The One Ring
http://test.one-ring.co.uk/

Is WotR a good system?
http://test.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=16007		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  wibls [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Is WotR a good system?
I realize that this is quite the can of worms, but I couldn't find any recent threads on the subject.

I've heard bits and pieces of discussion on the subject of SBG vs. WotR. Despite it being mostly talked down online, I think WotR offers a choice of game systems. Choice is always a good thing. My fear is that the choice has been made for me: WotR has certainly taken over in both customer popularity, and GW "propaganda". But even if GW is likely going to move SBG to specialty games, I don't want to pick up WotR if it's Devlan Mud. So, is it a worthwhile system? "Buckets 'o dice" is a description I've heard before, but probability can be used to great effect, if it's backed up by some sound and stable rules. The question on my mind would be, "IS WotR backed by some solid strategy-encouraging rules"? Feel free to go into as much depth as you can, I would greatly prefer that to a one-word answer.
Author:  Bairchoro [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Honestly, you'll find quite the "spread" when it comes to your question. :?

The reason being: WotR has a polarizing effect on people. That is to say, you'll find individuals here on OR that are very happy with the product and its ruleset - and play it exclusively; and those that are frustrated by some of the rules that allow "power gaming" aspects to the game (which those say make the game very unbalanced).

WotR Pros:

1) You get to use all the models you wanted to use in SBG, but couldn't
2) Moving is A LOT easier
3) The book contains a sample game, so you can get more familiar with what a rule means in a real situation
4) It's very easy to go from reading the basic rules to playing a game with minor problems
5) You get to roll A LOT of dice and kill A LOT of models
6) The basic rule set is complete and sound with not many loopholes
7) Statlines are very comprehensive and the Armies are well balanced
8) There are a lot of scenarios and articles to add to the variety of the book
9) There is good opportunity to have very strategic games and everytime me and my crew play we come up with new combinations and strategies that are "cool".

WotR Cons:
1) There are some questions that EVERYONE is waiting for some consensus on (Hero's abilities --> formation allocation)
2) Some of the special rules can create OUTRAGEOUS combinations (Aragorn + Gimli)
3) There are multiple type-o's in the book
4) Magic is a little overpowered at times (against non-heroic troops)

I played both SBG and WotR, and my own personal opinion on the game is that WotR is more fun to play. The rule book is very well written (and the community is indicating that GW has a FAQ together to answer some of the harder questions).

If you look through the WotR forum and Official Rules forum, here; you'll find quite a few of the concerns of rules addressed (since we all seem to be running into the same things that are confusing).

I'd say resoundly: YES, WotR is a great game to play!
Author:  BrightLance [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
I would play it a lot more if there were no heroes or magic. For some reason it just ruins the feel of the game when you have what are basically just unit upgrades leading your troops- there's no personality.
Author:  hithero [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:44 am ]
Post subject: 
WOTR can be a good game but its not Middle-earth driven, it has no feel for LOTR. As you can see by rules related posts, I've never seen such a badly written set of rules before, nearly every rule is split 50/50 on how people play it. Its not really a wargame, more like Magic the Gathering where the winner is the player who can come up with a (rules twisted maybe?) combination of powers and characters. There's no real tactics as space is very limited for maneuvre, it spretty much down to deployment.
However, if you play with the right people, who don't go overboard with deadly characters or magic, it can be a very good game. Of course some may like the aspect of creating deadly combo's, which is ok providing all your opponants do as well.
Author:  gaarew [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:33 am ]
Post subject: 
Bairchoro wrote:
WotR Cons:


You forgot one...

5) After shelling out for the Rules, models etc, and taking huge amounts of time prepping and painting them, you still need to buy a GW WotR Dustpan and Brush set (RRP £34.99) to take the dead models off the table.

8)
Author:  smaul [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hithero, what do you mean

"WOTR can be a good game but its not Middle-earth driven"

I would agree with Hithero, there should be a limit on Epic Heroes and magic or you loose the mass battle effect with tactics and combined arms.

I personally enjoy the game though.

as far as maneuver though, if that is a problem just play on a 8x4 or 8x6, plenty of room then.

Steve
Author:  Sildien [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
It is personally my favorite game but I am disappointed in the lack of support there could have been a FAQ by now, I personally have put alot of time and money into the game and I fear that it is too late for the game to take hold in my area because of some silly rules questions. I don't know if this is cool but I am going to say it anyhow was playing a game of Hordes the other day with my local press ganger at the store we had a question he walked over posted it on there fourums we continued to play about 30 mins later he walked back to check and there was a official answer about the question THAT is customer service!!

Sildien
Author:  BoromirofIpswich [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sildien,

You sum up my fear for the game very well: 'Lack of support'. Given, as seems likely, this was GW's attempt to add life to their third 'core' game - the LoTR SBG having started to falter wrt to sales - I cannot fathom why they don't clarify the numerous different interpretations of the rules asap. They don't even have to publish an FAQ, just a couple more detailed battle reports with mention of how the rules are, properly, used.

Sadly, my impression, from TLA and other sources, both real and 'virtual', is that there was a huge expectation about this game that has tailed off very quickly for some (many?) because they haven't answered the questions that have arisen about the rules.

Stephen

P.S. I had to chuckle when I read Hithero's point about 'Magic: The Gathering' as I'd just posted making a similar point.
Author:  Sildien [ Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
My most positive outcome is a FAQ PDQ, and the Hobit movie or something else to boost interest if WotR had come out around the time of the first 3 movies, I think it would have been huge in my area, but sadly the SBG didn't do very well and is dead, there wouldn't even be a section in my local store if GW didn't require it!

Sildien
Author:  aelfwine [ Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
It seems, at its heart, to be an ok system for playing with a boatload of miniatures.

The obvious issue arises with things like upgrades and magic. Intensely magical creatures in Middle Earth do not make a habit of firing spells at each other. It happens, but not very often. Gandalf the White, after all, wades in with staff and sword to kick ass. And I am still confused about putting heroes in formations and so on.

The other thing that no one has seen fit to explain to the unwashed masses is how big a board you need. I mean, they claim you can do it on a 6x4 board. But just look at the battle reports. Crowded armies banging into each other on a Realm of Battle game board.

Look at the big scenarios in the rule book. What do you see? Scenarios that all want not one, but two Realm of Battle gameboards (or some huge basement or attic to store a table that size). That's a serious problem with the bigger games. You need a huge amount of space to play them on.

My current plan is to buy a Realm of Battle board in Toronto around my birthday (bit tricky to find 'round here. No way am I buying it from GW). Then I am going to make six compatible pieces from wood and plaster. I'll then make a mould of the six pieces and cast them in fibreglass resin so I can collapse the whole lot when I move. May as well make full use of a fully functional craft studio while I have access to it! Besides, its messy, dangerous, dirty and possibly fatal. My father in law will be all over that.

After that, I think I might just house rule the magic somehow, so that it just effects things like courage rolls and gives short bonuses to attack and defence rolls. Basically a Might and Fate booster with a fancier name.

But really, Hithero is right, its fast and all, but its a bit soulless.
Author:  edonil [ Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Personally, I think the system is great. A lot of us at my gaming club couldn't stand the direction Fantasy was going (I'm one of several who have pretty much sworn off the game until 8th edition) and WOTR has been a breath of fresh air. Khamul is annoying, and the Court of the Dead King being cheaper than a Legion of the Dead formation of same size is dumb, but those are the only glaring points inconsistencies I've seen. Even the Mumak isn't as scary, once you've figured out a couple ways to kill it.

Its simpler, more efficient, and, once they publish the FAQ, will probably be my favorite of GWs games. We just had our first tourney, and it ran fairly smoothly. I'll be happy when they post some of the solutions to our Epic Strike problems (funny how that's the most contested rule I've ever seen in any GW game...) and how it interacts with all sorts of stuff.

As far as keeping the craziness under control, we've been pretty good at keeping people from going too far over the top with our other systems. And, I have to say, that things like the Balrog are indeed game breaking in 1000 points...for the player who takes it. A single monster that takes half your points gets dragged down quick by a player who is determined and who plans well. Also, I haven't seen the board restrict things tactically too much as a 6x4 for 1k, but we're definitely going to be upping to an 8x4 for 1500 (we have 8x4 tables at the store, so that's not too much of a hassle).
Author:  BoromirofIpswich [ Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
A horrible thought just came into my way too cynical mind.

Are GW just using us to play-test WoTR version 1 so that they can get it right for the release of the 'Hobbit' Movie(s?).

Stephen
Author:  Corsair [ Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
BoromirofIpswich wrote:
A horrible thought just came into my way too cynical mind.

Are GW just using us to play-test WoTR version 1 so that they can get it right for the release of the 'Hobbit' Movie(s?).

Stephen


I think thats besides the point in my opinion. I see GW's thought as 'Bring lots of attention to lotr - because we are selling less lotr minis than other systems, and is costing us the most to maintain - licences etc.'

So with a 'side' system alternative, GW have probably made more money with wotr since its release in april than just with SBG in the last 2 to 3 years...
Author:  hithero [ Sun Sep 06, 2009 4:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
smaul wrote:
Hithero, what do you mean

"WOTR can be a good game but its not Middle-earth driven"

I would agree with Hithero, there should be a limit on Epic Heroes and magic or you loose the mass battle effect with tactics and combined arms.

I personally enjoy the game though.

as far as maneuver though, if that is a problem just play on a 8x4 or 8x6, plenty of room then.

Steve


When playing it doesn't have a LOTR atmosphere, I mean goblin Shaman breaking dwarf shields and pulverising them with fireballs, Lurtz duelling with multiple elf capatins, winning and slaughtering companies of them - nah, its not Middle-earth.

Its ok to say "just play on a bigger table" but thats not alway's possible 6x4 would probably be a good average for the average player and that can really only cope 1000pt forces and who claimed its a quick game?

I played a 2500pt a side game at WH World on Friday on a 12x4 table, so plenty of room but after 5 1/2 hours without using loads of complicated heroes the game was still unfinished and could not determine who would have one - that was just 5 turns BTW.
Author:  smaul [ Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
hithero

I can see that point, I was just curious, I still think it feels like lotr but you and I have agreed in the past, the magic or at least for me epic heroes should be limited to so many a side or it takes over the "mass troop" feel of the game.

that's just my personal pref since I am more interested in the mass troops battle, not a few heroes, again, just my taste.

and I meant 6x4 or 8x4, never played on an 8x6.

I also agree that a 1000 or 1500 point battle without just heroes can be big and can take a whole afternoon easily.

As far as tournaments, by nature can you have tournament rules and limit might or magic allowed with the points? I mean rules wise it is allowed but I play other games (historical) that they even have restrictions once in a while to get players out of the mold a bit.

just thinking out loud a bit.

steve
Author:  wibls [ Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Incredible response, guys. Opinions seem to run rampant and varied on this subject!

I don't care too much about the "balance" issue. An FAQ should be forthcoming. Besides that, I've done enough metagaming to know that while the "perfect system" always seems just out of reach, it can't be expected. You live with it and you have fun anyway, provided your opponents are human. I actually like the idea of a game based around knowledge of the rulebook, and creative combinations. I've never played mtg before, but I don't mind your description, hithero. The criticism I worry about is the "soul" thing. I play for fluff, I play for the license; simple as that.

But at this point, I'm convinced I just need to play a practice game with the staff, and have a flip through the book. The price you pay for the miniatures really comes through in the stores, so I think I'll take advantage of that.
Author:  smaul [ Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
I dont think on any forum I have ever found a game that everyone agreed upon all points

there is always opinions, good and bad.
Author:  Tankred [ Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hithero, I am absolutely with you. It is very funny, that I drew the same comparision after having lost against guys who played skillful with magic. It reminded me of Magic the gathering and I told this one of my opponents.
The mechanism of the magic is similar: You add several advantages with spells or special rules and if you are strong enough you start an assault. The situation on the table was not that important.
The sad thing on this is indeed, that this is not the Middleearth spirit. The hero game system and especially the overpowered duells and special rules seem to me unfixable. I see no way to make it Tolkienlike with a mere FAQ.
For sure the game is quite good and can be played very fast if you cast a lot and so on. I think I can have fun playing it if I run with the wolf pack and learn more about strange combos. But there is no faith in that magic and heroic rules.
It is sad to hear, that a war of the ring game without many epic heroes does not solve the problem. I hoped limiting those kind of heroes or the magic grades could solve the problem.
Author:  deanbadspal [ Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
Very interesting reading, as someone who is thinking of buying this game could i ask 1) is it worth buying?, 2) would you recommend it?
Author:  Phalnax [ Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Wotr is a good game, but not reccomended if your just starting off, me and my bro found that out :lol:. Start with SBG and build up to WotR. If you have a sizable collection already, (Roughly 500-1000 points of WotR), you can start playing. However, the WotR game costs a heck of a lot more than Sbg.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/