PDA

View Full Version : Why do peopel hate lord of the rings?



ORKY ARD BOYZ
15-12-2006, 03:43
What is up with the dislike of the lord of the rings battle system? warhammer ad warhammer 40 000 isn't as disliked by members of the GW community or by some members. I dont understand, could someone help me out? Oh, by the way what's wrong with the isenguard troll? Just because Tolkien didn't mention it doesn't mean its a heresy against life and cant be inculded in the game, what's wrong with expanding on Tolkien's world?

TheHood
15-12-2006, 08:49
I've been out of the LOTR loop for a long time, but I used to play it when it was first released to coincide with the movies.

I loved the game mechanics personally, and thought it was a great game to play, simple but with enough depth to continue playability.

However, from day one, it seemed that there was a lot of anti LOTR ranting that went on for a number of reasons. I don't know the full story because I never get entertained by reading hundreds of posts full of hate and dislike, so I never went too indepth with them, but popular reasons were the fact that it took up space in White Dwarf from 40K and Fantasy, it took away game designers and sculptors from making new models for 40K and Fantasy, it was simply an easy way for GW to make lots of money at the time, it will be dropped like a hot potato once hype for the movies die down... and so on.

As for the new models, well, like I said I'm out of the loop these days, so I don't keep up with new releases and the like, but general thoughts seem to be that the initial released were so good because GW was under license and the miniatures released had to work with what was seen in the films.

However, now GW have permission to delve further than the movies, so they can look at other work written by Tolkien and the like, but because they have no "image" that they are required to conform to, they can make models look however they want. And people aren't happy with what is being released - over the top "herohammer" miniatures and the like.

But I'm not expert, and no doubt there are others who can help a little more. That is just what I have encountered since the game was first introduced.

Hope it helped somewhat.

Shadowheart
15-12-2006, 10:09
What is up with the dislike of the lord of the rings battle system? warhammer ad warhammer 40 000 isn't as disliked by members of the GW community or by some members. I dont understand, could someone help me out?

It's like any kind of dumb-ass prejudice, it's your regular xenophobia, ignorance and cowardice. People see something different, they fear what they don't know and mask their fear with dislike. Then they either lack the sense or the balls to look at this automatic response and see it for what it is, and then change it. Rather, they construct elaborate and far-fetched excuses for an irrational dislike.
And as always, people get much worse in groups. Because practically nobody within the Warhammer community opposed these idiotic ramblings, many accepted them without question. It's quite comfortable ranting against something when there's nobody to contradict you, and people do so enjoy being agreed with that a lot of this dislike is probably based on nothing but the desire to be part of the group.

In short, it's because people suck.


Oh, by the way what's wrong with the isenguard troll? Just because Tolkien didn't mention it doesn't mean its a heresy against life and cant be inculded in the game, what's wrong with expanding on Tolkien's world?

"Expanding on Tolkien's world" is neither good nor bad. If you do it, the question is how well you're doing it, and in the opinion of many, GW isn't doing it well at all.
In case of the troll, the fact that there's no mention of them whatsoever while the army of Isengard (and the crucial battle it fought) is thoroughly described, leaves no room for them in my mind. Might as well say there was a Balrog in a closet in Bag End.
Moreover, it's just a Mordor troll in an oversized suit of Uruk-hai armour. It's not expanding on anything, it's just copying a cool concept for use by another force. And it's not like Isengard was lacking choice as it was.

I don't think GW should be adding on to Middle-Earth, really. Tolkien dedicated so much time and thought to his world, there's no way a couple of games designers are going to come up with something that feels like it fits in with that. It might be cool stuff, but that won't be the sort of stuff that attracts me to LotR in the first place.

Kromando33
15-12-2006, 11:04
I am a proud 40ker yet I love the LOTR battle game, I don't own any, yet I play with my friend who has hundreds of models, we play stuff like pelennor (Legolas got trampled with the Mumakil, wtf, lol) and various other battles. I personally love the game mechanics and are certainly a different turn on 40K and FB, the whole fighting in lines with spearman backing up from behind and archer volleys (damn I just rolled all 2s for my elves) are great.

What I would really like to see is maybe a very limited Simarillion license granted for a small 1st age supplement to GWS from Chris Tolkien.

schoolcormorant
15-12-2006, 11:43
i think 40K and WFB fans are annoyed because they think it will lessen their new releases and stuff. as if GW areputting too much time into LotR instead

SC

Wraithbored
15-12-2006, 12:32
Personally it is a dislike after I tried it, the system is simple yes, but it's also simplistic. Also the figures are smaller (I know GW is not to blame but it's still a point), secondly I really really loved the books, the movies a lot less and the game well you see the progression.

And I think the problem is that the LotR story is finished, there is no status quo.

And for the record I don't hate it i just dislike it.

Pertinax
15-12-2006, 12:58
I think one of the problems that many WFB and 40K players see in LTOR is the combat system, and the lack of saves. For many people these two things over simplified a game genere. A genere that they were used to playing with to-hit tables, and saving throws.

Hence, it generates a sigamtic view that LOTR= simple.

Neldoreth
15-12-2006, 13:42
Although much has been said already in this thread, I think one thing was missed: fear.

Originally WH40k and more so WFB players feared Lord of the Rings because they feared that their investment into their favourite games would be lost when GW decided to run with LotR and drop the rest. Unlikely for sure, but knowing what GW has done in the past (with new codexes, army books, and rules sets) it is not too far fetched.

Now of course there is no fear of that anymore, but the hatred lingers regardless. Ultimately though I think that the GW community needs to band together and start making demands of the company: no more making my models un-usable, no more whiping the slate clean and starting new, no more rediculous pricing!

As far as the Isengard troll issue, well, that has to do with pedantism. Ultimately the people who don't like it are the ones that were steeped in the mythology of Middle-earth. Those who have read everything there is to read and enjoy Tolkien's world immensely. So, to see it treated like a spring board to profits because some gaming company realizes that trolls will sell because they are so powerful is hard.

Not that I am one of course. I don't love that troll, but I don't mind if someone uses it. All it really does is justify using a troll with Uruks while keeping your army in theme; remember anyone could have fielded a mordor troll with Uruks anyway.

n.

Pertinax
15-12-2006, 14:32
One more thing that is a source of the LOTR dislike. Veterans.

Veterans can be so involved and single minded about their own games, that they know what is best. LOTR is not their game, hence, it's not good.

Veterans also tend to be some of the most influencial (if not vocal) gamers around, as people tend to listen to them.

And that means that their prejudice is passed on very simply.

Veterans are what kills this hobby, if you ask me.

DhaosAndy
15-12-2006, 17:09
Just don't like the system, doesn't feel 'right' to me. I like the models, my saxon/viking armies are based on the Rohan/Dunlending figures.

Gondorian
15-12-2006, 18:33
Actually, I found the Veterans at my old local store to be very fond of LOTR. By vets I mean the old guys usually in their thirties. Their general attitude was that it was a great game and very enjoyable.
The people who think they are Vets., usually mid teenagers, were the ones who hated our system and I think the biggest reason for this was ignorance.

I feel I should say at this point that I play all three main systems and love em all, though am still a bit new to warhammer. I consider myself an LOTR Veteran and will be a 40K Veteran in a few of years. I will happily accept that there are differences between Lotr and the other systems (in fact I was surprised at some similarities I read in the warhammer rulebook) and that LOTR is not for everyone. What I will not accept is people who don't know the system telling people who do to pack up their case and go.

I was completely enraged about half a year ago when a warhammer player I was talking to (he was a general B******d anyway for the record) decided he'd explain to me why LOTR should die.

His case in summery:
1. LOTR is too simplified.
2. LOTR has inherent flaws in the system.
3. LoTR is draining resources away from warhammer and 40K.
4. Lotr is a gimmick to make profit which will be dropped when the barrel runs dry.
5. The interest in LOTR has died down completely.
6. In a few years time LOTR will be a specialist game at best.

My defence:
1. Damn right Lotr is simple. Simple to learn, simple to play, difficult to master but above all simple rules. In LOTR you can make any formation of troops you want and have any single warrior earning a reputation. Men can be dismounted and surrounded, heroes can dodge away from arrows etc.
In my opinion LOTR has simple rules but still reflects warfare more accurately than either of the other systems. Were you to make a unit of guard in real life they would not always stay in one block of men, they'd split up and group together depending on situation. You'd have fire teams of two or three firing away while guys from the same unit split up and made a flanking movement. You cannot however do this in 40K and 40K has more complex rules. In my conclusion you can do more with the less rigid rules in LOTR than you'll ever achieve in 40K.

2. Such as? His main gripe was with individual movement of models ie no squad system. However, this depends on the person playing. For me this is what makes LOTR so amazing. Turned out that the guy I was arguing with had never played a game of LOTR and was essentially parroting the opinions of a friend of his who had once played half of a demo game.
Since he was unable to point out a viable flaw I pointed out one for him.
LOTR games slow down immensely in very large games. While 40K and warhammer also slow down with bigger games, their squad systems help things run more smoothly. My response to this was give LOTR time. LOTR has been out for six years give or take and is still developing. How many years have both warhammer and 40K been around and how much have they changed over the years to improve flaws? Don't forget that they also have their own flaws even after years of change.

3. WHAT!!!!!!!!!! When Lotr was initially released GW raked it in. It made mountains of profit on Lotr which have been used across all three main systems. Has warhammer or 40K stagnated since Lotr's been around? NO! they haven't. They now have plastic giants and sprues filled up to the eyes with extra bits to add to models. To my knowledge, LOTR began with only two model designers, the Peri brothers (not sure on spelling and I think LOTR still only has these two designers but I'm not sure). The only major impact on the distribution of resources that LOTR had was occupying a third of white dwarf, however, given lotr's success why should it not have such a place?

4. Now I have heard that gw is now getting a decline in profit from lotr and that the license for the game may be costing gw more than the profit it makes. I obtained this from a staff member who himself had only heard it from gossip. Now, there has surely been a decline now that the hype of the films has died down but I also suspect that other factors are in play. For one thing GW makes more from younger players than older ones in my experience. When I was younger both myself and friends really only spent our money on GW, I bought tonnes of stuff some of which isn't even off of the sprue now. Nowdays I have other costs such as: alcohol, food bills etc. When I buy from GW now it tends to be a squad or two for whichever army I'm working on and the times I buy things from Gw are getting rarer and rarer.
Anyway, with all of the anti-lotr attitude around, I suspect that younger players get told by their friends to avoid LOTR and to newcomers under this influence it's described as a crap game. This means newer players go for the guns of 40K and may end up with an anti-lotr attitude themselves.
This point I have made suffers from a basis on rumour that I have heard and my own suspicions rather than fact. If people disagree with this and have evidence that suggests otherwise I will gladly stand corrected and apologise for any misconceptions I have made.

5. Then why has the attendance at the Grand Tournament been increasing, why are there always a few new LOTR players about who I end up helping learn the rules?

6. Pure speculation. I bet people said the same when 40K was introduced to the world.

Again, if anyone has counter arguments to any of the points raised by me, I'll hear you out and discuss any opinion. By that I mean discuss, not just argue.

The fact of the matter was that this player did not know a thing about LOTR and yet was still complaining about it.
Ever since the encounter with this ignorant player I have been on a personal crusade to clear the ignorance that surrounds LOTR and to encourage players to give it a try. At the end of the day, there are a great number of people that love the system and have a great time playing it. That is the one rule you will always find in any rulebook produced by GW. Have fun.

I have been thinking that it may be worth while for a few of us LOTR veterans to put together a thread with common misconceptions about LOTR and reasons for why they are misconceptions. The only thing that troubles me is that if we post it here, we'll only get a handful of players from other systems reading it, yet if we post it anywhere else we take that forum off topic.

Thank you to all for enduring this long post.

Pertinax
15-12-2006, 18:53
In my experience, Vets has nothing to do with the age. Vets are people who have played WHFB or 40K for about 5 years or so.

In my experience, the older the player, the more likely it is that the player will be more open to the system, and less introverted.

swordwind
15-12-2006, 19:37
In the next expansion the Elves get a fighter jet. Just because Tolkien didnt write about it...

