PDA

View Full Version : Commonality of Lord of The Rings in your clubs



Guess Who
15-02-2012, 06:05
I just want to know the different commonality of Lord of The Rings in your clubs. At mine, very few people play it. Like, very very few. I'm one of like 4 guys, and only 2 of those guys come in alot. Sure when there's heaps that come for tournaments, but that's like, the only time I see most of them. So whats it like in your clubs?

Noobie2k7
15-02-2012, 09:15
Only like 3 people in my local GW store play and one is a member of staff so don't think that counts. None of them play SBG either. I don't think it's surprising though seeing as how little attention it gets from staff in store. The store has a trail table that never gets anyone directed towards.

Spider-pope
15-02-2012, 11:47
I've not had a game of SBG since 2003, and WOTR since about a month after it launched. Which gives some idea of how common it is in my area currently. And its absolutely gutting, because both systems are absolutely brilliant, but because of the bizarre pseudo-elitism that seems to be prevalent amongst GW players no-one gives it a chance and as a result are missing out on two stellar game systems.

Peregrin
15-02-2012, 12:42
We don't have any official GW support. The nearest GW store is about 3 hours drive, but the staff there has mentioned having some games of both SBG and WotR there. It didn't sound like it was often though.

They do play some other GW games at a local game shop, but even then I usually only see 6 or 8 guys playing, some WH, some 40K, and some specialty games all at the same time, so I'm not sure how many players each game actually has. There are 5 WotR players but we don't usually use the venue due to our schedules. That keeps us from being as visible as we could be.

Obviously we have enough figures to play SBG, where we have WotR armies currently. I'm hoping to use the interest in the new SBG stuff to entice some new players. We have lots of figures we can loan for introductory games, etc.

Noobie2k7
15-02-2012, 16:41
In the last year i;ve been to my local GW i've seen more games of Doomfleet ( i think that's what it;s called) than i have seen games of SBG and WotR combined. And that doomfleet isn't even that old a game. In my store the game (LotR) has almost 0 exposure by the staff.

Even on that "LotR day" we had at the beginning of Feb i only saw 1 LotR game, 3 40K games and 2 Fantasy battles games. Some LotR day that was. Even the staff passed over showing SBG and WotR to new players in favour of 40K and Fantasy.

I had to ask to play a trial game of WotR and then wait almost an hour for a member of staff that either knew the rules or wanted to play. I thought it was their job to help people learn and get into their products.

Jedi Christian
16-02-2012, 04:51
I have not seen one game since I started getting interested last December. I still collect, paint and read LotR for fun. 40K is the main thing followed by a small increase in WHF and I know someone else is buying LotR minis and won't admit it.

Noobie2k7
16-02-2012, 05:10
I'm going to pick up my first couple boxes and army book in a couple weeks, just torn between getting thee free peoples book for elves or mordor. I want to either go elves or Dul Guldor.

Tarax
16-02-2012, 08:52
Where I play there is just 1 (one) other person who is interested in WotR. All the others just keep on playing WFB and some are starting with Kings of War.
I think that is part of the problem, you can't get people away from games they already play and invest in a new game. Though I would say (to them) that they could always play with models from other ranges (Mantic, WFB) untill they feel comfortable to buy the correct models.

Meanwhile my Elven army is sitting there waiting for an opponent and my painting has stopped because of it. Though about 90 models are painted.

Stargorger
16-02-2012, 13:01
In the last year i;ve been to my local GW i've seen more games of Doomfleet ( i think that's what it;s called) than i have seen games of SBG and WotR combined. And that doomfleet isn't even that old a game. In my store the game (LotR) has almost 0 exposure by the staff.

Even on that "LotR day" we had at the beginning of Feb i only saw 1 LotR game, 3 40K games and 2 Fantasy battles games. Some LotR day that was. Even the staff passed over showing SBG and WotR to new players in favour of 40K and Fantasy.

I had to ask to play a trial game of WotR and then wait almost an hour for a member of staff that either knew the rules or wanted to play. I thought it was their job to help people learn and get into their products.

Wow! That sucks. I've never had such bad help at a GW store. But then it's been about a year since I was last in one lol. I remember when WOTR first came out all the staff seemed crazy hyped about it. Now it's like they've been visited by the secret 'theme police' lol.

The Devourer
16-02-2012, 13:29
Its fairly small in my gaming club and while we have 4/5 players i've only seen it played once in the year and a half i've been going. I'm hoping that it's going to grow as we are having a demo game soon and i've got a modor force i've never had a chance to play with.

Guess Who
18-02-2012, 11:58
Wow reading through this, I guess I should be grateful lol

Peregrin
18-02-2012, 17:08
I've got the bug again, so my wargaming friends will have no choice but to be subject to my recruiting efforts.... :D

Vishok
21-02-2012, 00:55
Umm - 100% of like, 20 or so? For the SBG.

