I recently asked a question on miniwargaming.com regarding what it takes to make a successful miniature wargame. MiniWargaming Matt replied that a mini war-game first must have great models. After that, a rules system which is, excuse the cliche, easy to learn but hard to master.

Which got me thinking? Why is our system, Lord of the Rings Strategy battle game lagging behind in the popularity stakes?

On the whole, the models and sculpts are gorgeous and great to work with. The skirmish game system is relatively straightforward and good fun and requires a degree of tactical knowledge to master. And Middle-Earth is THE original fantasy mythology, Tolkien's work the spark that created a genre, on which many other fantastical universes have drawn inspiration from...

Matt from MiniWargaming gives his opinions to this question about 0:56:06 into his Sit and Talk video...

http://www.miniwargaming.com/content/sit-talk-from-home

Effectively, point 1: Games Workshop don't push the system as much as they could, suffering therefore from a lack of exposure.

Point 2... well, I'll let you watch the clip and hear Matt's opinion.

What do you think One Ringers? And what do you think we can do as a community to help the system more at our end?

_________________
Subscribe to the GBHL YouTube for daily SBG content http://Www.youtube.com/gbhlpodcast
*5th in 2014 GBHL

I agree with some of what He says in the video. Obviously he is not a huge LOTR fan, just a base fan of the story for it's genre. There are probably some that feel as he does.
I also think that Non-LOTR fans do not know the characters and love/respect them as we do. Give a Boromir model someone who has only seen the film and he may think, "hey isn't this that guy that died, weak man." LOTR is limited from the start. We are actually to blame a bit by demanding that LOME be made to set strict army building rules. We took away the freedom to build armies for fun. This system has only been further forced by having 5 books instead of one main one with all the profiles. So a player is budgeted to picking a specific force and only those in that force list. Other games GW produces do this too, but there is still a lot more possible options in any WHF or 40K force than in a LOTR force.

AS for what we can do.
1 - I think we need to first reach across the battle lines to our 40K and WHF hobbyists and shake hands and stop the infighting, we are all painters and battle gamers, we should get along. We also have a very common joy, getting new stuff for our games. So we need to applaud when GW makes something cool for our 40K friends, and 'like' their stuff as much as ours. it will help to win over conversations about our own system, and to get some tips and pointers from other gamers.
2 - advertise. Use your facebooks, twitter feeds, blogs, etc. GW may not push it but we can. I actually recently started going to GW site and searching out LOTR posts regularly, so that a figure will show up on the data stream of it being looked at / searched.
3 - Bring two armies to your local shop and set them both up, wait for anyone to be curious and say you can play a match with them to show them how to play. tell them they don't have to stay for the whole demo. To help this work, make your own quick reference typed so it looks good and readable, put pictures of the armies on the paper so it pops.

_________________
http://www.sithious.webs.com

I've always found reason 2 to be a curious one that has almost never been encountered in our gaming circle.

This is primarily because we almost NEVER play with named characters, and only use generic captains that we name ourselves. We also have developed a campaign experience system for our captains (and troops to a lesser extent) so that they can slowly increase their abilities over time.
That way, we are never "trapped" into only playing "historical scenarios".

We don't use the company rules (1 captain for every 12 models), as it doesn't fit the feel of every army, and was designed as a marketing gimmick to sell the much more expensive metal/finecrap captain models.
For example, while it might make sense for the 12:1 ratio for highly organized armies such as gondor/minis tirith (and we pretty much followed that pattern already without being compelled to do so by an arbitrary rule), I would argue it make almost no sense to keep that ratio for Moria goblins, where mobbing the enemy with greater numbers is key since they can't out-fight an asthmatic 6-year old girl.
Any rules that were only introduced to fulfill a marketing ploy we soundly ignore. They detract from the tactical aspect of the game.

Then again, we also use a lot of house rules that fix the few arbitrary or nonsensical parts of the game (Example: Rohan spears can't be used as spears = hogwash. They are viking spears. They are used over the shoulder in the films.).

We are also a pretty laid back group, and try to avoid "beardy" or power-gaming combos with troop types, and just let the elegance of the system and the tactical possibilities speak for itself.