Hlokk
15-12-2006, 21:04
Right, I didn't like LotR when it came out, I played it for a bit (with uruk hai), and I still don't like it. My reasons are:

1: The constant character resculpts. Why GW feels we need 12000 versions of Legolas doing exactly the same thing is beyond me. From a collectors point of view, yes, it is a very cool thing, but there are other models for other systems which need attention, and updating. Its kind of like GW doing one aragorn model and 12 Ragnar Blackmane models, each one with a slightly different pose.

2: The model limit in games. 50 models per side is something I have yet to see the merit in (admittedly, I've only played around 20 games) can someone illuminate me?

3: I'll admit that, initially, it seemed that the sheer lack of hard stuff for evil was a bit crap. Good seemed to get all these awesome things like aragorn, Elindil and so on, all the evil side seemed to get was ringwraiths and sauron and an assload of goblins for the good side to hack through. Admittedly, its been somewhat rectified now, but that did put me off initially (again, I understand GW couldnt make up new evil characters)

4: I find the idea that you have to have 2 armies, a good and an evil one, to be a bit bizarre.

5: Im not a fan of fighting battles I already know the outcome to. When LotR came out, most of the battles on offer seemed to be heavily rigged in favour of good, with the objective being "beat the evil side faster than your mate". IN a similar vein, I wouldnt use a historical recreation for 40k or WHFB either.

6: No one plays it on games nights where I live.

Honestly, I'd like to enjoy the system, but I think I've just been put off it to such an extent, both by my own observations, and what other people say, that its unlikely my fighting uruk hai will ever come out of their box again.

erion
15-12-2006, 21:05
In the next expansion the Elves get a fighter jet. Just because Tolkien didnt write about it...

See you post that because it might be funny, but someone is going to take it seriously and there'll be hell to pay.

Take it from the guy who is personally responsible for the rumor of rending shuriken catapaults in a snide comment I made back when the BGB was first published...

Pertinax
15-12-2006, 21:32
Hlokk: I don't have much time right now, but in response to point 5, I would have to say that many of the scenarios do offer a pre-determined result. As soon as you start to play points match games and scenarios, the game works in a different way.

hiveminion
15-12-2006, 21:42
In the next expansion the Elves get a fighter jet. Just because Tolkien didnt write about it...

The thing is, if you don't like an addition GW introduces to Middle Earth, don't buy it!

I agree that the quality/originality of LotR is dropping, but that's because the movies are gone and GW sadly isn't so good at making up new things for Middle Earth. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying the game!

Gaebriel
15-12-2006, 23:33
How far does the license allow GW to go? I mean, if they are allowed to make things up (well, given that the films already made some things up, and the license is likely to be based on the films :rolleyes: ), they could as well take things that are already set, can't they? I mean, looking at Middle-Earth they wouldn't run out of ideas for a hundred years just by taking Tolkien 'canon'...

Just remember the truly nice (well, for those times :p ) models Citadel made for LoTR in the 80ies...

And on identical models - LoTR players seem to be the collecting kind, at least I haven't seen too many complaints. And from the 'outside' - I'm sure models are made on a contingency plan, ie X models for LoTR each year - so the exact type of model shouldn't be a case of complaint...

TeddyC
16-12-2006, 00:00
ha ha ha.... I dont believe someone compared a dislike on LOTR to Xenophobia!

I dont like it becuase it was a cheap cash in that did take development time away from 40k and Warhammer and coincided with the rapid decline in the quality of WD.

"quick take all the hobby out of it... we need to advertise LOTR!"...

Oh yea and it pushed Necromunda and Blood bowl out of most stores


While im at it... does anyone have a big cross for me to burn?

Gondorian
16-12-2006, 00:27
Cheap cash in!
LOTR gave games workshop tons of profit in its initial release alone.
Have warhammer or 40K been wiped from the face of the planet as soon as lotr rolled out. No, they are currently enjoying latest editions with tons of new models. LOTR may have diverted some attention from the two older systems briefly but the profit it's given gw has meant that more resources are available for all three systems.
I also disagree with you on white dwarf, I only began collecting white dwarf when LOTR was released and I found tons of hobby articles, both for lotr and other systems. It's only over the last year that I've found complaint with white dwarf. Now this also means that I haven't read any pre-LOTR white dwarfs so any more opinions from LOTR supporters and rivals may help this debate.
I can't comment on blood bowl or necromunda as I have played neither and don't know what their status was before lotr.

Now here's the question that I ask everyone who gripes about LOTR.
Teddy C, have you ever played LOTR?

Kromando33
16-12-2006, 01:35
Gondorian you do realise you haven't actually taken point with any of the LOTR rules, just made a sweeping generalisation that they are 'simplistic', in some ways the combat system in LOTR is far superior to 40K or FB, but then again comparison is not objective and is irrelevant, they are different games altogether. The system of might, fate and will is quite well done, and it great I think for adapting LOTR to a tabletop game, making combat 'contest battle' as opposed to 'whoever throws the most dice wins' I think makes the battles interesting.

I think people are missing the point that LOTR is actually a very fun game, especially playing siege scenarios like Minas Tirith or the like. If anyone who criticises it, yes that's you Gondorian, has ever even read the rules, you'll see their not 'simplistic' in any regard, in fact the 40k rules are easier I thought to understand.

Pertinax
16-12-2006, 06:36
TeddyC: LOTR is to blame for the "decline" of WD? Lets jump of the bandwagon then.

I would argue that WD hasn't changed much in the past few years. WD is still what it was. What has changed, is the market sector that you belong to. You are no longer the youthful wannabe gamer that started reading WD. You have changed. I have changed. WD is no longer your cup of tea.

Besides, LOTR has caused the drop of hobby related material? Really? Then why do I remember very many painting and modelling articles connected to LOTR that are amongst some of the best painting and modelling guides to come in WD in recent times?

Are you so prejudiced that you don't look at the LOTR section in WD at all?

ORKY ARD BOYZ
16-12-2006, 08:01
I wanted to start LOTR but I'm kind of put off but the fact the LOTR sales in my local store is dropping...
I have an Isenguard force but I want to buy warriors of Anor to convert into Greek Hoplites. And call them a rogue mercenary force that goes around killing orcs. Does that fit the Tolkien fluff, if this in any way offensive to LOTR fans please tell me and I'll stop.

Pertinax
16-12-2006, 08:34
I would have no problem with it. It's a game, not a strict controlling dogma.

Gaebriel
16-12-2006, 08:45
I wanted to start LOTR but I'm kind of put off but the fact the LOTR sales in my local store is dropping...
I have an Isenguard force but I want to buy warriors of Anor to convert into Greek Hoplites. And call them a rogue mercenary force that goes around killing orcs. Does that fit the Tolkien fluff, if this in any way offensive to LOTR fans please tell me and I'll stop.
I wouldn't let myself stop by other people's views on that - especially considering there's as well purists as casual gamers out there, which will give the whole range of direction. If you think that's a nice idea, do it.

Personally I would rather check if the idea roughly fits into the background. As my background knowledge of Arnor is a bit shaky (weren't they the northern kingdom of landed Dunedain from Numenor?), I can't say if they would have had mercenary culture. Tolkien seems to have put a strict feudal Lord-Vassall-system on all things military, and Dunedain fighting for money feels a bit wrong... Another thing I would give a second thought to is the greece phalanx, which is a bit off for the pseudo-historical period. If they used anything similar it would have been shieldwalls - I remember the mentioning of great shields from the story on the attack on Isildur - but not as a standard technique, I think. However Numenorians might be closer to ancient than medieval times in their development.

Don't let me stop you ;)

Daemon king Mad Dog
16-12-2006, 11:13
I don't

And any way, tolkein wnated peopel to advance his story

TeddyC
16-12-2006, 11:15
TeddyC: LOTR is to blame for the "decline" of WD? Lets jump of the bandwagon then.

I would argue that WD hasn't changed much in the past few years. WD is still what it was. What has changed, is the market sector that you belong to. You are no longer the youthful wannabe gamer that started reading WD. You have changed. I have changed. WD is no longer your cup of tea.

Besides, LOTR has caused the drop of hobby related material? Really? Then why do I remember very many painting and modelling articles connected to LOTR that are amongst some of the best painting and modelling guides to come in WD in recent times?

Are you so prejudiced that you don't look at the LOTR section in WD at all?

Ok in answer to the guy before... yes I have played LOTR. Ive had few games, not just intro games either, used the full rule set with special characters.... It all seems very over simplified. The combat system is not much unlike Blood Bowl as I recall.... but the game istself was hardly as much fun. I just did not enjoy it.

As for prejudice.... :o I just dont enjoy the game, or the game system, I dont own any of the models so why would I read the LOTR section? For the same reason I dont read the sports pages the back of the newspaper.... nothing whatsoever to interest me.

As for jumping on the bandwagon... please go back, read some of those WDs you obviously have around issue 200 onwards.. I mean without them you wouldnt be able to compare would you?

See what modelling and hobby articles they have... Not just a couple of random pages about how to make an ogres house or play a certain tolkein scenario... Anyone remember the Brettonian jousting game? Orc bar brawl? Space hulk board pieces... hell.... there was even a campaign pack spread over 3 WDs when Karloth Vailos was released for necromunda with some fun, interesting rules.

I bought a WD... last one probably 6 months ago.... its practically a list of new releases with the only in depth stuff reserved for LOTR because thats the only place they can introduce new stuff to keep people interested.

Im no LOTR fanboy. But I dont mind it, good books. Never read anything else mind.

Im not even bothered that GW do the game and models.... what bothers me is that they are diverting attention away from their core games to support it after the hype of the films has died.

Im sure there are still more Blood Bowl players out there than LOTR players, and more 40k and warhammer players that would love to see their gaming system have the same lavish attention LOTR has had. But they wont.

IMO LOTR should become just another specialist game, have its own part in the Fanatic (or whatever the specialist games mag is called) and just make cameo appearances in WD along with Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Mordheim and BFG

Crymson
16-12-2006, 11:26
I really have never had much interest in the system until about two weeks ago, when I picked an old Fellowship of the Rings box set (the very first one) really cheap. I got it mainly for the minis, but read through the rulebook as well, and was impressed. I tried a few games and found myself liking it.

Daemon king Mad Dog
16-12-2006, 11:41
I agree with teddy, apart from theres laods of younger kids at warhammer world nottingham which only play lord of the rings cus the films were cool... and tey have pathetic playign to win armies...

Pertinax
16-12-2006, 11:53
As for jumping on the bandwagon... please go back, read some of those WDs you obviously have around issue 200 onwards.. I mean without them you wouldnt be able to compare would you?

See what modelling and hobby articles they have... Not just a couple of random pages about how to make an ogres house or play a certain tolkein scenario... Anyone remember the Brettonian jousting game? Orc bar brawl? Space hulk board pieces... hell.... there was even a campaign pack spread over 3 WDs when Karloth Vailos was released for necromunda with some fun, interesting rules.

You see, this is what I mean. Because you have been in the hobby for so many years, you expect WD to fill your needs. Where as WD is directed at a more recruitment orientated market. Your interests have moved away from what WD produces. Hence, you stamp it as a bad product.

Anyway...

I'm not so sure that LOTR diverted attention away from the other two core games. Sure, the number of releases were reduced, but that was common over the table. And I believe that that was the main reason for drops in sales. Not the swing of focus into another direction.

I believe that at this point, there were some pretty sweeping changes in the studio. People were moved around, and people were cut out. All for various reasons. But I believe that this was a needed period of hiatus, and it produced results (see the latests army books, codexes, and LOTR releases). Unfortunately, to get to where we are today, wa had to get though the period of re-organization. Re-organization not only in the offices, but also in the marketing strategies that were becoming arrogant, complacent, and outdated.

I don't think that LOTR has removed resourses from the other games.

Darwin_green
16-12-2006, 12:07
I haven't read the thread, yet. But, by this point, it just seems like another game-GW's pushing on us.

Gondorian
16-12-2006, 16:31
Gondorian you do realise you haven't actually taken point with any of the LOTR rules, just made a sweeping generalisation that they are 'simplistic', in some ways the combat system in LOTR is far superior to 40K or FB, but then again comparison is not objective and is irrelevant, they are different games altogether. The system of might, fate and will is quite well done, and it great I think for adapting LOTR to a tabletop game, making combat 'contest battle' as opposed to 'whoever throws the most dice wins' I think makes the battles interesting.

