from the stand point that the rules for WHFB are solid.

This, I beleive, GW does not agree with. I am cynical as well, seeing after decades of consumer abuse, that GW will give us the same old tripe reformatted into something "new". But WotR is a good example of how if GW did try to go a new path, that they possess an exemplary template to follow.

Nuada
10-12-2009, 15:33
They won't change much to the core of 8th ed., they'll add a few extra things in (objectives, scenarios etc) WHFB is marketed in a different way to WotR. When a new army/model is made for WHFB that they want to push people into buying, they won't bring out average rules for that army/model. It'll continue to esculate, and this method works. (they've done this since 4th edition, when they started to target the younger customer (pocket money from parents) I think that was 1992)
You get one or two people on here that say "right, GW don't get my money any more, and my gaming club thinks the same" but that's a very small percentage of overall custom. Eventually most people need to have the new skaven plague machine (or whatever it's called)

Avatar of the Eldar
10-12-2009, 16:23
While I am sure it will ignite defensive responses from WHFB players, I have given reasons as to why I feel that way instead of the obnoxious assertions based on nothing more than contrariness that are always seen when comparisons between the two are made.

Believe me, I'm with you brutha! And yes, there's a derision coming from my WFB mates based not on having tried it or even a reading of the rule book. But rather mostly on opinions of SBG - especially version 1.0. That and they reflexively figure they're invested in a fantasy game and why would they want to pony up for another.

A bit more under the surface, is probably a resistance to change in the sense that these guys have WFB wired and they're really good. There's a reluctance to take on new things where they don't have mastery, feel like a beginner, and their hard won (WFB) instincts don't automatically make them successful. "What, I can't win by guessing half and quarter inches better than you can?! This game is retarded."

Hellfury
10-12-2009, 16:47
I was once one of those people who threw derisive comments towards SBG, but only after I played the original version tons of times to come away thinking it was the dumbest thing ever.

I drank a lot of Haterade, to be blunt.

It was not until I gave WotR a chance did I learn that SBG had a major overhaul (I played legends of the old west/high seas so I knew there had to be some good to come from SBG) and that SBG was finally playable.

The game needs local cults of personality who the rest of the gaming 'sheep' follow in order for this game to be successful within any specific community.

What I find odd is that the people who are derided the most, the SBG players, also jump on the haterade bandwagon concerning WotR. Its as if they don't realize that the success of SBG does hinge somewhat on the success of WotR. The more successful WotR is, the more models and rules will be made available to SBG.

Its very similar to the civil rights movement where discrimination is fought, then won. To only turn around and they themselves discriminate against another minority... :wtf:

Avatar of the Eldar
10-12-2009, 18:27
The game needs local cults of personality... to be successful within any specific community.

Couldn't agree more. The key will be making WotR visible and accessible to either watch or jump in and "test drive".

The 2 WFB guys who have actually read the rules totally think it's well designed and offers refreshing alternative to WFB. But one has fallen away from the group (utterly sick of WFB) and the other just doesn't have the funds at the moment.

So I'm getting 4 armies painted up and will show up at my LGS prepared to host/facilitate demo games 1 v 1, 1 v 2, 2 v 2.

I reason that if someone who they know and like makes it easy to give it a spin, most would try it once. We'll see what happens after that.

Nathangonmad
10-12-2009, 19:05
Around where I live (Leeds) We pretty much only play 40k or Fantesy. Only about once every 3months or so do you see WOTR being played.

Sedge
11-12-2009, 08:40
That is a real shame. People have a habit of buying into a system and sticking with it.

Lord Anathir
16-12-2009, 01:57
nobody plays LOTR here, just warhammer.

lordmoon
16-12-2009, 02:24
its a fun game, not the best nor the worst. is it becoming more pop? I hope so, more games = more fun.

however I don't understand all the negativity from both sides.

Sedge
16-12-2009, 11:06
Well I love WotR, is it a better game tha WFB? Who cares, its a great game in its own right. I'd like to see more support from the local GW to increase the take up but as long as it keeps getting played in the WD it should intrest people. I'd prefer some smaller 1000 to 1500 point games to show how it plays at the smaller end of the scale (thats what we all play at our club and it works just fine).

More plastic models would help a lot I feel along with the Bl*+@y FAQ! Where is it? We get FAQs for all the WFB army books so why not for a new system. Just tell us how it is surposed to be played? :wtf: (Little FAQ rage there, sorry)