I think in addition to everything mentioned above we are at the disadvantage of everything tied to movies, games, etc. The popularity of said films directly impacts the popularity of the game while 40k and such might not have that volcanic upswing they also do not have the cool-down that always follows.
I think we as gamers can put the product out there for others to hopefully embrace (there are no nearby GW's for me so the 6 friends I got into the game was entirely by my introduction so it can be done), but for GW it will always be the "step-child" as the story and characters are not GW's and therefore has a lower profit margin as they have licensing fees etc. The game came about to attract more ppl to the mini-gaming world and their other games specifically so they could keep 100% of the profits.

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

Which got me thinking? Why is our system, Lord of the Rings Strategy battle game lagging behind in the popularity stakes?

On the
Effectively, point 1: Games Workshop don't push the system as much as they could, suffering therefore from a lack of exposure.

I am sorry but I really don't have time to trawl through the gentleman's talk when it lasts an hour, I listened for about two minutes but tuned out as it was all general rambling prevarication.

Games Workshop could not risk another company going for the Tolkien franchise and had to go for it. They could clearly profit from the range though they would have to pay royalties and syndication right sapping profits from sale, but hopefully appealing to a wider audience (benefiting from a massive three movie block buster tie in with related advertising and hype!), drawing in fresh blood and converting customers to their own brand. Naturally they simply could not risk another company emerging successfully and challenging them in the market place, should they have failed to gain the franchise. When they first started the LOTR product lines were evenly priced with the Warhammer systems.

Games workshop really are happy to sell a feeder product that hopefully will garner interest in Warhammer from benefitting from the LOTR/Hobbit publicity and interest, however selling Tolkien miniatures are less profitable as they have to pay royalties etc, and what they wan't you to buy are their own Warhammer products. That why the staff will focus almost entirely on Warhammer. In Tonbridge Wells I have never seen the Hobbit game table being used, it is in an awkward place jammed right in the corner of the window.

The majority off the staff are working in Games Workshop frankly because they are obsessed with Warhammer which is naturally the company focus, and outside of Warhammer World I have yet to encounter any real enthusiasm for the game.

White Dwarf has frankly neglected the range with one Battle report in a year (for a revamped range re-launch with movie tie in this is pathetic!) with most months simply featuring adverts for miniature releases with the occasional painting guide.

The Hobbit range seems to have had a somewhat dismal reception, but compared to when the LOTR miniatures came out, taking into inflation the figures are in real terms twice as expensive as they were then. So for the average 12/13 year old considering joining the hobby it is considerably more costly.

I also feel that the reception of the Hobbit film was not as phenomenal as the Fellowship of the Ring. I suspect that this may change with the Desolation of Smaug.

When it comes down to it, GW want us buying Warhammer not Hobbit miniatures. I don't blame them, its simply good business strategy for them.

This may sound a bit presumptive but here goes anyway: the target audience for WH newcomers is 10-15. Boldly modelled, brightly painted, insanely destructive abilities tend to appeal. From what I have heard, some young people find Middle-earth a bit dour and 'old hat'.

_________________
Published ebooks:
Instrument of the Empire
A Note of Defiance
Phantom Ships, Ghost Flotilla
More to come!

I have to sat that the Middle Earth ranges do look somewhat sober in comparison to Warhammer which I personally fins too cartoont and over the top.

Not sure if you missed this section of the OP:



Here are my 2 opinions:

A) The myth that SBG is predicated on 6’s/lucky dice rolls

I've asked a few former GW mangers/players the same question the OP asked and the majority of them mentioned that the game relies on rolling 6’s/lucky dice rolls to make things “happen.” I can’t quite comment on this notion myself as I've only played about 5 or 6 games in total throughout my involvement in the hobby (I’d love to increase that number ever so badly).

Although I’m quite positive this isn't the case, “lucky dice rolls/6’s are mandatory” seems to be a common malingering mindset that is present throughout SBG discourse more so than other game systems.

It’s interesting to flip through the LOTR Best of White Dwarf magazines because you start to pick up on this notion (example: In the Balin’s tomb scenario, the goblins ultimately won because they surprisingly hit Legolas with arrows and Legolas was expected to survive with two Fate points left).