Interestingly, 0% all around for War of the Ring.

Whitwort Stormbringer
21-02-2012, 21:41
I haven't really gone in search of LotR players in my area in a while, but generally speaking it seems to be that no one plays, at least at the store. I've run into a few people on the local store's discussion board that are interested, but school seems to get in everyone's way these days so I still haven't met them or had a game yet.

The employees at the store gave WotR a big push when it first came out, and offered to teach me to play so I may take them up on that since I never got involved with it. I'll have to find a way to build (and then get around to painting) a suitable army, though, since my LotR collecting habits were generally a little bit of everything, since that worked well for SBG.

Liber
22-02-2012, 10:25
because of the bizarre pseudo-elitism that seems to be prevalent amongst GW players no-one gives it a chance and as a result are missing out on two stellar game systems.


I really doubt this is the cause of LotR not being popular.

For example, myself and my 2 closest gaming buddies all have the exact same (with minor deviation) reason for never having any real interest in picking it up, despite enjoying the movies and books:

LotR is dead.

Warhammer (40k and Fantasy) is alive.

When i say LotR is dead, I mean that in the same way that the Napoleonic wars are dead. LotR is a history of specific events that happened(notice the past tense), were recorded, and now may be reproduced through a miniatures game. Of course LotR is fictional, but thats not whats important. Whats important is that the good guys won, Frodo, Gandalf, etc went to the gray havens, Sauron and Saruman were destroyed...its all past tense, which forces all the battles to be set in a narrative of either recreating something (which I have no interest in, we know how it went, end of story) or pretending that a battle which never did occur, did indeed occur. There is very little room for anything else. Warhammer Fantasy is alive in the sense that there is a current timeline, the story is and always will be in flux, and yet frozen. Same with 40k. As a matter of fact, given the 'billions of worlds' schtick and the 1,000 chapters of Space Marines, its even more so 'in flux' with 40k, a reason I think for it always having an edge in popularity both for fluff and gaming.

Now what I'm saying about LotR could also be said about a Star Wars table top game, however it would be mitigated by the fact that Star Wars exists over an entire galaxy, with many planets, creating a sense of freedom and autonomy that LotR lacks, especially considering LotR is confined to a single continent.

This is further compounded by a subconscious niggling knowledge that the guy who created LotR is dead, and that tons and tons of filler (required to make a proper table top game) were injected in after the fact by a 3rd party.

In summary LotR is in between Historicals and games like 40k...the end result being it satisfies neither.

Bleh, this is poorly written and disorganized...but its 230 am so forgive me. I mean to creat a proper thread to discuss this someday, but for now, hopefully this post is sufficient to partially translate the idea i'm (trying) to convey.

Stargorger
22-02-2012, 12:28
@Liber

Well if you do create that thread, let me know ;-)

I hear what you're saying. Those are very valid points. I feel similarly as far as 'getting into' Lord of the Rings. There's nothing to 'get into' It's already been done. That said, i like the game for the rules and the play, and duking-it-out in a theoretical battlefield. I don't play the game because I like Lord of the Rings, I play the game because I like the game. The fact that it's SET in LOTR is just a bit of an added bonus.

I don't play 40K or WFB for a couple reasons. As far as world goes, I feel that I can't influence anything officially, so why try? LOTR doesn't have that since, as you said, it's already finished. As far as playing for my own stories, I just don't like the constant figures and rules updating done to the two systems. And I've never really liked the (IMO) clunky WFB rules.

So for me, I doubt that the storyline is the problem with LOTR. I think it's due to not enough coverage. I think more people would love to play it if it was set in front of them, but very few have the motivation to go hunt it down and build it up themselves. 40K and WFB just sorta fall into your lap.

I would happily play another miniatures game if it met the criteria of: active player base, excellent sculpts, consistent style and rules, and large variety of factions/units right off the bat. Oh and cheap ;-)

EDIT:
Forgot to add…but the reason I haven’t and wont STOP playing LOTR is because I like the game for itself: even if I did find another, my interest in it is for the rules system and style, not the connection to LOTR.

Peregrin
22-02-2012, 13:55
You guys don't get the whole point of Tolkien wanting to create a foundation for other people to build on. Your point is still valid, though, as most people do make the same assumptions about the material.

As for elitism, I have seen some of that. Part that may be simply due to the time, effort, and money they've invested in their game of choice.

Tupinamba
22-02-2012, 15:02
In my area, which has quite a small wargaming community in the first place, Iīd guess that LOTR/WOTR is played by around 1/10th of the total community. There havenīt been any events anymore, but there are active players, posting BRs, painting etc.

As to pseudo-elitism, unfortunatelly Iīve seen a lot of that, which is really absurd, as I play WHFB too and find that the lotr/wotr crowd is way more mature, while the rules are far more elegant and realistic, if not necessarily more fun to play.

