Ok heres a big one fellas whats the better game system, balance issues in the games and what do you like better?

Ok I know my opinion on what I think is not only a better gaming system but a much mor enjoyable game, But i wont say just yet, im eager to here your opinions.

Does the smaller scenarios of SBG take your fancy or the larger orientated battles of WOTR excite you more?

_________________
I have my issues with GW but in the end, secretly, I am a GW fanatic.

I have never played SBG, but from what I have read it is definitely the more balanced system, being several years older and having been fine tuned more.

As for which is better, that is entirely subjective. In a miniatures wargame I want big armies. I want large numbers of figures clashing in epic battle with possibly a few mighty heroes lending their support to critical areas. Obviously WotR is a much better game...for me. It does have its balance issues though.

If you like small skirmish games with more detail on the battlefield and more focus on individual heroes, SBG is going to be the game fore you.

Well thats a good point about the finer tuning of SBG.

Heck warhammer fantasy is in 8th edition now, lol how many mistakes can game developers make haha.

_________________
I have my issues with GW but in the end, secretly, I am a GW fanatic.

I'm WotR all the way. I've played a few games of SBG, and it was very enjoyable. I like a lot of things about it, but I just can't get past the grand scale of WotR! I love fielding lots of units, lots of heroes and lots of cool warmachines and monsters! As a gaming system too, it's more than just a chance to field a bundle-o-stuff. I like the turn-structure, the mechanism for using might and casting magic. Without rolls to hit, wound, or save, combat seems much mroe streamlined and predicatable than 40k and the like. That's not to say it's too simplistic at all, quite the opposite, I like being able to play the game, rather than the rules, if that makes sense (though a lot of people will debate that some elements of the rules are 'broken' and open to exploitation. I've never had a massive issue with even the widely accepted examples of 'broken-ness').

I find games of WotR fast-paced and engaging, with a lot of back-and-forth action. In any case, the fact that you can play either game with the same miniaures is just so flippin' cool, especially when the 'codexes' are part of the actual rule set. Can't wait to see what's going to be revised, revamped and reinvigorated now The Hobbit's on the cards.

I've played both systems enough, I think, to pass a judgement. SBG is, as has already been said, much more balanced than WotR with no significant rule problems (with a couple of exceptions such as the Outrider + Gamling combo). WotR, on the other hand, contains many "broken" rules that can easily be exploited (need I mention examples?). Rules-wise, therefore, SBG is much better than WotR, as I'm sure the vast majority of players will agree.
When it comes to fun, however, it's much more difficult to choose between the two. To me, when based on the game itself WotR is slightly better than SBG because of its fast flowing style of play. Yet SBG is ultimately more fun because it isn't ruined by bad rules; WotR as it is now will always be remembered foremost as having broken rules. And that is why, without hesitation, I chose SBG as the better game.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

I don't think WotR has "many" broken rules. There are really only around 3-4 rules that seriously warp the game if you don't use house rules to mitigate them. There are a large number of miscosted formations though and those tend to distort people's perceptions of the rules themselves.

I've played SBG and WOTR often enough that I have some trouble choosing which one I like better. In terms of rules, as Loremaster said SBG has a lot less broken rules than WOTR so it could be considered a more balanced system. While WOTR is much faster paced then SBG, I personally found that the style of gameplay is very different. In WOTR I've rarely seen a successful feint while in SBG feinting is very common and is a tactic to be wary of. WOTR seems more about overpowering your opponent in massive head-to-head bashes than use of agility and superior tactics. I do enjoy both systems enough that if I play one more frequently, I miss the other. In the end, I prefer SBG because the battles feel more intense as everything is on a knife's edge and anything can happen. An example of this is where in SBG I had a lone Rider of Rohan go toe-to-toe with a Cave Troll for three turns and almost kill it before a lone Goblin with a spear skewered him. That kind of amusing irony and heroics just isn't present in WOTR.

_________________
http://knightscharge.wordpress.com/
- My miniature gaming blog, sorry for lack of LOTR content right now.

I entirely agree. SBG has a more tactical edge to it, but the "power" which you get in WotR is also fun.

I forgot to mention another factor that tips for the scales in favour of SBG for me: there's a lot more depth to SBG. After all, as well as a main rulesbook there's about a dozen other sourcebooks/journeybooks.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

We just recently tried a couple games of the SBG, but all 3 of us who did are more inclined to play WOTR.

I dont have the same "WOTR is broken" view as it seems many on WOTR forums do, we have always had a good time with our little group. (about 5 players now)

_________________
Love games? Stop by my gaming blog and leave a post or two if you like. Fun Games

I don't agree at all. One of the big appeals to me for WotR is that it is so tactical and has so many meaningful decisions to make. It doesn't just come down to a comparison of army lists and then whack at each other head on like the Warhammer games do.

Now, I admittedly can't compare it to SBG in that regard, but in my opinion the 2 games really don't compare in any aspect. They use the same collection of miniatures and have superficially similar stats but that is about it. Otherwise it is a lot like trying to compare 40K Apocalypse to Blood Bowl. (only, ya'know, with 2 good games instead of just 1)

What I like about SBG is the individuality of the heroes and not like in Wotr where heroes use most of the stats of the unit he/she is joining.

I kind of wish that when Wotr came out it would be a regiment based game that still used the SBG stats. Well I guess one could always make house rules.

What I really don't like about WotR is the movement, that a formation could move any which way it likes (even strafing) and then change the direction it's facing with no movement cost. So when a regiment retreats moving back at full movement, its back will never be exposed to the enemy because of the free turning of the front face. Makes it more hard to flank, trap, and attack from behind to rob them of their shield wall.