B) Immersion is difficult

When the everyday fan thinks of conflicts that occur in Middle Earth, they mention Helm’s Deep/Minas Tirith. It’s very rare for someone to highlight the warg attack scene for example.

People want to recreate these massive battles thanks to the film and all the pretty pictures present throughout the rulebooks/sourcebooks. Normal skirmishes (especially a points Match battle with no relation to the film) just seem awkward and off putting.

Before I go into a wall of text, I’ll try to sum up this point with an example:

Kitchen table 1 has a handful of newly assembled marines and Tyranids

Kitchen table 2 has a handful of newly assembled uruk-hai warriors and Rohan warriors

For the most part, people are going to find much more interest with kitchen table 1 because kitchen table 2 needs about a hundred more uruks, an epic Helm’s Deep miniature castle, a handful of elves and masterclass painted miniatures because the film depiction is in the back of their minds.

EDIT:


This. Totally this. Pretty much one of the main reasons why I started collecting another force.

_________________
“There's a savage beast in every man, and when you hand that man a sword or spear and send him forth to war, the beast stirs.”

I understand what he means by point 2. I mean the games that I enjoy the most do recreate things from the books and films but I have no problem with 'what if' scenarios. 40k is more flexible and more appealing because it takes one to be a Tolkien fan to be into Middle Earth while it only takes a sci-fi fan to be into 40k.

First off, great string of posts Thermo

Secondly I'd like to address what Seren Nishiyama said about the warbands rules being 'marketing tools' and that lotr has always had a 'restrictive' army building system - he is wrong on both accounts.

Before LoME people turned up to the GT with any army they want as long as they could justify why their models would be working together, pretty much the epitome of an unrestricted army building system, bu back then there were not many models/profiles so it made sense. LoME was then released because the system had expanded and there needed to be more order in terms of what people fielded. LoME was not restrictive, all you needed was a hero and warriors, sure your allies were limited in some cases but that was actually so that certain models would get more play, point in case Durin's Folk was the only dwarf list with plentiful allies, but had no named heroes, meaning if you liked not fielding the named heroes you actually got an advantage in terms of available allies.

However warbands was the best thing to happen to the game and I urge you to give it another shot, before warbands games lasted as long as the player with more bows wanted it to last while he stood as far away from the enemy army and volley fired for a good 2 hours. Warbands rules also removed the few fluff barriers that existed between armies, which were the only restrictions that ever existed in LoME, meaning any combo of models is possible. Lastly in regards to the 12:1 ratio being a marketing tool to sell more 'finecrap' I really don't see your point, both 40k and WHFB adhere to dumb unit rules and squads that are far more restrictive in that they prevent you from fielding an entire army of 'elite' units thanks to their literal regulations on what you can field.

In regard to the OP, SBG is unappealing because it is hard, you cannot wipe out a whole warband with one spell like you can in WHFB and you have little access to tonnes of high strength shooting weaponry like you do in 40k, models only have 1 or 2 special rules each (except some heroes) making them only 'immune' to 1 or 2 tactics, and then once you are in combat there is no basic rule that gives you bonuses to win fights to the better 'combat' troops like there is for models with higher weapon skill in WHFB and 40k, everything is subtle and underlined.

Excellent topic indeed!
I read many interesting thoughts which I agree with.
The point JamesR raises is very true I think. We experience relatively (probably not absolutely?) larger swings of enthusiasm.

I know quite some people who have played WHFB and 40k for a long time (over 10 years), and pretty much each and every single one of them is feeling that they are pushed away from their games. They still play it sometimes, because more people play, but they are getting into other wargames, like Bolt Action, Infinity and others. The always increasing prices are not only drifting us LotR hobbyists away.
I think it's not so much about age, though, but more about experience. I think that as people get more experience or into the game, they will start to look at the internet or play battles with other players and find there are actually alternatives. Most newcomers don't know about these alternatives.

Another interesting thing though: my local independent retailer always said he sold about as much LotR as he did WHFB and 40K. This was until a few years ago when I talked to him about it, and I suspect retail of LotR has gone down after, but it's interesting nonetheless. This was even though the Warhammers were always the more popular (and no, I didn't buy such huge amounts of LotR).