The point of the LOTR set been "historical" is interesting, but doesnīt ring a bell with me, as there is a lot of real historical wargaming going around and thatīs the foundation of our hobby, after all. "What if" scenarios and all the vaguely mentioned but never fleshed out battles that happened in Middle Earth is more than enough for me not to feel constraint in playing in this set.

Liber
23-02-2012, 11:00
The point of the LOTR set been "historical" is interesting, but doesnīt ring a bell with me, as there is a lot of real historical wargaming going around and thatīs the foundation of our hobby, after all.

I understand that historicals are popular, my point wasn't to say they are not. My point was that the same reason *some* people (such as myself) do not like historicals and prefer games like Warhammer *might* be a reason that LotR has never been very popular in the GW crowd. Thats more or less it.



"What if" scenarios and all the vaguely mentioned but never fleshed out battles that happened in Middle Earth is more than enough for me not to feel constraint in playing in this set.

I would agree if neither side in the conflict was using any named characters. Otherwise personally the idea of "this never happened" will loom to large in my mind. I think.

Whitwort Stormbringer
23-02-2012, 21:06
I understand that historicals are popular, my point wasn't to say they are not. My point was that the same reason *some* people (such as myself) do not like historicals and prefer games like Warhammer *might* be a reason that LotR has never been very popular in the GW crowd. Thats more or less it.

I would agree if neither side in the conflict was using any named characters. Otherwise personally the idea of "this never happened" will loom to large in my mind. I think.

There may be some truth to that, but personally I think it's kind of silly. Do you ever name your generals or characters in WFB or 40K? If so, do you rename them every time they die in a game? What about the named personalities in those games - don't you run into the same problem? Surely it happens that Joseph Bugman gets killed in battles on the tabletop all the time, but he keeps trucking through in the background.

We also interpret the wounds characteristic rather liberally, though - reduced to 0 wounds on the battlefield means you're a casualty but not necessarily that you're dead, and if a miraculous survival or being captured by the enemy suits our narrative better then why not?

Tupinamba
23-02-2012, 21:41
There may be some truth to that, but personally I think it's kind of silly. Do you ever name your generals or characters in WFB or 40K? If so, do you rename them every time they die in a game? What about the named personalities in those games - don't you run into the same problem? Surely it happens that Joseph Bugman gets killed in battles on the tabletop all the time, but he keeps trucking through in the background.

We also interpret the wounds characteristic rather liberally, though - reduced to 0 wounds on the battlefield means you're a casualty but not necessarily that you're dead, and if a miraculous survival or being captured by the enemy suits our narrative better then why not?

I actually understand Liber and it is an argument Iīve heard from friends too. Though whfb has a pre-established set too, with its own characters and history, its less restrictive than pure historicals or LOTR. If I play a game with Karl Franz versus Malekith, its a possible battle, as both are alive and could come to fight each other. Itīs different and more difficult to fit in playing a battle with Aragorn versus a Ringwraith in the 3. era that never happened.

That said, for me at least, I donīt find these relatively harder restrictions of the settin enough to relinquish the possibility to collect the beautiful lotr minis and play two rather good strategy games. Plus, I find the idea of an "open" reenactment of classical campaigns and battles very attractive.

Unfortunately, from my experience, Iīve seen the snobbishness of the whfb/40k crowd doing much more to keep lotr/wotr less popular than this kind of personal reasons about the setting. Many of said gamers tried to activelly dissuade me from starting it and are always keen to "warn" any possible new gamers about its "problems". This might be irrelevant for mature vet players, but the new blood gets direct away from a beautiful system.

Whitwort Stormbringer
24-02-2012, 04:25
I actually understand Liber and it is an argument Iīve heard from friends too. Though whfb has a pre-established set too, with its own characters and history, its less restrictive than pure historicals or LOTR. If I play a game with Karl Franz versus Malekith, its a possible battle, as both are alive and could come to fight each other. Itīs different and more difficult to fit in playing a battle with Aragorn versus a Ringwraith in the 3. era that never happened.
I've heard the argument before too, and I certainly don't mean to come across as overly critical of it because frankly I think people should play or not play whatever game they want for whatever reason. It's just not one that I personally "get" since it seems like it would ultimately be an issue in almost any game with a detailed setting.

The openness of the WFB/40K settings obviously allows for greater flexibility without breaking convention though (as you mention, Aragorn vs. the nazgul doesn't really work other than Weathertop, for instance), so with regards to who's fighting who LotR is definitely a more restricted setting if you're tied to thematically plausible battles. But if my dwarf general can fight against Lizardmen, Chaos Daemons, and Tomb Kings (about as geographically spread out as WFB armies get, unless they all came to him) then I'm not too worried about the realism of two anachronistic forces meeting up in LotR either. Different strokes for different folks, of course!