The One Ring
http://gbain.powweb.com/

WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
http://gbain.powweb.com/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=22425		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  xJEDIx [ Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:  WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
Hello fellow companions,

First post here! :)

So tell me, how does this gaming system compares with those from GW, both Warhammer Fantasy Battles 8th Edition and Warhammer Ancient Battles 2nd Edition?

I'm a former player of WH:FB from 5th to 7th and I've quit playing WH:FB in the present edition because IMO the rules are terrible.
So I'm looking for a good replacement for the feeling of playing with a massive army filled with ranked troops. I really like WAB rules, they are trimmed WH:FB 7th Edition. But they are very strict themewise. And LOTR... well, it's all about the theme!! :)

So, can you give me an opinion about War of the Ring as a gaming system compared against the Warhammer Series?
Is more strategic or more tactical? Does Movement/Positioning of troops really matter? Does the terrain affects gameplay and options? Is built over a basis of "everything counts when in large amouts" or "ubber beats all"? Is it well balanced? Is just a dice rolling contest as WH:FB 8th Edition?

I'm really looking forward for your words, folks! I've been looking at LOTR miniatures for years and years but the SBG never appealed to me (as a Warmachine player is really tough to find a game as good as Warmachine).

Thanks and Regards!
Carlos



Oh... and bring that Ring over to Mordor! We need it! ;)
Author:  mastermanje [ Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
Welcome to WOTR :D ,so, the first thing I have to say is that WOTR armies almost always will cost you more money than warhammer armies. the most common gaming scales are 1000-2000 points in my area, but it is possible that they don't think about it that way everywhere. In my oppinion every army in Wotr isn't overpowered, or underpowered. Honestly, I don't know the difference between strategic and tactic :shock: . Positioning is very important as for example someone locking up your cavalry can realy hurt them. Wotr is way more based on great battlefields than SBG.Cheap points magic like nazgul, mouth of sauron etc is kinda ruling WOTR. Another big difference is that heroes can never fight apart from companies ont their own (except some guys like treebeard etc). But WOTR is a lovely game I think, I hope you will agree after some games(or maybe even now). But maybe you should still think about playing SBG as WOTR is becoming a more specialists game.



Mastermanje
Author:  xJEDIx [ Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
mastermanje wrote:
(...)Honestly, I don't know the difference between strategic and tactic(...)


Well, this is simple:
STRATEGY: you plan and execute
TACTIC: you act and react

Examples, WH:FB and WH:40K are strategic (?) games, Warmachine is also a strategic game; Infinity is a Tactic game along with the Ambush Alley series because those systems are based in actions and reactions.

One point you've mentioned, this game is very VERY expensive. I guess it's because of its license, a way to "milk the cow"! Just like Apple, a lesser product at higher prices.

As for the SBG, I've tried it once or twice. It doens't appeal to me because it doesn't offer me the same as Warmachine, the chance to do more with less, and that's the key to a good skirmish game, making more actions with less models. And not just trimming numbers from basic gaming formulas like WH:FB.
Author:  mastermanje [ Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
Okay, thank you for that tactic/strategy thing. In WOTR you can win with small numbers, but you need to be very careful. I still remember the first time I played with an WOTR elven army after some warhammer, and I just saw how my plans got ruined because I I let my archers to long in danger and their wonderful tactic just got detroyed by a cavalry charge, grrr! Playing tactical or depends on how your oponent plays(against some I build up a tactic, against some I just use my reactions against his actions. hope this helps :)
Author:  smaul [ Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
welcome

I play a lot of historical games and I think WOTR is likely one of the best rules sets I have played as far as a fast playing but tactically fun for a system

It can be costly to build armies, we play a lot of 750 t0 1000 point battles and that not too bad, and very very fun games, every move matters.

plus there is always ebay and bartertown to pick up some good deals. most of my army I have gotten for 40-50% below retail

besides $99 bucks for 5 warhammer blood knights rivals pretty much anything in WOTR for cavalry that I have ever seen. I can get 6 Morgul Knights for $33 (if I paid retail) so for 99 bucks I get 18 of those and Ive never had to field more than 10 Cavalry figs for any unit of heavy cavalry (usually about 8, 4 companies worth)