I think people are missing the point that LOTR is actually a very fun game, especially playing siege scenarios like Minas Tirith or the like. If anyone who criticises it, yes that's you Gondorian, has ever even read the rules, you'll see their not 'simplistic' in any regard, in fact the 40k rules are easier I thought to understand.

Mate, I love the LOTR rules. I'm not criticising them, atleast that is not my intention.
When I say LOTR has simplistic rules, I mean it in such a way that I found it easier to learn and to play than 40K or warhammer. You've obviously found 40K easier to learn than lotr. Perhaps then that this is a matter of opinion. LOTR does get quite complex when dealing with say Mumakil, Magic, Special rules etc.

Simplistic is perhaps the wrong word to use because it suggests that lotr lacks something. I find this very much NOT the case.

I'll stand corrected on comparing any of the two systems because as you say they are completely different so any comparison of parts such as one combat system with another is somewhat flawed.

Darwin Green, No one is forcing you to buy or play with LOTR models. I have friends who love 40K but won't play warhammer and vice versa. This doesn't mean that one has more right to be around than another. If you haven't already done so I'd suggest you play a demo game. If you don't like the system then fair enough and if you do you still won't have to play it unless you want to.

Daemon king Mad Dog, I have many friends who play lotr with very impressive armies in painting, modelling and composition respects. You can also see from the standard of some armies and the attendance at the grand tournament that LOTR is played by more than just 'younger kids' and that they are not all designed to win games.

TeddyC, you've said that you didn't enjoy the game. That's fair enough. If you don't like it don't play it. No one here is suggesting that LOTR should be forced upon anyone. However, that doesn't mean that the people who do enjoy it should be sidelined by players of the other main systems just because those systems have been around longer.
I agree with pertinax in that I don't believe that LOTR has taken away resources from the other core games. Especially when both other systems are still being updated regularly and have much attention lavished on them.

The thing I have noticed about white dwarf these days, when a new army is released be it eldar, empire or a new lotr sourcebook, white dwarf focuses more on that new army than on the other two systems. The systems effectively take it in turns to have the white dwarf's main attention, IMHO.
It wasn't long ago that I remember receiving a white dwarf with only six pages devoted LOTR. (Or around this number, I can't back this up yet with the white dwarf number of the page numbers as I don't have my collection with me).

Just my thoughts.

Dr Death
16-12-2006, 16:47
The resources myth is the main reason for a lot of people's dislike of lotr. It's also a bit of a shock to the system for warhammer and 40k players who have seen their system move away from the predominance of personalities on the feild and given the power of troops as their ideal. Then along comes lotr which champions the lotr equivilent of (as i beleive i've heard the term in this thread) 'herohammer'.

It's all snowballed really but the irrational phobia of lotr as a part of GW's attentions is slowly dying down nowadays.

Dr Death

Reabe
16-12-2006, 17:34
Veterans are what kills this hobby, if you ask me.

Because what it really needs are 12-year-old Chaos Players screaming "OMG! Why don't I have teh archers of DOOOM?!"

Also: Why do LOTR players moan about new stuff like Isengard Trolls? Non-Chaos, Empire, Orc or Space Marine players normally go "Yes! At last, after years of waiting, we finally got an update! Now my army can finally have a 50-50 percent chance against the latest Chaos/Empire/Orc/Space Marine army list!" or some such.
Heck, you guys get new army lists every two months. 40k/Fantasy players get one every 6! LOTR has it easy compared to the other systems.

Also, several "problems" finally showed themselves at the time of LOTR's creation:
1. WD's quality falling.
2. Veterans being generally ignored in favour of "Oh, Mummy, I want this because it's the flavour of the month!" 12 year olds.
3. Price rises started to pinch.
4. The time between regular army books and updates started to stretch.

All this gives the impression that LOTR has caused them in some way. At least, that's the way how I see it.

Shadowheart
16-12-2006, 20:07
ha ha ha.... I dont believe someone compared a dislike on LOTR to Xenophobia!

Good on you, since that didn't happen. I said xenophobia is part of the reason for the dislike. LotR is a strange element introduced into the traditionally Warhammer-based GW 'world' (stores, publications, communities etc). Course we have to conveniently ignore that GW used to do many non-Warhammer games and White Dwarf started out entirely without it.
This strange element then is blamed for a variety of things which we can't prove it actually caused. And anything it gets, any attention, any releases, any WD pages, is perceived as being taken away from the established main group which supposedly has more of a right to these things.
I do believe someone would fail to notice the pattern there. Ha ha ha.

On a related note, many arguements against LotR depend on measuring it by Warhammer standards. Take the "two dozen Aragorns" arguement. Multiple versions of a character in a Warhammer game would make little sense, since Warhammer battles are fairly generic, and characters appear the same wherever and whenever they fight. In LotR you're often recreating a specific battle, in which characters looked and acted a certain way, and miniatures contribute a good deal to getting the right feel.

idinos
16-12-2006, 21:42
I don't hate it. I have never played it nor will I as it holds no interest for me. I did not really like the movies, so the prospect of refighting the battles holds no interest for me either.

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
16-12-2006, 21:46
Yeah, same. I love the movies, but the game and models just dont interest me really. Its got a bit of a "been there done that" feel for me I suppose...

raivenblade
16-12-2006, 23:01
What is up with the dislike of the lord of the rings battle system? warhammer ad warhammer 40 000 isn't as disliked by members of the GW community or by some members. I dont understand, could someone help me out?

I tried it, found the system to be a bit too simple, probably as a result of it being aimed at a younger audience. I think it is also this audience that causes some of the dislike, having bad experiences with immature behavior on their part (not all of them off course, but these kind of generalisations happen)



Oh, by the way what's wrong with the isenguard troll? Just because Tolkien didn't mention it doesn't mean its a heresy against life and cant be inculded in the game, what's wrong with expanding on Tolkien's world?

I can understand the dislike people have towards additions/changes to the actual written material. The same reaction happened towards the movies. We are lucky that Tolkien shared his beautiful world with us, but that doesn't change the fact that it is his world, and that he wrote the books primarily for himself. What rights does someone else have to mess with what was written? If the game is meant to represent in a correct way the world that Tolkien created, then they shouldn't release models under the excuse 'just because he didn't mention them doesn't mean they weren't there'.

Merchandising in itself can damage the image of anything, when it is done over the top. Releasing models that don't appear in the books and slapping the LOTR mark on it just to make some more money is not very respectful towards the original material

eengaming
16-12-2006, 23:38
Warning: This is just my opinion.

I love LOTR. I think it is by far the best game and miniature range GW produces. I like some the new stuff that has expanded on the LOTR universe (favorite suppliment is Fall of the Necromancer). I think people are very critical of the range because there has not been a 4 hour movie length commerical for it in the last few years (aka the LOTR movies). I have been with GW since the RT days and I really don't understand the hate. People complain about GW prices, but LOTR is very, very affordable. The rules are simple, but so are the rules for chess. Does that mean that you do not need to have strategy and savvy. Let me guess you would rather flip through 5 different codexes, rulebooks, FAQs, and errata to play a game. The sculpts are nice, realistic fantasy. The dwarf range are the nicest dwarven sculpts I have ever seen. I am not trying to be overly critical of the other GW games, but people should stop being so critical of a great game and miniature range.

Kromando33
17-12-2006, 00:02
I know what you mean, LOTR is far more affordable than FB or 40k, and the rules as previously stated are not 'simplistic' and aimed for a young audience, they are just as if not more complicated than 40k or FB in their own way, I mean please guys, 'ultramarines', 'battle for macragge', now that's simplistic.

simonjedi
17-12-2006, 00:43
I bought a WD... last one probably 6 months ago.... its practically a list of new releases with the only in depth stuff reserved for LOTR because thats the only place they can introduce new stuff to keep people interested.


Did it have the fotn or ttt/lome on the cover?

if it did holy crap GW are trying to get us to buy the new thing for this month...

where have we heard it before... oh wait i know every lotr WHFB and 40k release

also if you bought any other WD (buy teh giant issue and cities of death come to mind) lotr got about 6 pages max

[/rant]

i'm collect lotr and i think its a great system

EDIT: i reread it and i seem too moany so apoligies if i offended anyone

ORKY ARD BOYZ
17-12-2006, 00:59
Oh, one last issue, the limit on bows, did they make bows way too powerful? GW's reason is that it makes for a boring game with only shooting, did they make shooting too effective, In warhammer fantasy some armies only have close combat troops (chaos).

eengaming
17-12-2006, 01:12
After reading more posts:

What is the obsession with having more than 50 models a side. I just do not get it. Most game stores have 4X4 or 4X6 tables. When you have these 500 figure armies in that confined space they just smush together and then you roll a bunch of dice. LOTR is slower than 40K and WFB?!?! Really? Not in any game I have ever played.

Dr Death
17-12-2006, 12:53
Oh, one last issue, the limit on bows, did they make bows way too powerful? GW's reason is that it makes for a boring game with only shooting, did they make shooting too effective, In warhammer fantasy some armies only have close combat troops (chaos).

No, nothing of the sort. Missile fire, as in any dark age/medieval conflict is ultimately a side-line, the real way to kill someone is to hack their head off up close and personal. The archery limit is just to stop players from relying too heavily on ranged combat and making for a game that's no fun, sitting their entire army at the back of the table and forcing the opposition to do all the leg work. It encourages people to make use of more of the rules, to jockey for tactical positions etc.

Dr Death

hiveminion
17-12-2006, 15:32
Also, several "problems" finally showed themselves at the time of LOTR's creation:
1. WD's quality falling.
2. Veterans being generally ignored in favour of "Oh, Mummy, I want this because it's the flavour of the month!" 12 year olds.
3. Price rises started to pinch.
4. The time between regular army books and updates started to stretch.

All this gives the impression that LOTR has caused them in some way. At least, that's the way how I see it.

Why would LotR have kick-started those changes?

So you're saying WD quality is failing. I happen to agree with that, but not
that it happened when LotR came out. In fact, the only thing that changed by that time was the introduction of a LotR section. WD's quality dropped (IMO), when Mr. Haley and Rees took over (the GW-chiefs probably decided to go on a more commercial road too). Less pages, more adverts, less text, more pictures. That's got nothing to do with LotR, that's (bad) company management!

Veterans being ignored and prices going up contradict each other, as when a hobby becomes more expensive, young beginners are quickly discouraged. Also, I believe LotR has suffered the most from higher prices.

So the time between updates stretches. Logical, with an extra main gaming system. Are you saying LotR, a game a lot of people enjoy, should never have been made because you want your Codex:Whatever earlier? I think the fact that there is a lot of time between codex releases is a good thing, it gives you more time to purchase and use an army before it is updated again.

You say LotR players are whiners but you are sounding like one even more.

TKitch
17-12-2006, 16:29
My main problem with it?

Specialist Games support. They completely killed it about the same time LotR came out.

I want to see Mordheim, Bloodbowl, Battlefleet and such brought back. They're phenominal systems, and yet most of the time you can't even PLAY THEM IN THE STORES. This means a large portion of the gamers have never heard of them.

And these are games that bear significance in the same universe AS WFB and 40K.

TCUTTER
17-12-2006, 20:53
i dont some much hate lotr as hate what it stands for, its an over simplification of the game designed for kids, it takes sculpters and developers away from my games, and its also the reason gw doesnt offer deals of the month any more, due to its sales the price of my games have gone up too. yeah i hate it...

Gondorian
17-12-2006, 21:57
LOTR was never designed for kids. What evidence do you have to prove this?

LOTR has never taken sculptors away from the other systems, all of the LOTR models have been sculpted by two men, the Peri brothers. (This is atleast according to my knowledge)

How is LOTR the reason that GW has stopped doing deals of the month? Again what evidence do you have to support these claims?

Why does LOTR get blamed for every wrong in GW? I'm sure that if the world ended next week someone would blame LOTR.

