Lets Talk War of the Ring

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.

i'd agree what hannibal is better. As a game it really clearly gives you strategic options from the out set and has a much cleaner rule set. Still yet to get Rommel some table time.

A more interesting question in my mind, is why is WoTR better than Horus Heresy, i like both games and i can see that WoTR is a better value physical product and has a more endearing theme, but in my mind i class them in the same category. They are both thematic war games that are slightly over done, but get away with it due to the story that they tell.

Malloc wrote: WoTR is a fantastic game.
I think it plays well with 2 but I also really dig the 4 player version.
Give it another shot. -M

There not a whole lot of team war games out there unless you're playing Axis and Allies or some other WWII game and why not play the best game ever as a team game. Lately, I've been playing WoTR mostly as a team 4 player game and it's great unless you're playing against Malloc the luckiest mother fraking in the world.

As you are learning the game it's better to play as team because you have less to deal with.

Jeff White - Are you following the Mustering rules correctly. You can't muster to area under siege in almost all cases.

KingPut wrote: Jeff White - Are you following the Mustering rules correctly. You can't muster to area under siege in almost all cases.

I think we did. Fortunately, my opponent never went to castle for me to siege. I think he was forgetting.

I feel similar to Dragonstout...If WotR is really a 2-player game, why not just stick with HotS, CRex, WWr, and other classic, easy to play, short(er) playtime, low bit count, wargames?

Now, WotR does have a great theme, but a bigger draw would be that the 3 and 4 player games were also good, then I can see where the value would be above and beyond the others I mentioned here.

A few of you are chiming in with it being a great team game....that's what is having me consider it more than I thought I would. The downside is that I'll need to own it to try the team version. My friend who currently owns it is influenced a bit too much by BGG and will 'never play more than 2'. Maybe I can borrow it...

Jeff White wrote:

KingPut wrote: Jeff White - Are you following the Mustering rules correctly. You can't muster to area under siege in almost all cases.

I think we did. Fortunately, my opponent never went to castle for me to siege. I think he was forgetting.

In which case you haven't played WoTR, as this is a critical strategy to use and know how to beat. Sometimes, an epic game requires more than 20 minutes of your life as the twists and turns of fate reveal themselves. Too many games, these days, succumb to relieving the ADD symptoms of their owners.

ThirstyMan wrote:

Jeff White wrote:

KingPut wrote: Jeff White - Are you following the Mustering rules correctly. You can't muster to area under siege in almost all cases.

I think we did. Fortunately, my opponent never went to castle for me to siege. I think he was forgetting.

In which case you haven't played WoTR, as this is a critical strategy to use and know how to beat.

If WotR hangs it's hat solely on siege, then I'll stick with Crusader Rex which has more interesting siege choices (at least 1.4). I castled a few times so we did play out two sieges.

I don't know what the hell the rest of your rant is about. I still play Titan and Crayon rail games face to face with more than two players. Game length on it's own isn't an issue here.

Can it qualify as a rant if it's only 3 sentences long?

The sieging of strongholds is just one element of the game. The freeps needs to run into the strongholds and hold out to give Frodo more time to dunk the ring. I don't think I,d ever be able to say that WotR hangs on just one thing. It's everything going on at the same time which makes it so awesome.

Anyway, Thirsty's reply was directly responding to this:

If WotR is really a 2-player game, why not just stick with HotS, CRex, WWr, and other classic, easy to play, short(er) playtime, low bit count, wargames?

WotR is epic and incredible. It's a great experience (one of my wife's favourite games, thank God) and I can't imagine ever thinking 'why don't we just play something simplier and shorter?'

War of the Ring is not that far off from being Star Wars: the Queen's Gambit. The Anakin track is similar to the Ringbearer progression track, the Jedi are like getting Aragorn to the right places to play those big muster cards (if I remember correctly), and in both you're juggling a million things at once. I did like War of the Ring better, though, just because the "rolling one die at a time 5 times in a row" thing in SWQG drove me nuts.

wadenels wrote: 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.

I concur that theme is WotR's strong suit and the marriage of mechanics to theme is very strong. Just consider how poorly many of these same or very similar mechanics worked in Age of Conan.

dragonstout wrote: War of the Ring is not that far off from being Star Wars: the Queen's Gambit. The Anakin track is similar to the Ringbearer progression track, the Jedi are like getting Aragorn to the right places to play those big muster cards (if I remember correctly), and in both you're juggling a million things at once. I did like War of the Ring better, though, just because the "rolling one die at a time 5 times in a row" thing in SWQG drove me nuts.

I've always considered them sisters to each other, and they are both in my top 10 games, no question.

If FFG ever make a LotR: The Confrontation IOS game I think they will become rich. That would be a perfect game center game.