Just remember to enjoy and play the army you want.
Author:  GothmogtheWerewolf [ Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
Never played WFB or 40k, can't stand them in fact, but I can tell you that WoTR is a good game. Nice mechanicsn and, providig your opponent isn't one to powergame, very fun to play. There are many brolken combos, and it is possible to make almost every army list overpowerd, good, average, poor or very weak, but some armies naturally have som,e better items than others. Fopr instance if you were to pick Mordor, and take Gothmog, multiple (by which I mean about 5) 125pt Ringwraiths (especially Khamul) alongside a horde of Morannon Orcs, and you will probably win, whereas iif you took Rohan with Theoden, Eowyn and a load of Riders of Rohan you would probably lose. You do have to find a balance between the two, as you do not want to be slaughtered, or be dislikled for powergaming, Good luck.
Author:  Telchar [ Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
In short, WOTR is brilliant, so long as your opponent is sort of gentlemanly (ie doesn't take one of the superoverpowered lists). If not, look for someone else or take ringwraith spam+Gorgoroth and make an agreement with him. Never played Warhammer (and it will stay like that) so there I can't help you.
Author:  Xelee [ Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
I was going to post something substantive but it was basically everything Smaul says. It's a good game at the core - some of the units are a bit 'out there' but the game itself is solid and fun.

It's not the only good game out there but I've never been inclined to port LOTR over to another system I really like, like Impetus or SAGA, which is as good an endorsement as any.
Author:  xJEDIx [ Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
Hey y'all!

smaul wrote:
welcome

I play a lot of historical games and I think WOTR is likely one of the best rules sets I have played as far as a fast playing but tactically fun for a system

It can be costly to build armies, we play a lot of 750 t0 1000 point battles and that not too bad, and very very fun games, every move matters.

plus there is always ebay and bartertown to pick up some good deals. most of my army I have gotten for 40-50% below retail

besides $99 bucks for 5 warhammer blood knights rivals pretty much anything in WOTR for cavalry that I have ever seen. I can get 6 Morgul Knights for $33 (if I paid retail) so for 99 bucks I get 18 of those and Ive never had to field more than 10 Cavalry figs for any unit of heavy cavalry (usually about 8, 4 companies worth)

Just remember to enjoy and play the army you want.


Thanks!

Have you played the new WAB rules, or WAB 2.0 as also known?! And Warmaster Ancients?
WOTR feels to me like Warmaster Ancients, because of the simultaneous phases and the shoot-retreat mechanism. This is good indeed because Warmaster Ancients (and WAB) is a great system that could have been very successful if GW didn't put it on the "Specialist" basket, as they did with WOTR.

And yes, the Blood Knights are prohibitive. I would never spent so much money on a single unit kit as that one, I would always look for alternatives (as in Chaos Knights alternatives!)
In LOTR I think about one or two convertions but it don't allow space for more. Also a problem I will have with the LOTR system is Finecrap! I refuse to buy Finecrap miniatures (and most resins), I either buy plastics or metal.

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:
Never played WFB or 40k, can't stand them in fact, but I can tell you that WoTR is a good game. Nice mechanicsn and, providig your opponent isn't one to powergame, very fun to play. There are many brolken combos, and it is possible to make almost every army list overpowerd, good, average, poor or very weak, but some armies naturally have som,e better items than others. Fopr instance if you were to pick Mordor, and take Gothmog, multiple (by which I mean about 5) 125pt Ringwraiths (especially Khamul) alongside a horde of Morannon Orcs, and you will probably win, whereas iif you took Rohan with Theoden, Eowyn and a load of Riders of Rohan you would probably lose. You do have to find a balance between the two, as you do not want to be slaughtered, or be dislikled for powergaming, Good luck.