Pertinax
17-12-2006, 22:03
i dont some much hate lotr as hate what it stands for, its an over simplification of the game designed for kids, it takes sculpters and developers away from my games, and its also the reason gw doesnt offer deals of the month any more, due to its sales the price of my games have gone up too. yeah i hate it...
Do you have evidence that sculpters and designers are being, or have been taken away from "your" games?

In my books, that just hasn't happened. Infact, if I'm not mistaken, there has been new blood put into the studio as a direct result.

Shadowheart
17-12-2006, 22:35
My main problem with it?

Specialist Games support. They completely killed it about the same time LotR came out.

Some logic there. Two things happen at about the same time, therefore one must be the cause of the other.
As it happens, GW also brought out the Tau at that time. Half a year later, the Necrons. Another half a year later, the Tomb Kings and Daemonhunters. Later on Ogre Kingdoms (and Witch Hunters) were added too. It seems to me that if GW could add all those ranges, they could've also supported the Specialist Games.


i dont some much hate lotr as hate what it stands for, its an over simplification of the game designed for kids

Oversimplification of what game? It's an original game system, far as I can tell.
Moreover, if anything's designed for kids its Warhammer-esque rulebooks pouring over with sparkly "special rules" to obsess over. Reading and memorising that stuff (nevermind keeping up with the neverending updates) might be a challenge unto itself, but it's got nothing to do with playing a game.

As for the rest of your arguements, let's have a shred of proof?
Like I said above, since LotR came out GW released multiple new armies for both Warhammer games. They also kept re-releasing their old stuff, kept making more and better models in plastic, ran a couple of worldwide campaigns and generally had no shortage of Warhammer. What exactly do you suppose LotR took away from you?
I've always found it hard to believe the possibility that LotR prevents GW from offering deals, since other companies with LotR-licensed products did just that (on LotR stuff, no less). I know Sideshow Collectibles did/does, for instance. But then I admit, I've never had a look at the contract GW signed, though lots of other people seem to have read it.
And because of LotR sales, the price of your games have gone up? GW makes a lot of extra cash on LotR, therefore they charge you more? And you blame LotR for it?

Kromando33
18-12-2006, 00:17
My goodness, if I see one more post from a nub saying lotr is 'simplistic' I am going to hurt someone, anyone who says that clearly has never laid eyes on the lotr rulebook and is just xenophobic.

Radical Inquisitor
18-12-2006, 00:31
First of all I love the books. The movies were passable but not to great.
Now those of you have read the books knows that the Fellowship, while in Ballins Tomb, is hard pressed to kill about twenty five goblins. This is a group composed of 1 of the 4 wizards (and the battle wizard at that), the heir to the throne of Gondor, the heir to the steward of Gondor, The prince of Mirkwood, the son of Gloin, and 4 Hobbits (one of whom carries a potent magical sword made to kill goblins). Granted the Fellowship escapes without casualties but this is at much do to luck as anything else. Case 2, Boromir dies fighting the Uruk-Hai, he kills about a dozen. Now given this evidence I see no reason why including Aragorn in my army should mean that I can throw him into combat with most of my opponents army and have him not merely survive virtully unscathed but kill everything attaking him. In the LOTR game that is what happens, the battle is resolved purely based on the number of named characters in the army.

My other huge problem with it is the example of the isengard troll. This is stupid. I do not have aproblem of taking 2 sentences from Return of the King and making an army from them (Variags of Khan) however things that Tolkien himself has fully explored should be left untouched. There is no reason to not utilize the Silmarillion for ideas and just leave the rest as-is.

Lastly I dislike it because the battles dont fit into the LOTR world like they do in Fantasy or 40k because Middle-Earth is not constantly at war, or are major wars at all common.

Pertinax
18-12-2006, 08:48
But the beauty of the LOTR battles are that they can either play as larger conflicts, or specific skirmish scenarios.

When was the last time that you were happy with a skirmish-like WFB game?

Likewise, 40K was originally a skirmish game, but then the creep has changed it into a battlefield game. Not on the basis of the points limits, but the power of the equipment. "We're a patrol unit of Guardsmen, and we have with us; A Lascannon, a Basilisk; and a few more odd armoured vehicles that we found".

Now, I would like to say in answer to the following, for this is a misconception that is met time and time again.

...the battle is resolved purely based on the number of named characters in the army.

Not so. Some of the best armies and players use numbers, and low-ranked heroes to win the game. High powered heroes, can be good, but can also be a huge disadvantage. This has been shown time and time again at, amongst other places, the LOTR GT, where the winner over the past few years has not had a single "High powered" hero on his force. Numbers have been the deciding factor, and a couple of lower powered heroes to move those numbers around.

I guess this idea that "Big hero=the unbalancing all deciding aspect" comes from some of the scenarios (especially those printed in the FOTR start set). There is was a problem. But that was well before the game became a developed and multi-faceted game.

For those of you that still feel that the hero problem is the main gripe, and have not looked at the game since FOTR, or the TT books, then I recommend you look again.

TeddyC
18-12-2006, 09:29
In reply to simon at the top....

No what I am saying is the only in depth articles cover new scenarios, rules, modelling tips and advice seem to be directed at LOTR.... nothing to do with whats on the cover...

Either way. Id tend to agree that its took attention away from other much more well established specialist games.

As for the rules themselves. Ok there is no denying.... whatever you say... they are NOT as complicated as 40k or WH. THats not to say its a bad rules set. It just makes for a different game.

Dr Death
18-12-2006, 12:50
I guess one could say the rules for lotr are complex rather than complicated. Complex in that they are not mechanically difficult to understand or dwell too heavily on mechanical processes (that would be 'complicated' as in the case of warhammer and 40k) but complex in that they require from the player a level of interpretation to find the benefits in them.

Heroes are only a problem for those ignorant about the actual workings of the game. I would accuse lotr of being 'hero-centric' in that they do play in a more exciting manner with the usage of heroes but i wouldnt say games are won and lost on the basis of heroes, it's really the massing of force which decides the day which is entirely accurate- you have to choose where to concentrate your 'power' in real battles which lotr finely ephesises.

Dr Death

eengaming
18-12-2006, 13:54
I thought I'd add this. I played my first games of Old West, which uses the LOTR system as its base, yesterday. Wow was it cool! If you like Mordheim or Necromunda it has all those elements with the much tighter (simpler:rolleyes: ) LOTR combat system. I had a blast!

hiveminion
18-12-2006, 19:20
I started out with LotR, later turning my attention to 40k. I can say the game mechanics of LotR are easy to learn, but difficult to use effectivily. Warhammer has a rules system where manoeuvering is very important, and tactics play a big part. There are rules of thumb, like the use of fast cavalry on flanks and flank/rear charges. 40k has these rules to a lesser extent, and LotR has no rules like 'charge the flank' or 'shoot the rear'. It's all about clever use of Heroes, numbers, and terrain. Of course cavalry and all that play a big part in tactics, but you'll have to agree with me that to win with an efficient tactic is very difficult. You have to improvise a lot, and when the dice don't go your way, it has a bigger effect than in 40k.
When I started with 40k I had a lot of problems with the insane amount of rules. Even though I started simple (Combat Patrol) I still made a lot of mistakes and forgot rules. With LotR I didn't have that.

For the record I love both game systems equally.

Gondorian
18-12-2006, 21:04
I'd have to disagree with that.
I find that in LOTR tactics play a pivotal role, I've smashed apart armies who have simply charged accross the board by having my men in a good solid formation.
I find that you do get benefits from flanking and surrounding the enemy. While their is no official flank rule, there are rules representing trapped warriors. Also, if I sent some cavalry around my force and into the side of the enemy perhaps pinning those models against my infantry, I have effectively flanked the army.
While you can be unlucky at times, such as if you lose the random heroic action roll four times in a row, you can sometimes compensate by both improvisation and being in good formation.
Just my opinion.

hiveminion
18-12-2006, 21:13
I'd have to disagree with that.
I find that in LOTR tactics play a pivotal role, I've smashed apart armies who have simply charged accross the board by having my men in a good solid formation.
I find that you do get benefits from flanking and surrounding the enemy. While their is no official flank rule, there are rules representing trapped warriors. Also, if I sent some cavalry around my force and into the side of the enemy perhaps pinning those models against my infantry, I have effectively flanked the army.
While you can be unlucky at times, such as if you lose the random heroic action roll four times in a row, you can sometimes compensate by both improvisation and being in good formation.
Just my opinion.

I agree with that, but what I meant was that there are no special rules helping you out in such a situation (ie, flanking), except for trapped warriors.

The tactics you've mentioned are an example of tactics employed by proficient LotR players. However, they can be countered with equally good tactics like anchoring a flank.
These tactics are difficult to master for beginners. You need good timing, as no special rules will give you an edge, just your manoeuvering. The seemingly simple game mechanics of LotR tempt people to just hurl their forces across the table and let the dice do the job, as you said.

TCUTTER
18-12-2006, 21:27
fact; since signing the contract with new line or what ever games workshop waivered the rights to do deals of the month.

fact; ive tried this system, and found it remarkably simple, too simple...

its a cash in simple as. defending it is pointless, it will die long before the other main systems, as theres only so much you can do with it.

fact; it did kill the specialist games department, which mean most vets with good memorys hate it by default as it killed their games

Intrepid Adventurer
18-12-2006, 21:45
These tactics are difficult to master for beginners. You need good timing, as no special rules will give you an edge, just your manoeuvering. The seemingly simple game mechanics of LotR tempt people to just hurl their forces across the table and let the dice do the job, as you said.

You know what, this actually made me look forward to my first LotR games even more. Yes, tactics are hard to pull off. Thank goodness they are, they should be. You'll actually have to develop some skill with the game, instead of just dice rolling. Sure you can hurl your force across the board, but they will die against a seasoned player. That's how it's supposed to be, if you ask me.


fact; since signing the contract with new line or what ever games workshop waivered the rights to do deals of the month.

fact; ive tried this system, and found it remarkably simple, too simple...

its a cash in simple as. defending it is pointless, it will die long before the other main systems, as theres only so much you can do with it.

fact; it did kill the specialist games department, which mean most vets with good memorys hate it by default as it killed their games

One of the things I really don't get is the constant GW bashing on these forums. Yes, their products are expensive and yes, they're not providing the best support, but man, I've heard enough of that. It's people like you, TCUTTER, that provoke threads like these. If you've nothing constructive to say, just zip it.

slaughteredbull
18-12-2006, 22:02
fact; since signing the contract with new line or what ever games workshop waivered the rights to do deals of the month.
Fact: This is a rumour I've heard in various other places but never actualy been confirmed, it could just be cause GW are all tightwads.


fact; ive tried this system, and found it remarkably simple, too simple...
Fact: You are entitled to your own opinion, but that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. What you feel about the system is not what everyone feels.


its a cash in simple as. defending it is pointless, it will die long before the other main systems, as theres only so much you can do with it.
Fact: In Tolkiens introduction in the most recent edition of LotR, he states that he wanted the appendix there so others could carry on his work, so I therefore presume that GW have been given some license to expand slightly, I hate when people say things like this without checking their facts.


fact; it did kill the specialist games department, which mean most vets with good memorys hate it by default as it killed their games
Fact: There is no basis for this theory at all, in fact from what I understand the GW staff that work for Specialist games write what they can for those games as and when they need get a moment off of other projects, this is voluntrary to keep support for these games alive, add in to the fact that while support has not been so strong over the past year or two it was still quite strong during the early years of LotR.

TCUTTER
18-12-2006, 22:04
its not gw bashing at all, its explaining with reason why i hate your game system, im not over reacting in anyway, im stating various proven facts, if you cant take critism then thats your problem.

good points are the character models are really good likenesses, and it has taught me and i imagine many others, alot about terrain as the articles on say hobbit holes or snowy boards work in all systems

slaughteredbull
18-12-2006, 22:07
its not gw bashing at all, its explaining with reason why i hate your game system, im not over reacting in anyway, im stating various proven facts, if you cant take critism then thats your problem.

And where can this proof be found???

TCUTTER
18-12-2006, 22:10
you see, this is why this area of warseer gets not attention, nobody can say a word wrong here, lest the few dedicated individuals jump down our throats, your like the games over protective mum. im going back to the 40k boards where you can have a proper discussion

slaughteredbull
18-12-2006, 22:18
Hey I was actually interested where this proof could be found, no need to get defensive.