Anyway, Point 2 Matt raises is very interesting. I very well understand were this is coming from, and I agree with some he says, but not everything is true. Yes, it sucks when Aragorn dies against 2 Goblins, and it feels wrong, but his point about the Warhammers having a larger world is not (necessarily) true, I think. The thing is probably that most players only play with the background of the movies in mind, while there is so much more Tolkien has written about which most people don't know about. Heck, I consider myself a huge Tolkien-nerd and I haven't even read all books (I should really get the HoMe series some time..).
Middle-earth is a huge world, with many battles described. Even more battles, wars and interesting events are only mentioned and this allows for the freedom he is asking for. You want to see what happened in the wars between Arnor and Angmar? Go read the Appendices, look for articles online, read Tolkien's other works to get a feeling, and this way you can recreate, discover even, what happened! If you put a little 'research' effort into it, it will feel just as real as the Lord of the Rings itself.

Maybe the two remaining Hobbit films will give things a bit of a boost. The other thing I was wondering about was whether PJ, New Line or whoever would edit together some of the additional scenes that were shot for the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring showing more of the Last Alliance's battles against Sauron and Mordor. The prowess of the Numenorean and High Elves really was skimmed over, and they looked a bit puny when Sauron came out and started using that massive mace on them.
I have often toyed with the idea of using the Middle-earth minis but playing with some other set of rules, just adapting them for the forces and characters and applying fair point values - I have no problem with Legolas costing many points if he is capable of taking down multiple opponents using his bow or blades. It is the balancing of the points that is the really tricky bit.

_________________
Published ebooks:
Instrument of the Empire
A Note of Defiance
Phantom Ships, Ghost Flotilla
More to come!

I think this is an interesting discussion.

For me, as a newcomer, I have found the lack of active LOTR players shocking.

As someone who was 18+ and into WFB and 40k when the LOTR game came out I can remember thinking of it as a kids game. I only ever saw under 14's playing it, using masses of badly or unpainted miniatures. Despite being a big fan of the films and books I completed ignored it. Maybe it's because newline's LOTR was such a popular franchise with the logo splattered all over lunchboxes and backpacks with toys in every shop, the sgb game just seemed like another toy.

Recently I have grown very tired of massive investment required to stay active in WFB/40k, both financially and mentally, and I found myself longing for simpler games. Less models, less rules, less headache.

I thought the Hobbit/LOTR sbg would fit the bill perfectly but I feel like I've missed the party. It ticks all the boxes, great models, great rules, great IP but no one seems to play it. Perhaps the previous popularity in the game was as I originaly thought i.e masses of kids buying hundreds of miniatures and then moving on to the next craze.

As for Matt's comment on not liking the idea of it feeling like a re-enactment, I don't really agree. I play X-wing all the time (as do MWG) and main characters are blowing up all the time!

Besides if you don't like the idea of a hero beeing killed, you just change the wording to 'knocked unconcious'.

_________________
My Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheWargamerTV/videos

Cheers Armandhammer, indeed I missed it!

The LOTR SBG rules are just so fantastic, I don't understand why more people don't join. Perhaps most people prefer the generic Fantasy/sci-fi of the other games.

_________________
My old WIP thread - http://www.one-ring.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16246&start=0

I don't think it helps that GW stores are now incredibly limited in what kind of scenery they can produce in store. I remember as a kid going to GW when the films were new one of the big appeals was seeing boards like Dwarrowdelf that the staff had built from scratch which looked spectacular. Now you've just got those plastic modular boards with the same old manufactured scenery on them. No wow factor there at all and it probably dampens the enthusiasm that the staff themselves may have had for it if they had had something to be creative with.

Then I also feel they've souped up what should be lesser characters (some of the stuff that they released last for LOTR, which I'm not too familiar with), in my opinion purely to push up sales of those models for their stats. I'm a fan of LOTR more so than wargaming and as such I want to see the key Heroes and Villains from the films and original three books as the greatest of their kind, not 'elites' and characters I've scarcely heard of and were peripheral in the main story at best.

I agree, I don't go to GWs often, but one of the appeals I had was a huge Dwarrowdelf that I could just look at for ages.

I think there are proably a number of reasons as to why TH:SBG is as (un)popular as it currently is.

