| The One Ring http://ww.one-ring.co.uk/ |
|
| Standard size for WoTR? Future of the game? http://ww.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=27893 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Darthvegeta800 [ Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Standard size for WoTR? Future of the game? |
What's roughly the standard points size / numbers count for WoTR? SBG tends to gravitate frequently towards 500pts it seems. But WoTR? Also what do you think the past and future is of WoTR? A failed experiment? A flawed product? A masterpiece? Will it simply dissapear into oblivion? |
|
| Author: | SouthernDunedain [ Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Standard size for WoTR? Future of the game? |
I like 2-3000pts for WotR. But I fear it will die and disappear quicker than sbg. |
|
| Author: | Lord Hurin [ Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Standard size for WoTR? Future of the game? |
With the recent increases in price, it's not feasible to play. There were never very many players in my area anyway. To put it into perspective, I have nearly 3,000 points of Isengard for the SBG. I would barely be able to field a WoTR army worth anything though. I have the equivalent of roughly 5 Companies of Uruk-hai and 4 pike Companies. I would probably need to double that just to have a decent core of an army. |
|
| Author: | Rangefinder [ Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Standard size for WoTR? Future of the game? |
I have run 5,000 point matches on a table 4' x 8' table. It takes a concerted effort, lots of beer, and more than a day to play. I made "Cliff Notes", quick reference sheets, and studied the book as much as anybody could. It's a cumbersome game, more so if both players are not entirely familiar with the rules. 2-3,000 point range is good. Beyond that, it's tough. I am certain the the sun has set WOTR. It's simply too expensive to fully field armies this large now. I had one buddy who I ran games with. We both were collecting before the ol' "half and double" happened. And it was expensive then. I think using proxies is acceptable if your planning to run this game. Fill out at least the front company of your formation, then use jelly beans for the rest. So delicious to eat your fallen warriors!!! |
|
| Author: | Goldman25 [ Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Standard size for WoTR? Future of the game? |
Rangefinder wrote: I think using proxies is acceptable if your planning to run this game. Fill out at least the front company of your formation, then use jelly beans for the rest. So delicious to eat your fallen warriors!!! Best. Proxies. Ever!!!!!!! 
|
|
| Author: | legion [ Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Standard size for WoTR? Future of the game? |
WOTR was a failed experiment. It is far too broken to play effectively and fairly, which is unfortunate because it had alot of potential. There are just too many combos that allow players to do crazy things like create invulnerable formations, turn legolas into a machine gun, generate infinite Might, and the dreaded ringwraith spam which wins as soon as you put it on the table. If the brokenness and unplayablility did not kill it enough, then as everyone has mentioned: the cost will. At the current prices, you will need to be a millionaire just to even think about playing. Its pretty much dead. But there may be an attempt at a revival with the Battle of Five Armies. |
|
| Author: | Dwarfendale [ Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Standard size for WoTR? Future of the game? |
I've only played this game a few times but enjoyed playing it, I found archery and magic are over powered but with the right house rules this can be sorted. Unfortunately as far as I can tell their is no future only those who still play it. I personally can't see any revival from the Hobbit films but doesn't stop players putting together their own rules for a battle of five armies, which would be great fun. |
|
| Author: | Dorthonion [ Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Standard size for WoTR? Future of the game? |
I know of people using adaptations of Kings of War rules, Hail Caesar rules, SAGA rules, and a rumour of Deus Vult rules as substitutes for WotR (these are separate adaptations, not some conglomerate of all of the above). I have not tried any of these variations myself as yet but am informed that KOW and HC play very well for large scale battles, while SAGA is probably more suited to small-medium fights. So even if GW abandon WotR, there are workarounds. The only issue then is being able to create large enough forces, so eBay, trading, discount shopping etcetera become paths to explore. |
|
| Author: | Oldman Willow [ Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Standard size for WoTR? Future of the game? |
Quote: Dorthonion"]I know of people using adaptations of Kings of War rules, Hail Caesar rules, SAGA rules, and a rumour of Deus Vult rules as substitutes for WotR (these are separate adaptations, not some conglomerate of all of the above). I played large LOTR Battles long before War of the Ring. One of the First White Dwarf articles ever for Warhammer was a scenario for LOTR. Hail Caesar rules, SAGA rules, and Deus Vult are fine rules sets. One thing that has not been mentioned is that War of The Ring makes a good group game for scenarios. Set the game up with an umpire and play group scenarios. Quote: SAGA is probably more suited to small-medium fights. I have it and play it. I do not like it. I use it to try to generate some interest in Dark age gaming. Quote: The only issue then is being able to create large enough forces, so eBay, trading, discount shopping etcetera become paths to explore. [/quote]Don't discount group gaming. 
|
|
| Author: | Ellorindar [ Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Standard size for WoTR? Future of the game? |
I think it would be disappointing to say the least if there wasn't at least a small update for WOTR with the Battle of Five armies. Considering they still sell the WOTR rulebook, and the opportunity is there for it. Even if it was a downloadable PDF with a collation of the FAQ, small updates to the rules (since it is technically still version one with plenty of small problems) and the profiles for the new figures, I would be happy. It's not as if it's going to cost a huge amount to do so - I know that there are people out there constructing custom profiles, re-writing rules that don't work/break gameplay, and implementing house rules to keep the game going - and all in their spare time. And these people are doing it for free, and keep on playing the game - at no cost to Games Workshop. |
|
| Author: | daersalon [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Standard size for WoTR? Future of the game? |
While SBG has gone through 5 or 6 iterations, addressing most of the cheesiness and points balancing, WotR has not. Does this mean WotR is not worth playing? I would say not! - Broken things. A few gentlemanly agreements can make a fun game and balance things out. Identify the worst offenders and just apply a house rule to cover it. You don't even need many, in fact 'less is more', but a few changes can bring back the competitiveness. For example two of the biggest that are always quoted are: a) Wraithspam? Say a player is only allowed 1 Nazgul / 1000 points. b) Khamul the Cheesy? Say his ability works only on a '6' not a '5' and a '6' which brings it into line with similar abilities in Sarumans battlehost, Cirdan, etc. - Army Costs. Well this is true. But there are always plenty to be had on trusty eBay. Dip some plastics in *NON*-Acetone nail varnish remover and ready to paint, for a fraction of the price of a new box in your favourite Wargame franchise. Plus suitable proxies... Gripping Beast Dark Age warriors make nice ruffians, Warlord Dacians could be utilised for Clansmen, Warlord Celts/Germans for Warriors of Carn Dum. Even the Warlord Zulus I heard one person using and converting for a force of Mahud... + While SBG is fun on a model by model skirmish, it isn't so good for big epic battles which are the highlights of the films. WotR enables you to have huge battles in a fraction of the time it would take in SBG. Now even with slightly unbalanced profiles that's worth something. In WotR the focus is more about how good a hero is *leading* troops, not how good a warrior he is. ===== To return to the OP about points. 1500 points takes about 3-4 hours. But for a quicker game (if you plan to get to the full 8 turns) we often play 1200. Anything less than 1000 always feels it's over too quickly. As for the future? This has been discussed in this forum before. But all we can do is hope than GW release something for the Battle of 5 armies. But the cost of the new models is indeed rather high and would need some imaginative proxying. But consider this: WotR came from GW trying to do 'more' with a waning franchise, with the Hobbit movies stuck in limbo maybe never being made. They did a nice job, taking the 'standard' box then of 24 infantry or 6 cavalry and making 3 companies from each, each able to be similarly armed. Maybe they will do that again... and whatever results will be based on the current box sizes, but maybe somewhere between SBG and WotR in scope ... units of 5 maybe? |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|