Ihave only been playing LotR for 6 months and was of a similar opinion before then and I think the reason everyone defends the game here everytime a bad word is said about it is because everyone and their mothers who have never given the game a chance seem to some pleasure out of coming here and slagging it off, now I'm sure I can speak for everyone when I say its not our intent to alienate anyone but if everyone went on to the 40k forums and bitched about it every chance they got despite never playing all 40k players would be defensive too.

TCUTTER
18-12-2006, 22:38
ah but you see, i have played this game, i stopped when the expansions came out as i saw them as cheap cash ins/flogging a dead horse, so 3 years experiance is suffice enough to cast my judgement i think

slaughteredbull
18-12-2006, 22:47
I can kind of see your point but it could also be seen as bringing the product more in line with the books rather than the films, as the Journey books cover the story as written rather than as portrayed in the films making them vastly different to the old rulebooks. Also add into the fact that new players can no longer get those rulebooks if they want to play those scenarios.

I think the problem isnt with GW making these books as a cheap cash in as this is what they do with all their systems, I see the problem is how they originally released the game 3 times in as many years in slightly different forms, if they did what they are doing now from the start instead then tthere would be none of this nonsense with people saying the new books are cash in when in reality the older books were the cash-ins and these ones are being released as they should of been originally.

Shadowheart
18-12-2006, 23:06
im going back to the 40k boards where you can have a proper discussion

A proper discussion being one where you can prefix any random statement by "Fact:" and people will take your word for it?

Thats exactly why I jump to the defence of LotR so fiercely. People like you keep slagging LotR off from the comfort of your own little world where everyone agrees with you. When you're confronted with someone who doesn't agree with you it rapidly becomes apparent that you haven't got any real-world evidence to back up your claims with.

There's no arguing with people who mindlessly repeat statements and accept them as fact without verifying them for themselves. And I don't much care what they think about LotR.
The danger exists however that people who aren't fools will hear only their babbling and take it to be true. So it's important that LotR be defended by pointing out the lack of evidence to support the common claims against it, and by offering an alternate view.
And Tcutter, you can help by continuing to make the anti-LotR side look bad.

Adept
18-12-2006, 23:08
i dont some much hate lotr as hate what it stands for, its an over simplification of the game designed for kids, it takes sculpters and developers away from my games, and its also the reason gw doesnt offer deals of the month any more, due to its sales the price of my games have gone up too. yeah i hate it...


its not gw bashing at all, its explaining with reason why i hate your game system, im not over reacting in anyway, im stating various proven facts, if you cant take critism then thats your problem.


im going back to the 40k boards where you can have a proper discussion

I think there is a village somewhere that is missing its idiot...

Adept
18-12-2006, 23:11
The archery limit is just to stop players from relying too heavily on ranged combat and making for a game that's no fun

Dr Death

I think what the poster in question was saying is that people would take an entirely bow armed force if they could, because archery is more effective than hand to hand combat in terms of killing the enemy, and is questioning why archery in LotR is more effective than it should be.

Personally, I think taking the 'to-hit' modifiers from WHFB and (with a little jiggering) porting them into LotR would have been a good idea, as well as upping the points cost.

Axel
19-12-2006, 00:12
What I would really like to see is maybe a very limited Simarillion license granted for a small 1st age supplement to GWS from Chris Tolkien.

Won`t happen as long as Chris Tolkien is alive. Even companies like Mithril that thread carefully within Tolkiens world - unlike GW, eg, the Isengard Troll - have no chance to get this first age license.

While there are some good collectors minis in their range, a lot of the stuff is weired at best (eg in the Arnor range). Cool minis and the selling factor seem to override background considerations. From the viewpoint of a Tolkien fan, GW is not the best suited company to expand the image of Middle Earth.



I would argue that WD hasn't changed much in the past few years. WD is still what it was.

WD has changed. Whenever I put up one of the WDs from ten or twelve years ago the difference is blatant. And even the last years have seen a decline. With my almost 40 years I am sure that I have not changed that much in the last three years - the WD however has. The greatest gaps are the lack of rules, and background articles tend to be repetetive. The magazine has moved from "support" to "introduction".

TCUTTER
19-12-2006, 00:18
+ + Inflammatory remark removed PhilB + +

And Tcutter, you can help by continuing to make the anti-LotR side look bad.

you know ive resisted insulting you guys, as im not that kind of guy, so ask yourselfs how your smart remarks will look, they prove my point about defenciveness quite nicely

Crymson
19-12-2006, 00:29
For those saying the rules are too simple:

Why does 'simple' rules mean bad game? Chess has simple, easy-to-learn rules; do you all consider that to be a bad game?

Shadowheart
19-12-2006, 01:44
you know ive resisted insulting you guys, as im not that kind of guy, so ask yourselfs how your smart remarks will look, they prove my point about defenciveness quite nicely

Alright, let's back up here. You came into this thread saying bad stuff about LotR as if it were fact. Several people asked you for proof to back up your claims. You insisted some more that bad stuff about LotR was fact. You were asked for proof again. You suggested this proved the LotR forum was full of bad posters.
That's the basics of it, as I see it. Am I wrong there? How the hell do you expect people to treat you when you're acting like that?

You do yourself entirely too much credit by identifying our remarks as defensive. You haven't offered anything to defend against. All we've had to do is point out you've got no proof whatsoever.
Now, I prefer the kind of guy who comes out with an insult over the kind of guy who waits for the other guy to do it, and then claims the moral high ground.

Better is the kind of guy you can have an arguement with, but you show no signs of being that. And seeing as I had no way to direct my aggravation over your persistent slagging into an arguement, I insulted you instead (and I should think I was pretty restrained about it). As they say, so sue me.

raivenblade
19-12-2006, 09:43
LOTR was never designed for kids. What evidence do you have to prove this?

Well, the entry ages for tournies is lower with lotr then the other games, that would imply that the game was aimed at a younger audience from the get-go

Pertinax
19-12-2006, 10:36
Well, the entry ages for tournies is lower with lotr then the other games, that would imply that the game was aimed at a younger audience from the get-go

And yet the majority of the players at the LOTR GT are between 20 and 40.

Dr Death
19-12-2006, 10:36
The more i read shadowheart's posts the more i fall in love with him. TCUTTER, you have no evidence and fail to provide anything more than baseless accusations which you seem deeply offended by when they're challanged. I will not deny that there were certainly things that seemed to dissappear once GW had done the deal but taking hearsay as 'fact' as you like to put it, is innaccurate, petty and baseless.


its a cash in simple as. defending it is pointless, it will die long before the other main systems, as theres only so much you can do with it.

Lotr has now been around for half a decade and has a stronger fanbase than any of the specialist games you so adamently beleive it has usurped. I fully beleive it will continue to be around for another 5 years and possibly even beyond depending on how 'the hobbit' film goes. Any game world has it's limits, why you think lotr is going to roll over and die when pre-ogre kingdoms and tau the other two core games had nothing particularly new added to them for the better part of a decade other than rehashes of the same stuff i dont know. GW has made a practical artform of the rehash so expect to see lotr 3rd edition before you see it popping it's clogs.


fact; it did kill the specialist games department, which mean most vets with good memorys hate it by default as it killed their games

I actually remember a WD article where jervis talked about specialist games. Apparrently originally those now credited as 'specialist games' were not planned to have any support post the first 6 months of release. They were planned for all intents and purposes as 'stand alone' products. It was only their fandom which stopped this coming to fruition because GW realised they could spin a bob or two extra out of these games (i should note that that's not the term Jervis used:rolleyes:) and so shunted them off into 'fanatic games' or 'specialist games' as it later became known. Lotr has nothing to do with the treatment of specialist games, lamentably they were doomed to fester from the start.

Dr Death

Pertinax
19-12-2006, 10:46
ah but you see, i have played this game, i stopped when the expansions came out as i saw them as cheap cash ins/flogging a dead horse, so 3 years experiance is suffice enough to cast my judgement i think

So all the vairous extension supliments and campaigns and such are not cheep cash in for 40K and WFB?


its not gw bashing at all, its explaining with reason why i hate your game system, im not over reacting in anyway, im stating various proven facts, if you cant take critism then thats your problem.


Fact:I can take the critisism.
Fact:I just don't like critisim that I can't see the proof and backing up for.

Fact:for the record, I play 40K, WFB and LOTR. I would, in my experience, say that although it does have some tactics, 40K for me cooks down to the same old rince-repeat games.

Line up, shoot, assault. finished. WFB can be more challenging, but in my books, the army lists are (maybe) a little too simple to abuse.

LOTR for me, is a good, rewarding and challenging game.

philbrad2
19-12-2006, 15:16
The posting of this thread to my mind is just asking for trouble and before it degrades into a flamefest I'm issuing a final warning.

Keep things... on topic, relevent and constructive or I'll close the thread.

TCUTTER - Watch your posts please.

PhilB
:chrome:

+ + WarSeer =I= + +

TCUTTER
19-12-2006, 16:21
sorry bout that, i didnt actually mean to provoke people, i was trying to answer the question, i guess most of this was my fault as i was tired when i kicked off, its like i say, i can see the good sides of the game, i just wish it wasnt games workshop owned is all

Pertinax
19-12-2006, 16:42
From the Ace of Spades, by Motorhead:
"The pleasure is to play, it makes no difference what you say"

Brandir
19-12-2006, 17:14
People hate LOTR because of the perceived impact this system has on their own favourite game. It has become an urban myth that development of LOTR took away resources from WH40K/Warhammer.

As I see it these players should be thanking LOTR players for enabling GW to develop their games. The oodles of cash that LOTR made has paid for things such as the new plastics technology. It also helped GW out of an £8 million hole when development of Warhammer Online collapsed. LOTR continues to make money; as I understand it the sales of LOTR are just a fraction below that of Warhammer. And GW will get an incredible cash boost 2009 onwards when The Hobbit and the second LOTR prequal are released.

I suspect that many LOTR-bashers don't see the bigger picture either. Imagine if another company had secured the LOTR rights back in 2001. Let us assume that Wizards of the Coast were successful in their bid. Just, for the moment, take my word when I say that WotC were desperate for the LOTR minis line. Where would GW be now? Without the oodles of LOTR cash? we would, in my opinion, had even more issues with staff cutbacks and slower game development. WH40K players would have to make do with fewer new minis/rules, as would Warhammer players. Remember that LOTR was a big pull for independent retailers to start stocking GW products. LOTR has also been a good recruiting agent for new WH40K/Warhammer players.

ChrisLS
19-12-2006, 18:29
After reading more posts:

What is the obsession with having more than 50 models a side. I just do not get it. Most game stores have 4X4 or 4X6 tables. When you have these 500 figure armies in that confined space they just smush together and then you roll a bunch of dice. LOTR is slower than 40K and WFB?!?! Really? Not in any game I have ever played.

The 50 model limit was a GT restriction after several bad experiences with the Moria Goblin Horde lists. Numbers are a huge factor in LOTR, and a couple lists (Moria and Hobbits spring to mind) are simply awful because you just can't kill them all before they overwhelm you. I remember a small point game (200 or so) where I played a fellow with his Uruk-Hai Captain, couple Berzerkers, and lots of armored Uruks with an absolute horde of Hobbits. I would throw one Hobbit up against two Uruks to "take one for the team" while surrounding the nearby Uruks with 6 Hobbits and administering a "Hobbit Beat Down". Yeah, I need a 6 to kill that Uruk, but when you're rolling 12 dice... This was after gunning down his captain and berzerkers with short bows.

It also really slowed the game down. I watched one Hobbits vs. Goblins battle of about 600 points which went for 3+ hours. Apparently at GTs everyone was waiting on the horde armies to finish their games, and the tournaments I've run and attended have similar problems without a cap. And it's just play not fun to play someone who has that many models.

Some of this has been addressed in Legions - the higher the points level, the more models you can take. All in all, the cap improves the variety of the game, since it forces Goblins to take more Captains, Shamans, and Trolls.