I'm not convinced that GWs pricing strategy is as much to blame as some people seem to think. Per model, this range is on the same pricing level as Gws other lines, and you need a far larger army in fantasy/40k than you do in SBG, so SBG is cheaper to collect a reasonably sized force. I guess one problem with the price increases from lotr to the hobbit could have been an alienation of the long-time players who feel kicked in the teeth by GW for shoving up their prices, however I don't think price is any more of a barrier to the entry of new players than it would be for fantasy/40k.

GWs failure to publicise the game properly I think holds more of the blame. If they put more WD content out, showed off more of the models in store, ran practice games, etc, then I'm sure there would be more of a following than there is now. The lack of exposure people have to this game has got to be a big reason for why the player base isn't huge, but having read Bilbo's post, I can understand why from a marketing point of view, GW would prefer people playing fantasy/40k to SBG.


I'm wondering whether another part of this, is that SBG sits somewhere in the void between fantasy and realism. They've got the 'realism' of how people are proportioned how large a weapon can be really spot on in TH:SBG (and don't get me wrong, I love the miniatures), but I wonder whether this is actually a hindrance for a game set in a fantasy world. Perhaps in general (and I have no evidence for this), people more interested in a fantasy game are also more captured by the idea of a mighty, muscular, ludicrously oversized axe weilding warrior, or a super-human killing machine lasering a slavering, alien-esque spikey monster, compared to the more tame skinny man with spear you might find in SBG. Equally, perhaps people more interested in finding some grounding in reality for their tabletop games may prefer something like SAGA (saxons, picts, vikings, etc) or flames of war (WW2) over something set in a fantasy world. Just an idea.

I do love the way our lotr/hobbit miniatures have well sized weapon, look amazingly like the actors portraying their characters, etc, however I do think there is something to be said for the more 'epic' style of miniature in fantasy/40k that lends itself better to conversion/paintwork. Its rare that I look at something based off a miniature from the lotr/hobbit range and say "wow, thats a truely stunning piece of work", however some of the stuff you see on cmon from other ranges can just blow you away as its on just completely another level. Perhaps we as hobbyists are part of the blame for not publicising our game properly by turning our miniatures into pieces of artwork?

_________________
WIP thread: viewtopic.php?f=50&t=25860

I have to disagree with Crixalis just on the appeal of over-the-top weapons etc. I have never seen a WHF miniature I even liked (or thought "wow that looks amazing, etc.") and very few 40k mini's as well. Fantasy is extremely cartoonish which kills it in my book, I hate the over-exaggeration, and 40k is literally an arms race with each expansion (with slightly less over-exageration). And when I see one of DMS painting works or another such skilled artist with LOTR minis I am amazed and wowed by it (especially that Great Beast DMS did just WOW!)

In terms of players jumping on the system Marsbar has it dead to rights, SBG is a much more difficult system, and while I dislike the warband rules as they currently stand (and current deployment rules), it does require some tactical prowess (a huge plus over other GW games).
Obvioiusly the dice are king, and no strategy can over-come terrible dice rolls BUT unlike GW's other games you can't just throw a Titan at it and make your problem's go away. Teams are far more balanced and skill is required.

But as I said before if you attribute it to anything primarily other than business then you're fooling yourself.
Example
You are GW and you own Warhammer/40k outright (this is an oversimplified example), so for every sale you make 100% profits.
Your LOTR/Hobbit line you do not own so after paying liscensing fees you keep only 75% of your profits.
Which line would you ultimately choose to pour into? One that gives you $100 for every $100 sold or the one that gives you $75 for every $100 sold?

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

I also just wanted to throw out a little advice to my fellow One Ringers, if you are, like I am, choosing between purchasing some LotR (and to a lesser degree Hobbit) miniatures and another game (Bolt Action, 40k etc) I'd recommend the LOTR. Someone Posted on this site recently that after GW stopped making LOTR either the game would die or reach a new-found height.
It will not be option number 2.

I've played other table-top games that once their manufacturor stopped producing them, they all died. Mech Warrior Dark Age/ Age of Destruction was very popular around where I live and once Wizkids stopped producing new ones the game died very very quickly and now only has a very small following.
LOTR will unfortunately be no different, so if you want to be able to play it a few years after the liscence expires build your collection now.

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming