Lets Talk War of the Ring

War of the Ring is not an easy game to learn because its strategies aren't immediately obvious although if you look around you'll find a ton of advice on that front like the DEW (Dale-Erebor-Woodlands) strategy for the Shadow player.

I'm not going to tell you what it is, because I think this game is best revealed by playing it. You wont' regret the time investment. BUT it is a time investment.

This is probably one of the most immersive games ever made. It's the essence of Ameritrash. It feels like you're playing scenes straight out of the book. I'll second not painting the individual miniatures. There's too many. I basically spray painted the different factions different colours and that worked fine.

If you have a regular partner who either likes or doesn't mind playing a wargame because it IS a wargame, then it's time well invested. But like Earth Reborn or High Frontier it demands a time commitment. And that's something to think about with all the new releases today. If you're in to playing the field and not ready to settle down and play one game (and it's a long game on top of that)for awhile, it may not be for you.

It would have been THE perfect game for the 80's when good titles were relatively few and far between.

War of the Ring was my first-ever review copy. It was also my first-ever printed-in-a-magazine review. I gave it a 10, and I mostly stand by that even though it's a game that I will almost certainly never play again.

No need to retread what's already been said. What hasn't really been said is that it's as much a CDWG as it is a DoaM game. Don't let the plastic figures fool you. There's a lot of things in the game that feel like they could have come from a 1980 SPI game. Or a 2006 GMT one. Take what you will out of that.

The negatives are that It's more uncomfortably complicated than it looks, horrendously fiddly, saddled with a terrible rulebook (at least in the old edition), and the original copies had some pretty bad product design (badly drawn maps, lookalike figures, trippin' Nazgul, tiny fonts on the cards, etc.). Hard to believe that game was $59.95 retail when it came out.

I've not played the revised editions, but I think I would definitely suggest those.

3-4 player game is mostly crap. It's not meant to be a 3-4 player game and it shows. Is it fun? Yeah, kind of. But it's clear that you're not supposed to do it that way.

As for LOTR: The Confrontation- it's a masterpiece. One of my all-time favorite games and probably one of my favorite two player games. It is a Stratego descendant, but there's some incredibly economic design and theming concepts in it. The old edition is fine and if you can get it cheap it's worthwhile,but the deluxe one is bigger and has an entirely new set of alternate characters that you can swap in and out of the base set or just use all new ones, so it drives the replayability through the roof...and it increases the bluffing/deduction/surprise elements.

The instructions are too hard to read. I like the movies better. . .

Jeff White wrote: (Side talk: Is LotR:Confrontation Deluxe really that much better than the smaller one?)

I think the smaller one is significantly better than the "deluxe" edition. Much better art, much easier to take on a trip (which is the most common time we play), the characters don't fall over (which can of course completely ruin a game), and who gives a shit about the extra characters?

As for War of the Ring, I didn't think it was worth keeping over any of my other wargames either. A bunch of pointless subsystems that don't add much. It felt surprisingly generic to me, barely different from Axis & Allies. It was still fun, but very clearly competing with other, better titles.

dragonstout wrote:
A bunch of pointless subsystems that don't add much. It felt surprisingly generic to me, barely different from Axis & Allies. It was still fun, but very clearly competing with other, better titles.

What subsystems would you classify as pointless?

Barely different from Axis and Allies? Other than figurines and a map what do they have in common?

With what other better title does this compete?

"I didn't think it was worth keeping over any of my other wargames either."

That is an empty statement.So given the choice between Advanced Squad Leader and War of the Ring you'd find no reason to choose War of the Ring even though there is nothing at all in common between them.

War of the Ring wouldn't be the high-ranking hit that it is without its theme. If it were set in Terrinoth it wouldn't hold a hell of a lot of appeal. If the ringbearers were instead a behind enemy lines situation in eastfront WWII then WotR would be much more niche than it is.

The theme completely sells WotR though. What makes it a great game is how the theme is brought out through evocative mechanics. It's the total package, but I think only if you're already predisposed to liking it based on what the game is and what the game is about.

I've got the small, old LOTR Confrontation if you ever want to try it out Jeff. It's a fun game, but one that never gets pulled out very often.

WoTR is a fantastic game.

I find it of medium complexity. It will take you a few plays to get what you can do and all the options you have.

I don't know what the fuck Dragonstout is talking about. There are no pointless subsystems, you are playing 2 games.. a war game on the map and a race/corruption game on the track for moving the ring.

As far as it not being different than A&A... well the both have plastic, both have maps, and both use dice other than that they are completely different.


I think it plays well with 2 but I also really dig the 4 player version.

Give it another shot.

-M

Okay, so first of all I don't hate the game, and definitely didn't delve too deeply into it. So everything here is an explanation as to *why* I wasn't interested enough to delve deeper into it.

repoman wrote: What subsystems would you classify as pointless?

The political track is the main one I was thinking of here, as well as the Ringbearer progress track that just felt like a one-dimensional track, rather than like they were actually travelling around the board. The concealed/revealed distinction just seemed like an action die sink. The fact that the fellowship mostly feels like a damage sponge. Just a bunch of things that are barely concealed linear tracks.

repoman wrote: Barely different from Axis and Allies? Other than figurines and a map what do they have in common?

Slow, plodding play and big masses of dudes rolling dice to kill each other? Primarily the reason they felt lumped together for me is how they both feel like Risk gussied up a bit, a lot of bells and whistles covering up a simple "push lots of dudes here" system that doesn't have a lot of mechanical innovation (not that every game needs to, at all). The cardplay in WotR is I think its biggest distinguishing feature.

repoman wrote: With what other better title does this compete?

"I didn't think it was worth keeping over any of my other wargames either."

That is an empty statement.So given the choice between Advanced Squad Leader and War of the Ring you'd find no reason to choose War of the Ring even though there is nothing at all in common between them.

Nah, I was thinking especially of Hannibal: RvC here, and to a lesser extent Rommel in the Desert or Hammer of the Scots. Hannibal and Rommel both have a LOT more flavor and distinctiveness to me than War of the Ring, which felt more like a blurry slog. Hannibal, like WotR, is strategic-level, with a lot of focus on the cards in both cases, so I don't think it's absurd to put them in competition with each other.

I'm crankier about 2-player games and more willing to write them off than any other type of game, because there are *so* many good ones and other than Magic and Chess I really only play them with my wife so the audience is super-specific. Like some have said, if you want to get into WotR you've really got to devote a lot of time to it; the same is true for Hannibal, Rommel, and god knows it's true for MTG and Chess, so I'm pretty happy just sticking to those, and see adding to that list as counter-productive. Not to mention I wanted to get that gigantic-ass, heavy-ass collector's edition box out of my house. So don't get all butt-hurt that there are a few people that don't slobber over your favorite game.

Repoman, come on, it's obvious.

Like how I threw out Magic because of it's similarity to Snap (after I'd wiped the slobber off the cards). Now, my problem is, I can't mention ANY other game without mentioning MTG in the same breath. I'm seeking treatment.