ChrisLS
19-12-2006, 18:37
I know that LOTR has had a really hard time keeping traction in my area. Some of it is peer pressure, where people start LOTR and are then told that "it's a kids' game" or that "it's too simple".

That is the biggest problem in my mind - the impression that it is a simplistic game. Players used to other systems see the core mechanic and think, "That's too simple! It's just rolling dice!" (which is, IMO, and unbelievably ironic statement) and dismiss it. Once people have given it an HONEST chance (as opposed to going into a game knowing they'll hate it or expecting it to be 40K), most of the folks I know have found they really enjoy it. But the peer pressure from those whose minds are closed can prevent people from committing to the system.

For myself, I love LOTR and have more of those models than any other system. I am a bit of a collector, so I actually like the several different sculpts of characters (though the lack of originality in the first few years was kind of annoying). I just wish more people would give it a chance and stick with it a while.

Axel
19-12-2006, 20:59
And GW will get an incredible cash boost 2009 onwards when The Hobbit and the second LOTR prequal are released.

Unlikely. There is no Hobbit movie on the horizon, and the "prequal" will be released by Chris, so there will be no license to anything in it.

Still, I am glad that GW got the license instead of some other companies, and I do like the game system. I just think that the application of that system towards Tolkiens world is deeply lacking in many aspects.

slaughteredbull
19-12-2006, 22:16
There is a Hobbit movie going into development next year as well as a second prequel movie covering the Fall Of The Necromancer stuff presumably, it is still up in the air whether Pete Jackson will be involved as some parties involved say they want him, whereas others are willing to make it without him. Also there is a new book (Children of Durin, I believe) by Chris Tolkien being released.

Brandir
19-12-2006, 22:51
Unlikely. There is no Hobbit movie on the horizon, and the "prequal" will be released by Chris, so there will be no license to anything in it.....

Chris? I presume you mean Christopher Tolkien. He is not involved in any filming.

New Line/MGM have the rights to exploit and therefore film The Hobbit and certain of the Appendicies to LOTR. Hence the announcement last month that they will make these films before their options run out. It is expected that The Hobbit will be released Dec 2009 and the other LOTR prequal in Dec 2010.

The GW/New Line lisence runs out in Nov 2011. I suspect that GW will be keen to ensure they get the license to The Hobbit and name TBC. This will provide an obvious boost to the LOTR line and undoubtedly make oodles of money again.

InquisitorRex
19-12-2006, 23:26
Firstly, this is my opinion, and opinion alone. It's just Adam spouting off, waiting for his daughter to finally fall asleep [cue: Yawn]

To my mind, having observed a lot of gamers there are a few reservations they have towards the LOTR system:

1) The first is that they fear it - for a variety of reasons, but when this exciting new game came out established 40k'ers and Warhammer'ers all started wondering if their games were going to be drowned by the LOTR Behemoth.

Others, specialist gamers and the like feared it would drag attention from their own games i expect.

In the circles i played in back then i witnessed both of those fears. As a long-term Tolkien fan (and not the sort who insists 'it was better in my day'/'the book was better') i was just plain excited.

2) It's easy to learn, therefore it's pants. This is all part of the 'elite-gamer' mentality that i hate. Reading rulebooks is something i love, and in the past i have brought RPG's and Tabletops that make Fort Knox look easily penetrated. Comparatively, as Mr Priestley put it, LOTR was easy to learn but hard to master (i paraphrase because it's been years since i saw that video they screened in GW stores way back).

Well, he was right. I've taught lots of people how to play the LOTR game, and each of them picked it up very quickly. Goodness me, someone can play through the Mines of Moria starter set and genuinely understand the system. That said, an established player would demolish such a beginner through tactics and experience. The LOTR GT is every bit as competative and hard fought as the 40k or Warhammer versions.

Sadly, many people (often on a subconcious level) believe something easy is not worthwhile. They're daft, in my opinion, but they still hold to that belief.

3) Some people hated it because it was a 'fad'. Most of us are wargamery nerd and fantasy fanboys, often since we were tots. Suddenly this film emerges and EVERYONE on the planet (ok, so not everyone, but a lot of folks) wants to claim 'they like LOTR'. Subculture establish themselves. One of the most vocal of which is the 'it was better in my day, this movie will bring nothing but sorrow brigade'. They always pop out of the woodwork when a book of a film comes out. Re: Harry Potter, Da Vinci Code - heck i found myself doing this today when my wife and i watched Eragon....

The result of point 3 was - a bunch of people dismissed it out of hand, and simply refused to give it a chance, on the basis of what it was. Shame really.

4) Sheep syndrome. This is the biggest reason in my opinion, that people hate LOTR (or indeed most things), someone they know or respect says it's 'pants' and they believe them. Like herpes, it spreads across the internet/gaming group and soon enough there's faasands of people who all share an opinion from little or no actual knowledge. Most LOTR-haters, and i've met a lot, are in this category.

Anyway, my baby is ready to sleep. Rant over.

These are the main reasons i think people dismiss the game.

For what it's worth (my opinion, at any rate), the LOTR system is the cleverest, most elegant wargame system i know. It's a thinking man's game, and i love it.

Adam

Intrepid Adventurer
19-12-2006, 23:47
Preach it brother. Close the thread, nothing left to say. (:

Axel
20-12-2006, 18:11
Chris? I presume you mean Christopher Tolkien. He is not involved in any filming.

New Line/MGM have the rights to exploit and therefore film The Hobbit and certain of the Appendicies to LOTR. Hence the announcement last month that they will make these films before their options run out. It is expected that The Hobbit will be released Dec 2009 and the other LOTR prequal in Dec 2010.

Well, that explains it. I missed that announcement, and thought that the "prequel" means the book that Chris has puzzled together from Tolkiens notes.

With the next film three years out (and that if all runs according to plan) the GW-LOTR system will need to support itself, it cannot wait for that boost. As it looks today, chances are very good that it will still exist then.

HalfEvil333
21-12-2006, 05:38
I really dislike the LOTR system (being good, not useing the word 'hate', which I use too often these days) because it relies too much on luck for me. I luck swings between good and bad really quickly, and at weird times. Oh, the stories I could tell... but that's for another thread. I really don't buy most of the arguments about their is some kind of other level of depth to it that only comes out while playing. I've played it. My friend was looking for a game, so I volunteered. He helped me out and taught me the rules, I also had read the rules before. It was after the ROTK book came out.

First combat the game, Aragorn with his uber sword (don't remember how to spell it) ran out and killed 2 Cave Trolls in one swoop. After that, he spent the entire game stunned from Saruman's spell until he was beaten to death by Uruk-hai. :wtf:

nanktank
21-12-2006, 06:57
With me I could never like the game because I could never like the movie, I had read the books when I was in my teens, and when I saw the movies it completly ruined my imagination of what middle earth was like. I cannot think of moria goblins, orc's or indeed any of the character's as I imagined them before. Not GW's fault of course, but since I hated the movies, the game hasn't sparked much of an interest.

Scanno
21-12-2006, 07:33
Lotr is not, in my experience, hated. Some people dislike it for the reasons listed earlier, which they believe to be true.

The thing that bugs me about LOTRs existance is that it sparked the "it sucks cos it's new and scary" vs the "everyone's out to get me" mentallity of the players when it comes to the game (it's like a 15 year old's livejournal in here).

Lotr did not ruin WD, the decision to put extra ads, and pretending a fictional character is the editor did, along with the removal of rules articles (although I can see why, kids showing up for games saying "of course I can use this unplaytested obscure army list it was in WD" (damned Armour Company) are rather irritating).

The agruement that LOTR didn't remove resources from other things jsut cannot be true. While it does provide extra income for fancy tech, human resources can only stretch so far, regardless of budget (management 101 right there). Having someone sculpt another Aragorn does mean that a new eldar will have to wait. Whether you could afford to make that eldar without LOTR is another story...

This thread is just the same repetitive junk we've been reading since the game came out, and I can't see any reason for it's continued existance. Enjoy your game, LOTR players. Revel in it's existance, and celebrate the fact that you know something the ignorant 15 year olds down in GW will never know.
Be the bigger men, LOTR haters, and ignore this sort of stuff when it comes up. It happens every three months or so anyway. Let the thread about unenlightened fools continue in your absence.

I, for one, am, as you can probably judge, indifferent to the game. It's got a decent set of rules, but I'd rather play cowboys and Indians with them. It's got nice sculpts, but I'd rather paint my new scratch built Bloodbowl team, or warmachine models.

Now I'll just wait for the indignant replies to these inane ramblings of an exhausted man, with one final comment: can't we all just get along?

Crymson
21-12-2006, 08:28
Now I'll just wait for the indignant replies to these inane ramblings of an exhausted man, with one final comment: can't we all just get along?

Be nice, wouldn't it :D We are all wargamers, after all, no matter the system.

Dr Death
21-12-2006, 09:02
Now I'll just wait for the indignant replies to these inane ramblings of an exhausted man, with one final comment: can't we all just get along?

Well these threads always do pop up because even after five years of lotr's existance there are still some that beleive that it has still to earn it's place in the GW 'family' of games and this 'hate' for it inspires these rambling debates backwards and fowards. However the baseless hatred (if you dont like it because you dont like it that's fine, we're talking about the irrational hatred here) has died down significantly because people are finally realising the worth of the game and the interesting challanges it has inherent in it's rules.


I really don't buy most of the arguments about their is some kind of other level of depth to it that only comes out while playing

Well such facets of the game dont only come out when playing it just requires you to use a bit of imagination and visualise situations within gameplay. Just because there is no arbitary bonus for charging an enemy in the flank doesnt mean there is no benefit to it because usually (on formations shallower than they are wide) it means that you are fighting less foes thus you gain the advantage of having more chance of killing those you do attack. The difference between lotr and warhammer is that in lotr these potential weaknesses for you to exploit are constantly changing because the formations arent fixed as in warhammer, thus it requires you to make a judgement on how each model moves and what they choose to attack. Unlike warhammer therefore there is no point pressing towards the enemy's flank just because it's their flank because they may have reordered their troops for it to be disadvantageous for you to do so. That is but one example of the 'hidden' depth that lotr has inherent within it's ruleset.

Dr Death

Shadowheart
21-12-2006, 09:53
The more i read shadowheart's posts the more i fall in love with him.

That's just because of the avatar. :p


First combat the game, Aragorn with his uber sword (don't remember how to spell it) ran out and killed 2 Cave Trolls in one swoop. After that, he spent the entire game stunned from Saruman's spell until he was beaten to death by Uruk-hai.

Sounds like Aragorn didn't even make his points back in that one, and that the luck evened out pretty decently. Forces with super powerful elements are naturally rather hit and miss, in any game. And any game heavily using dice, especially D6's, will tend to get random. It's certainly a valid complaint though.
Also, there's playing a game, and then there's playing a game... a bunch of artillery blasting away at eachother across an empty table is playing 40K, and again it isn't. Whether a game is good depends mainly on the players who need to have the experience, skill and intention to have a good match. The game system should just enable them to do so.


The agruement that LOTR didn't remove resources from other things jsut cannot be true.

I don't see why not. If they hadn't been used on LotR, the resources might simply not have been used at all. The resources might not even have been there if they weren't going to be used on LotR. That someone sculpted an Aragorn and not a Space Marine Captain doesn't mean they sculpted an Aragorn instead of a Space Marine Captain.
The thing with the resources arguement that irks me is the implication that any resources GW has are in principle intended for Warhammer, and that LotR only gets anything because GW redirects (misdirects) some of its attention.

Though to be fair it's not an arguement exclusive to LotR vs. Warhammer, it comes up all the time in all GW communities. People have a habit of looking at new releases as being either something they want, or something that's keeping them from what they want. It's weird. I mean, I'd really like some new Imperial Guard stuff, but I'm not looking at the new Dark Angels Captains thinking "dammit GW, those should've been new Commissars!".


Now I'll just wait for the indignant replies to these inane ramblings of an exhausted man, with one final comment: can't we all just get along?

I guess we can't because we only want to get along on their own terms. We all want to be the one saying "let's all stop arguing from now on". Except of course for those who got along in the first place, but you don't hear from them.