_________________
My Lotr backlog: 305/952[][][][][][][][][][]32% completed
Painting Lineup: Mumakil x2, Rohan Heroes x8, Haradrim, SKoDA

Forgottenlore, I agree.

To me, they seem to be both good choices (going by what SBG players say about their favourite system) but do different things. You could as easily set the choice up between SBG, WOTR, and Basic Impetvs Fantasticus-LOTR. They are three very good LOTR miniatures games. BIF-LOTR is more balanced in the costings than WOTR... but they just did such a good job with the WOTR design-for-setting, that I still prefer to use the less tightly balanced game.

So in regards the original question, I guess it comes down to how many figs you want to use per game.

_________________
http://www.roughwotr.blogspot.com

I wonder if posting this question in the WOTR side of the forum, may skew your polled answers?

However, to cast my thoughts, I agree with what many here say.

I came late into the game, and by that time, SBG had gone through its metamorphosis into its current version, and I had few issues with it, other than scale - its a skirmish game, and to me the most exciting part of LOTR is huge armies clashing...

Which is why I prefer the look and play style of WOTR.

Yes I agree there are many issues with it, from oddities in the rules themselves to possible balance issues with some of the troops/heroes/monsters types and their points.

Some of this I have found can be mitigated by reducing the number of epic heroes and Legendary monsters involved. We have found 2 of these per side in games up to 2000 points seems about right, that way the game doesn't get bogged down in endless spell-casting, or a plethora of epic/heroic actions. At its simplest the game is great, when you have masses of troops against troops, wave after wave will work well, once I have enough assembled and painted up. I am getting there gradually...

Hopefully by the time i have all my models assembled and painted they will have worked out the fixes to the game.

The best thing about this game from a continuity standpoint is 'They' cant keep endless revising the look of it, as They are tied to the imagery from the movies to a greater or lesser extent. So even if they correct the rules and army lists, the existing figures will still be valid, unlike my past experience with WH40K and WFB, where with every rules rewrite/codex edition change there was a re-release of new figures, jeez - how many versions have there been of WFB orcs over the last 20 years or so...? I played squats in 40k and they got dumped entirely - no risk of that happening with LOTR

So with that understood, I'm in for the long haul now, I can wait while they tweak the rules because my figures that are slowly getting painted up will always be fine. This is further made likely with introduction of plastic sets - you dont go to the expense of setting up plastics moulds as a line, if you are going to dump them - Mordor orcs will always be Mordor Orcs as will Warriors of Minas Tirith etc etc...

I guess I've rambled enough now.

So what was my vote? Oh yeah, WOTR, but I still the odd game of SBG

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

Oh, and just a note in case anyone was being put off of WotR by comments like this (including some I have made).

When the FAQ for WotR finally came out I did a comparison, counting the official WotR FAQ as well as a home FAQ I had made that incorporated virtually every rules question about the game I could find on the internet. 7th edition Warhamer Fantasy required more than 6 times as many pages of FAQs as WotR to cover the same basic material, the game rules and 10 army lists.

Ok fellas thats a great variety of answers and opinions!

When i played SBG I found it very frustration playing large battles(somtimes small battles) becasue I didnt like the individuel movment of troops.What I think would make sbg better is if they make it simmilar to 40k where your troops, lets say Gondor soldiers must be no more than 2" away from another gondor soldier this way you dont have the possibility of gondor troops lurking off into other parts of the battlefield which in a sense is no problem but as for display and atmosphere i feel it makes the game more realistic.



In addition it's a longer process of moving(i think we all agree on that?), however and once again i like the look of companies not individuels.

But i suppose if thats your prefernce is to have smaller groups of troops that are more individualy based then, no probs

I have never played sbg with magic , but i have with wotr, who esle agrees with me that magic is proberly a little to good and can be called upon too often....well thats what i think but im happy to learn differently.Is the magic in sbg less significant in a game pls tell me i dont know.


Lets also talke about cavalry differences in SBG and WOTR??

_________________
I have my issues with GW but in the end, secretly, I am a GW fanatic.

I prefer sbg because it is so much more emotionaly crippling if anything besides a 10 point model dies It is also easier (cheaper) to make an army

Magic in WotR is considered a 'subtle' power but in reality it is far more destructive than its SBG counterpart. In SBG, the only 'direct-damage' spells are Chill Soul (Sauron only), Black Dart (Nazgul) and Sorcerous Blast. In SBG you had to expend Will points to attempt to cast a spell and then roll to see if it actually casts. Spells like the ones above are typically a 5+(unless you're Gandalf the White or Sauron). To resist a spell, you had to beat the caster's roll so high-powered spells are difficult to cast but just as difficult to resist. So as you see, Magic in SBG is far less destructive but a lot of spells such as Nature's Wrath (6" radius, everyone knocked to the ground) can potentially turn the odds in the caster's favour. Casters in SBG, in my experience, are also not as common as they are in WotR (except for Ringwraiths).

Cavalry in both games are both fragile and potentially devastating. Its all down to getting the charge and not being charged.

_________________
http://knightscharge.wordpress.com/
- My miniature gaming blog, sorry for lack of LOTR content right now.

SBG doesn't play like this? I've never played it; I oughta give it a shot.

_________________
"What's so civil about war, anyway?"

The free play of individual units is one of the central features of SBG and after several years of play with numerous armies I've never seen a situation where a rule about staying within a limited range of another model would add to the game. I think the SBG rules in the current version are pretty mature and well honed. The Stand Fast and other bonuses encourage certain units to stay close to appropriate figures. SBG is not a formation-based game in any manner and I don't feel that adding formation-like restrictions or limits works within the scope of the game. That's what we now have WotR for.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com