I'm in the gaming world for at least 15 years so Warhammer was my first miniatures drug of choice, then 40K. I still play 40K but I can't stand the 8th Edition rules for WH, I think they're dumb and creep.
As for powergame, well, I look at games in all their perspectives and that's why I love Warmachine, because you can have the most thematic army and you can build the most powerful list. And this happens with ALL the factions and not just one or two as in GW games.
So if this system could be thematic and of course competitive (on ALL their factions) that's for me! :)

Telchar wrote:
In short, WOTR is brilliant, so long as your opponent is sort of gentlemanly (ie doesn't take one of the superoverpowered lists). If not, look for someone else or take ringwraith spam+Gorgoroth and make an agreement with him. Never played Warhammer (and it will stay like that) so there I can't help you.


Thanks for your point of view.
I don't mind to deal against evil spams or powerlists, as long as everyone could have access to them and not only one or two factions.

Xelee wrote:
I was going to post something substantive but it was basically everything Smaul says. It's a good game at the core - some of the units are a bit 'out there' but the game itself is solid and fun.

It's not the only good game out there but I've never been inclined to port LOTR over to another system I really like, like Impetus or SAGA, which is as good an endorsement as any.


I only know WAB and Warmaster Ancients. I've seen a bit of Impetvs and Fields of Glory and that's not for me. I really like theme in games and systems that only offer me differences between equiment and choices... meh! I like to feel my army and having a way of playing it different from other armies and not just balancing Cavalry/Archers/Swordsman.


Question: how does the new "sourcebooks" work out for WOTR?
There are a lot of new units for LOTR:SBG and some sourcebooks that cover all these units but WOTR was dropped into the "Specialist Games" limbo, so I would like to know if WOTR is compatible with these new units and if I can use the new sourcebooks as reference to play with WOTR rules.

Many thanks to all! :yay:
Author:  GothmogtheWerewolf [ Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
The 'Sourcebooks' have nothing to do with WoTR, they are for SBG only, and they cover virtually all he models they do, new and old. WoTR is not being put into Specialist Games, but is an Expansion. The SBG rules for these new units are for SBG only and not compatable with WoTR. If you would like to see the houserules I made for all the new releases in WoTR feel free.
Author:  xJEDIx [ Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
Yes, I've seen those houserules you've made.

I've only mentioned that sourcebooks because, as you've told, they cover everything made for LOTR new and old, and there are several new units/monsters that have miniatures and aren't mentioned in the WOTR rulebook.

Does this mean that GW will update their WOTR rulebook? Create an Errata/FAQ? Make a new book that would cover all those new units/monsters?
I don't think so... I've been buying from GW for a long time so I can guess how they work. When they put something in "ice", just like WOTR as an "Expansion", they won't bring it to life anytime soon and would be in "ice" untill everybody forgets it. But I hope that I'm wrong in this... I would really love to see LOTR taking over their Warhammer Fantasy Battles game, but I think this is asking too much! :P

And what is the WOTR: Battlehosts book? It's a Campaign book or does it cover the new units that are missing from the main WOTR rulebook?

Thanks!
Author:  mastermanje [ Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
xJEDIx wrote:
Yes, I've seen those houserules you've made.
And what is the WOTR: Battlehosts book? It's a Campaign book or does it cover the new units that are missing from the main WOTR rulebook?

It covers rules you cn give a couple formations for some extra points, almost each army has a battlehost worth taking
Author:  GothmogtheWerewolf [ Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
Basically groups of formations and heroes with spcial rules to improve them when fielded together and extra cost payed.
Author:  Telchar [ Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
xJEDIx wrote:
Thanks for your point of view.
I don't mind to deal against evil spams or powerlists, as long as everyone could have access to them and not only one or two factions.


Everyone except Elves. Why do GW hate elves? What have they ever done wrong (except for the Kinslayings and the wars for the Silmarils, that is)
Author:  GothmogtheWerewolf [ Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
Telchar wrote:
xJEDIx wrote:
Thanks for your point of view.
I don't mind to deal against evil spams or powerlists, as long as everyone could have access to them and not only one or two factions.


Everyone except Elves. Why do GW hate elves? What have they ever done wrong (except for the Kinslayings and the wars for the Silmarils, that is)


Elves have the Galadriel, Radagast, Dain, other Elven Spellcasters and Councellors etc combo.
Author:  Xelee [ Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
Quote:
I only know WAB and Warmaster Ancients. I've seen a bit of Impetvs and Fields of Glory and that's not for me. I really like theme in games and systems that only offer me differences between equiment and choices... meh! I like to feel my army and having a way of playing it different from other armies and not just balancing Cavalry/Archers/Swordsman.

WOTR is pretty much that too - the core units are very similar, more similar than you will find in Impetvs, which allows those basic units to do many more things than they can in WOTR. The key difference with WOTR is that it has monsters, a magic system and Epic Heroes. I know you mean 'theme' as in 'theme by slight variations on the rules and stats' - because I am constantly getting a friendly windup on this forum because I don't bother with all those things in this game. I don't bother because, due the way WOTR works, they generally don't make a meaningful difference and almost all the time you are far better off with the points spent on normal troops and standard/epic heroes. Why in my day (I'm not that old) we used our imagination, uniform, naming, and back-history to theme the units! :lol:

I don't think GW hates the Elves in WOTR... they just over-estimated the degree to which their stats would help them. Their heroes are pretty good. You can have a 1000pt list that can even fit in a decent amount of their over-costed base troops just by taking Galadriel then all of the cheapest Epic Heroes the Elves have (who Galadriel can keep recharging with might).

As an aside, I do like several of the Battle-hosts - for example, the Angmar Spirit one would probably be the most viable way to run these, there are a couple of ones like Faramir's Rangers and Watchers of Karna that give stealthy-troops a boost (which adds to the game) and Thrydan's Dunlendings allow you to field an Isengard list almost entirely composed of Dunland troops. Many of them (Eomer''s Knights spring to mind) are so cheap that I almost think 'why not take them'. I think you have to take a critical eye to many of the units and battlehosts out there, but then you play GW games so will be familiar with some units not stacking up. My only other word of caution is that the Gorgoroth Orc Horde can be made pretty tedious by stacking Nazgul up in it (though I have seen people say they find tackling it a fun challenge, so opinions differ).

I anticipate a bit of benign neglect for WOTR. So actually btw GtW - well done on producing some unofficial statlines to get the ball rolling.
Author:  xJEDIx [ Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
Well, concerning Elves, I dunno how they work in LOTR/WOTR but regarding with the LOTR mythos the Elves were a declining faction, most of them already in exile.
So it doesn't surprise me that Elves are scarce in WOTR/LOTR and a bit underpowered when compared with their Silmarillion cousins, who were stronger than Valar!

What I mean about theme is not only by sight, on their stats, but also on their rules.
A good example is how Vikings act in FoG and Impetvs and how they act in WAB/WmA. I like to have armies with different feeling in play and not only by choice.

I guess you sold me. I will now have the hard work that is to find someone in my country that plays WOTR. AFAIK only the SBG is played here, and in lesser numbers. :P
Author:  Xelee [ Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
Quote:
A good example is how Vikings act in FoG and Impetvs and how they act in WAB/WmA. I like to have armies with different feeling in play and not only by choice.

Please stop mentioning FOG and Impetus in the same sentence, I shudder with a sudden chill every time you do so :P But I'll grant you the case of Vikings - I won't even play them in Impetus any more and I'm not the only one. They are the exception that proves the rule really - you really feel what you are missing out on when you play them.

Good luck with WOTR. It's like any new wargame: If you can provide both sides, the right type of players will give it a go and WOTR always looks visually impressive in a club environment.
Author:  xJEDIx [ Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
Xelee, I've read it in your blog that something was being prepared to WOTR... is it true?
Is anything planned from GW to review/relaunch WOTR?

Thanks
Author:  Xelee [ Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WotR versus Warhammer Series (WH:FB and WAB)
The rumour was originally that there was going to be combined WOTR/SBG relaunched this year. What we got instead is relaunched SBG, with WOTR rumoured to be getting less support for the forseeable future. The change that I think has made the most difference, for WOTR, is that they repackaged the plastic boxes in a way in which makes me confident very few people in NZ will be buying them! :)
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/