Brandir
21-12-2006, 10:15
.....First combat the game, Aragorn with his uber sword (don't remember how to spell it) ran out and killed 2 Cave Trolls in one swoop. After that, he spent the entire game stunned from Saruman's spell until he was beaten to death by Uruk-hai. :wtf:

Hmmm - killed two Cave Trolls in one swoop using Andúril. May I ask how? You see, Aragorn has three attacks and each Cave Troll has three wounds. So how did Aragorn manage to cause six wounds with his three attacks?

Pertinax
21-12-2006, 10:23
Beat me to the post there... :(

Goq Gar
21-12-2006, 10:53
Not sure if this has been mentioned:

The flood of little kids with short tempers and screaming voices it attracted to the stores. It got to the point where I literally had to keep my army box IN MY HAND while i played because I kept finding the little (censor)s rummaging through it and in one case throwing them. Its turning into a public swimming pool, screaming kids and such. Other bad experiences: lord of the ring playing kids who would pathetically insult yet still insult people who didnt play, it was very annoying. The little phsycos who would just randomly kick you and run off giggling. And of course, that kid who started playing fantasy, and played one of his first games against me. Of course, when he began to lose terribly (despite me trying to let him win, charging my skinks into combat and such) he went into a huff, started screaming and crying, and in one swoop brought his hand down on a block of my saurus, giving him a gash in his hand and me demanding his parents pay me for the models he destroyed beyond repair. Then the kid who I threatened to call the police on, I caught him running out of the store with my stegadon model, it wasn't until the staff had banned him for life I lifted the threat.

Lord of the rings is attracting these little horrors, and im sorry to say, its ruining the game for me. Despite the staff kicking these kids out all the time, they just keep coming.

Brandir
21-12-2006, 11:03
Personally I think this is an Urban Myth, the 'kiddie' factor. Never had any problems whatsoever and I have been into quite a large number of GW shops in the last few years.

Pertinax
21-12-2006, 11:16
Is it possible to just atribute the new players to LOTR? Isn't recruitment a good thing?

Gondorian
21-12-2006, 13:27
Not sure if this has been mentioned:

The flood of little kids with short tempers and screaming voices it attracted to the stores. It got to the point where I literally had to keep my army box IN MY HAND while i played because I kept finding the little (censor)s rummaging through it and in one case throwing them. Its turning into a public swimming pool, screaming kids and such. Other bad experiences: lord of the ring playing kids who would pathetically insult yet still insult people who didnt play, it was very annoying. The little phsycos who would just randomly kick you and run off giggling. And of course, that kid who started playing fantasy, and played one of his first games against me. Of course, when he began to lose terribly (despite me trying to let him win, charging my skinks into combat and such) he went into a huff, started screaming and crying, and in one swoop brought his hand down on a block of my saurus, giving him a gash in his hand and me demanding his parents pay me for the models he destroyed beyond repair. Then the kid who I threatened to call the police on, I caught him running out of the store with my stegadon model, it wasn't until the staff had banned him for life I lifted the threat.

Lord of the rings is attracting these little horrors, and im sorry to say, its ruining the game for me. Despite the staff kicking these kids out all the time, they just keep coming.

I've come accross this problem with both lotr and 40K players.
You get young immature kids in any of the systems.
I used to go to the sunday afternoon games that my local GW ran and encountered many young kids at these. Most of the them I find are actually OK and will not cause any problems. However, at some point a trouble maker will appear and do something immature that will cause others to behave immature aswell. While this is acceptable up to a point, they are still kids afterall, if it gets out of hand the older players get annoyed.
The biggest problem is when they start running around the store and effectively stop playing the wargames, they cause havoc and begin to do things such as hurling dice at one and other making it harder for the people who are playing, old or young, to enjoy their game.
I don't think this is a LOTR specific problem but occurs throughout all of the systems.

hiveminion
21-12-2006, 14:58
I would say kids beneath 10 years age shouldn't be allowed in stores. Or at least buy the products. OK so that's radical and can't be put in practise but still...

The GW hobby was never meant for youngsters. After all most boxes have a 12/11+ age limit on it to warn parents these products are not toys. The hobby is not suited for young children. It requires commitment, patience, and lots of cash (in the long run). Young kids are famous for often not possessing these traits.

Scanno
21-12-2006, 16:07
I would say kids beneath 10 years age shouldn't be allowed in stores. Or at least buy the products. OK so that's radical and can't be put in practise but still...



The guys in Ireland don't let anyone under 12 play games/paint/be active in store. And they try to disuade parents from buying the stuff for young kids.

Yet again, in reply to an earlier comment; LOTR did take resources off other games: the Perry twins and Allesio Cavetore; these are limited, once off resources that cannot be replaced. I'm not saying that it doesn't deserve them, but it did happen.

hiveminion
21-12-2006, 16:26
But they did a great job in making a game that a lot of people enjoy these days. Do you think it would have been better if LotR had never been made and the twins and Cavatore would have just done some random jobs on WFB and W40k?

Well, if you don't play LotR, you probably would. But remember that even though you may not pick the fruits of the LotR game, a lot of people do.

Scanno
21-12-2006, 16:55
Well, if you don't play LotR, you probably would. But remember that even though you may not pick the fruits of the LotR game, a lot of people do.

Now now, don't generalise. I don't play LOTR, and I don't mind who works on it, as long as they leave brian nelson and jess goodwin alone. Allesio might write another broken skaven book if we let him back into WHFB. I was just pointing out that yes, indeed, resources were moved to LOTR, but I'm not decrying it.

Gondorian
22-12-2006, 12:35
Allesio just finished working on the new warhammer rule book. Was he not the main man behind this release? He does not only work for LOTR.

Resources may have been put into lotr to get it off the ground but when it did it generated more profit so that gw could afford more resources overall. They even brought some new people into employment, to my understanding. If lotr ever diverted resources it has most certainly paid them back twofold.

slaughteredbull
22-12-2006, 18:28
If you need any further proof of the fact there is still life in the system, then just look back over the last couple of pages of threads and count how many people have come on here saying they are new to LotR and come from 40k or WFB or whatever and want to try something new and what do they need to start playing. There's at least on new thread a week about it, that doesn't cry out a dyiing game to me.

Goq Gar
23-12-2006, 07:19
I personally dont hate Lotr, i think its a pretty cool system to be honest. Some people I know dont like it for the whole "commercialised fad" concept, that its just a way to make money with not much thought put into it... but I say its a pretty cool system, the whole combat system is awesome, things dont die very quickly, and you can have big combats which work like an actual fight would.

HeraldOfTheFree
23-12-2006, 11:09
LotR ADDED resources to Games Worksop if my memory serves me right! Didn't Adam Troke get their job as a LotR GAMES DEVELEPOR! GW hired new staff to do LotR... but now Adam Troke is in every White Dwarf playing Fantasy/LotR/40k. He ran Medusa V!
Little kids are not attracted to my store by LotR (well, I'll expand on this in a bit). In Altrincham (Machester, UK) our most problematic player is a young 40k gamer! Our store's other screaming child was *technically* brought into the hobby by 40k. His older brother started to play 40k and he wanted to play LotR. His dad sweet talked the staff into ignoring the 'under 12's not allowed' rule. So 40k brough him into the hobby.
I got into the hobby through LotR when I was 10. I read the book/watched movie/ saw younger cousins BGiME/went to GW/started hobby. I wasn't meant to be allowed into GW without an adult 'cos of my age. The staff decided I was mature enough. Now I play all three games and specialist games. LotR is still my favourite, not because of the rules. I don't play ANY game because the rules are good. I play games because of the background. LotR is about telling a story... not good rules.
(End ramble)
Thanks for reading.
Lewis

Voronwe[MQ]
23-12-2006, 15:34
People are hating Lotr? Strange, I've never seen anything of it.

Voronwe

dr vompire
24-12-2006, 23:37
Out of interest why did someone start a thread with this title and then wonder why people post an answer and then get upset about it?

I seem to have a completely different agenda to all the other people who don't like LOTR, yes i do believe it had a lot to do with the abandonment of specialist games support, no i don't have any proof of this but it happened at the same time and thats coincidence enough for me. It certainly did have something to do with the relegation of Epic to specialist gamesin the first place for it be neglected though the poor show epic 40000 made financially also had a hand in that.
Anyway just in case a GW bigwig is reading this:

Give me my new bloodbowl teams you bastards, i've been waiting years and have money to throw at them, another 40k skirmish game would be good as well (perhaps one based on techno-barbarian warlords on 27k earth?)

anyway to get on topic, i really am torn, i like the look of LOTR and the rules seem to be set towards skirmishes which are just more fun and characterful to play,

my gripe is it's the lord of the bloody rings, it's a bit like creationists in the deep south deciding the new theory they are going to combat those dangerous evolution theories by esposing a survival of the fittest system.

this is just my opinion, i'm not evangilistic about it (unless i meet you face to face, and i'm drunk) but the lord of the rings is a **** poor excuse for a book. this is why the films were bad, and why i cannot bring myself to play the game.

The plot is so so, but the book is like trying to wade through treacle, poorly written treacle at that.


before i get hunted down by hobbits yes it was ground breaking, yes without it GW would be selling ludo but I cannot connect with it and therefore find it impossible to connect to a game based on it.

all the other GW games have an element of uncertainty in their fluff, LOTR has no potential for this, it is very dogmatically written down and with the forgotten tales etc. probably better documented than most of human history pre 1800.

that is why i hate LOTR

rant over

Daemon king Mad Dog
25-12-2006, 12:13
Where i go we always find lots of little 8 year olds playing lord of the rings who then get bore dof playing a huge game and start just messing around throwing stuff at each other and then complaining when you push them away from your table (gently) to avoid your army being mushed.

Also when they leave their tables pack all their stuff away and take it with them so it doesn't get nicked (Which it won't unless theres other little kjids around) then when you come with your mordor army trying to break through the walls of helms deep they come back and say " We were playing here go away!" then start crying when we VERY firmly say, "NO!" because they've been annoying us all day.

this is made worse when one of our mates goes over to them and starts talking to them, eventualy challenging them to a battle and trying to get them to start 40k, next week they challenge us to a game of 40k, we try to let them win and even lend them some models so we can have a proper game, then they compalain when they lose!
I started 40k when i was 8 (Before those woeful days of lord of the rings) and i never complained when i lost. persisted that my opponent tells me what i did wrong and soaked it up liek a sponge, but normaly they don't mind because i ask nicely and just want ot improve my game, i only got in mardis when my models broke, but then i just went "RAAAAA!" and bought soem glue, to the amusement of all.

Sorry i'm rambling, stoped now i swear it.

DhaosAndy
25-12-2006, 17:12
@ dr vompire

"The plot is so so, but the book is like trying to wade through treacle, poorly written:wtf: treacle at that."

You don't like the books, fine I don't like the game.
Though if you think Tolkien writes poorly I'd be interested to know who on earth you think writes well.

Pertinax
25-12-2006, 18:40
Daemon king mad dog: So basically you don't like LOTR on the basis of the behaviour that it generates in the younger players in your area, and that behaviour is below how you behaved at that age? Or am I misunderstanding?

Daemon king Mad Dog
25-12-2006, 20:10
pertinax, you are correct.
GAmes fine, i play it, small kids aint.

Pertinax
25-12-2006, 20:24
That was a very contructive point of critisism that really helped this debate along. Thanks.

Kind of reminds me of the "Elitism on Warseer" thread in Forum Comments at the moment...

Daemon king Mad Dog
25-12-2006, 20:33
I would more see that as "Matureity on warseer, unless your an ork".

Pertinax
25-12-2006, 21:31
Meaning?...

(risking more thread derailment - sorry)

Daemon king Mad Dog
25-12-2006, 21:36
Well, elitism means that everything has to be the best. I'm not a very good painter (but i haven't posted any of my models, lol) but the guys from who loves orks and stuff still like me. Those kids where beign immature. Most people on Warseer like matureity. Teh fellaz in who lvoes orks are silly most of time, but we're still mature and just want to enjoy a game we've paid good money for, not trying to mess around occassionaly playing with models our parents bought for us.
Now let us return to the topic, remeber that?

Pertinax
25-12-2006, 21:45
Right.

So, to get things straight: You don't like LOTR because of the kids. At the same time, you play LOTR because you like it.

Sorry to sound confused. It sounds like you don't have a problem with the game at all, but the maturity of the players that are in your area.

Daemon king Mad Dog
26-12-2006, 10:20
Last thing true. Game is fine, but the reason people hate LOTR is the players (In my area anyway)

dr vompire
26-12-2006, 12:27
@ dr vompire

"The plot is so so, but the book is like trying to wade through treacle, poorly written:wtf: treacle at that."

You don't like the books, fine I don't like the game.
Though if you think Tolkien writes poorly I'd be interested to know who on earth you think writes well.

erm, from a purely sci fi/ fantasy bent Frank Herbert (+ offspring), Iain (m) Banks, Phillip K Dick, TERRY PRATTCHET, stephen king, Peter F Hamilton, George Orwell, David Eddings (yes he only has one plot, but then so does Tolkein), David Gemmel, Shakespeare, Asimov, the guy who wrote the book of the long sun, the author of Gormanghast, Raymond E Bloody Fiest, Anne McCaffery.

All of these people are better writers than Tolkein was (and yes some of them were pretty poor themselves) PK Dick could waltz all over him for ideas on a bad day, and wrote better prose, and yet too is relegated to the literary dustbin that is the scifi/fantasy genre.

Tolkein especially the stuff other than the hobbit/LOTR is impenetrable tripe, the ideas are good, the execution is not, as for all those bloody poems which seem to serve no other purpose than to prove the author can write bad poetry (and before you ask go and read some Shakespeare or Milton or Owen or Roger McGaugh for an example of good poetry, Bob Dylan probably also counts.)

and when you start looking outside the genre there are supprisingly even better authors: Iain Banks (no M) while being pretty similar to the guy who writes the sci fi still manages to write good books when he doesn't have the prop of space ships etc.
Then you have authors who never needed to construct the remise of people with hairy feet to sell books like Joseph Heller (ok a one hit wonder but then so was tolkein) Harper Lee, Zadie Frost, Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie, etc. etc.etc.

stop reading the black library pulp (i do but i know it's pulp) and open your eyes to the world of literary wonders, then you wont say silly things like your above statement.

PS Tom Clancy is not literature.

Brandir
26-12-2006, 12:38
McCaffrey and Gemmel write well? Crikey, talk about airport trash books. I now realise that your posts are purely to flame up this thread following this last post.

Gaebriel
26-12-2006, 12:50
Tolkien polarizes as usual. Half of the people put the Lord of the rings away after the first hundred pages, the other half rereads it a zillion times :D

It may help to keep in mind that Tolkien didn't write with novels in mind but rather viewed himself as a historical chronologist.

On the other hand I liked "Troy" better than the Illias in it's original version - from a entertainment point of view... :p

dr vompire
26-12-2006, 13:13
McCaffrey and Gemmel write well? Crikey, talk about airport trash books. I now realise that your posts are purely to flame up this thread following this last post.

not trying to flame up. gemmel is great at trash hero stories, and McCaffrey deserves a mention for both ideas and also being probably the first realistic depiction of women in scifi/fantasy, on account of her being a woman. yes they both write books you would get through in a wait for a delayed plane, but they also write better than tolkein at what they do.

if i was waiting for a plane and all i had to read was tolkien i would get really really pissed off.

Daemon king Mad Dog
26-12-2006, 13:25
dr vom, Tolkein is one of the greatest writers ever! You just have to read his books from the right angle. His books are supposed to be a lot like a historical Essay (sort of) describing the events of the war of the ring, and also written from memory by frodo (But strangly stil in the third person...) so it won't have a lot of dialouge, because, well, describe a conversation you had several years ago!

erion
26-12-2006, 13:46
To be perfectly honest the reason people hate LotR:SBG around here was because the guy the FLGS chose to promote it was a powergaming jackass who didn't comprehend that you should let people win demo games.

Now that he's been removed from the store for a year or two I actually have a couple of guys thinking about playing again.

bertcom1
26-12-2006, 14:23
Iain Banks (no M) while being pretty similar to the guy who writes the sci fi still manages to write good books when he doesn't have the prop of space ships etc.

You do know that Iain Banks and Iain M Banks are the same person? So thats why thier books are similar?


Anyway.

I don't play Lord of the Rings because I just can't paint the models to a standard that I am happy with. The game itself is nice and fun to play, but I can't paint the models well enough. I'm not a great painter in any case, but I can get 40k/Necromunda and Warhammer/Quest models done to a level that I like, but for some reason I can't get LotR models done to a point where I like.

erion
26-12-2006, 15:15
I have said before that if GW chooses to enter the non-collectible pre-painted miniatures game market (i.e. AT-43, et. al.), LotR would be the ideal vehicle. The built-in fanbase of non-gamers/non-hobbyists would be more inclined to give it a try without the modeling/painting aspect as pre-playing overhead.

Gondorian
26-12-2006, 20:14
In regard to Tolkein's works,
I personally love em and enjoy his style of writing. Every wirter has differences to the next and not one can please everyone. While someone may regard one book as trash another may regard it as a masterpiece. I'm always careful when I criticise books because my personal taste does not automatically decide whether it is a good piece of work. Just because I don't like it may not mean that it is worthless. Also bear in mind that it is much easier to criticise something than to do it yourself.
If people want to talk about Tolkien's works any further I suggest a new thread as it's taking this one way off topic.

DhaosAndy
27-12-2006, 18:18
@ dr vompire: Ah, you prefer literature, no wonder you dislike the work of a language professor. :eyebrows:

Had I realised I would simply have referred you to Tolkien's comments in the appendix. Which I notice someone responding to this thread has helpfully included in their signature. ;)

Brandir
27-12-2006, 19:30
@ dr vompire: Ah, you prefer literature, no wonder you dislike the work of a language professor. :eyebrows:

Had I realised I would simply have referred you to Tolkien's comments in the appendix. Which I notice someone responding to this thread has helpfully included in their signature. ;)

The quote in my sig is not from the Appendix, but the foreward from the second edition first published in 1966:p

hiveminion
27-12-2006, 19:48
Brandir, may I say I like your Avatar, I recognize it from one of the Silmarillion books on our Tolkien-shelf.

On topic:

The fact that LotR models are a bit more difficult to paint to a decent standard is obviously because it is a smaller scale. But I've always managed to paint my models to a level where they look good on the tabletop. Of course, when you look at them from a few inches distance, they look horrendous, but from a few feet, they look realistic.
I do think the smaller scale makes some of the models ugly, because GW tries to hard to add details, especially to the faces. The plastic Wood Elves and Uruk-Hai scouts, as well as the Theodred model, just look appaling IMO. In fact, the models from the FotR and TT look better than more recent plastic/metal miniatures, though there are of course exceptions.

Brandir
27-12-2006, 20:00
Brandir, may I say I like your Avatar, I recognize it from one of the Silmarillion books on our Tolkien-shelf.
.......

My Avatar is from the picture Glaurung sets forth to seek Túrin by JRR Tolkien:

16393

hiveminion
27-12-2006, 20:03
Yes, Glaurung, couldn't remember that name. Excellent.
Anywayz, carry on (topic).

DhaosAndy
27-12-2006, 21:51
@ Brandir: I stand corrected, thank you :o

On topic:

Generaly I find the smaller the scale the easier the model is too paint. One simply reduces the level of detail and stages of highlight while maintaining or increasing the level of contrast.

hiveminion
27-12-2006, 21:56
Unfortunately GW *thinks* they can add just as much details on a smaller scale...thinks...

Daemon king Mad Dog
27-12-2006, 22:18
Hive minion, GW does not think!

hiveminion
28-12-2006, 14:34
Hive minion, GW does not think!

O yeah, forgot that:D

That's probably the reason why they added Feral-Uruk hai: they couldn't know we already had them: they were just called Berserkers:wtf:

Gondorian
28-12-2006, 15:19
Brandir, may I say I like your Avatar, I recognize it from one of the Silmarillion books on our Tolkien-shelf.

On topic:

The fact that LotR models are a bit more difficult to paint to a decent standard is obviously because it is a smaller scale. But I've always managed to paint my models to a level where they look good on the tabletop. Of course, when you look at them from a few inches distance, they look horrendous, but from a few feet, they look realistic.
I do think the smaller scale makes some of the models ugly, because GW tries to hard to add details, especially to the faces. The plastic Wood Elves and Uruk-Hai scouts, as well as the Theodred model, just look appaling IMO. In fact, the models from the FotR and TT look better than more recent plastic/metal miniatures, though there are of course exceptions.

I personally find lotr models easier to paint then those of 40K. While there are some right horrible models in the range it has its beauties aswell. The much debated Isengard troll for example is, in my opinion, a beautiful model as are the mumakil, haradrim, easterlings etc. I also really liked the scouting Uruk-Hai and still plan to make my own little army of them. (After imperial guard, Orks and goblins, Dark Angels and Mordor armies are complete).

erion
28-12-2006, 15:52
Over the last few months I've found that I've been gaming less and less at the FLGS and more in the basement. Thus I've found that I can generally play what I want to play and others are more willing to give new systems a try. Because of this, I've found renewed fervor in painting my Rohan and Isengard forces that have been in progress for more than 2 years.

Even if I have to provide the initial whiff of crack for people, I've very likely to get them playing LotR with me once they give it a try because it's fast, fun, and different from pretty much anything else out ther.

hiveminion
28-12-2006, 17:11
I personally find lotr models easier to paint then those of 40K. While there are some right horrible models in the range it has its beauties aswell. The much debated Isengard troll for example is, in my opinion, a beautiful model as are the mumakil, haradrim, easterlings etc. I also really liked the scouting Uruk-Hai and still plan to make my own little army of them. (After imperial guard, Orks and goblins, Dark Angels and Mordor armies are complete).

But we the Isengard troll (it really is a cool model), though on the same scale, is larger than a Terminator, so we can say that the rule:"smaller means less detailed and harder to paint" doesn't apply to him (and certainly not to the Mumakil).
The Easterlings were beautiful models, BUT they were fully armoured, which, let's agree on that, is easier to sculpt in a good-looking way. The Uruk-hai Scouts and Wood Elves have bare heads, and the GW sculptors "thought" they were good enough to add lots of detail to the faces. They look like there's something stuck in their intestinal tract...And then 'Eavy Metal made it worse by painting eyes on them<shivers>.
I think LotR models look better without painted eyes, unless you're as good as those Golden Demon winners...
It's all a matter of personal taste though.

Gondorian
28-12-2006, 19:01
It's the faces on those wood elves, they spoil the rest of the model unfortunately. I was wondering if scuplting veils, like the rangers of gondor have, would improve them.

hiveminion
28-12-2006, 19:18
It's the faces on those wood elves, they spoil the rest of the model unfortunately. I was wondering if scuplting veils, like the rangers of gondor have, would improve them.

Don't forget their Lego-like poses, especially some of the spearmen look fat and static, and the archers have rectangular-shaped arms. They just look unnatural.
Veils could help on the faces, but gives the Elves a Robin Hood feel, I think. Could be cool, actually.

Daemon king Mad Dog
28-12-2006, 22:13
The RAngers are already based on robin hood (In the books anyway) and it is well known that Robin Hood showed his face when he turned up in my city!

andymeechan
06-01-2007, 19:59
One of the interesting things I remembered while reading through this is that, for a game that some vilify, it won an award at Origins 2003.


SciFi/Fantasy Mini Rules: LotR The Two Towers, Games Workshop
(taken from Ogrecave.com (http://www.ogrecave.com/archives/003423.shtml))


Onto other things now...


I cannot connect with it and therefore find it impossible to connect to a game based on it.

This is possibly the best reason i've read for not playing LotR. I've had problems getting my 'buy in' to the game too. I like the rules, quite fancy the models, and yet was lacking a connection (although I found it in this article (http://www.thelastalliance.com/index.php?pid=disparticle&catid=1&subid=74&artilceid=2596) on TheLastAlliance.com). This would also go some way to why I prefer WFB to WAB - I feel the historical precedence constricts the development of my army.

I should say i'm a modeller first and a gamer second!

Regards,

Andy