White Dwarf #356 no LOTR

[jcflanker]

Has anyone else noticed that in the most recent issue of WD (356) ther was absolutly no LOTR articals. I for one have never been a fan of LOTR and was kid of pleased not to see it in my WD. What are all your thoughts on the subject?

[Aegis]

Quite pleased, to be honest. I have disliked that game since it came out, and have yet to find a GW employee who actually cares for it as well.

[Ming]

I've never seen it played. My FLGS has tons of it on the shelves. I Might by a few LOTR special character sets just to paint tho...:cool:

[Court]

I would have to say Hallelujah.

Personally never played any versions nor interested too. I am sure some of the players on this side of the pond might be sad to miss out on their articles but i for one am not.

[entendre_entendre]

i am actually happy about this. i have never really liked LotR mainly because i saw it as a movie tie-in money grab. now WD has more room for 40k, WFB, & painting articles. the one thing i'm disappointed w/ in this WD is i really wanted a close up of that World Eaters champion with the flaming spear, b/c me likey!

[Aegis]

I recall chatting with a buddy of mine who used to work at a GW store. One of the reasons he was let go was because he did not push LOTR enough. Sadly, the fact of the matter was that none of them pushed it all that much (he was singled out due to issues between him and management), because very few people showed interest in it. Even when there was ludicrously good deals on the product, it would still not move.

I think GW is simply trying to keep that horse alive, when it clearly has three broken legs and diabetes...

[Prometheus]

Gotta say, I am in no way mad that GW showed no support to LOTRs in the most recent White Dwarf. In my opinion it shopuld be considered a Speciality Game. I also think that WD should report on one of the Speciality Games every month. For example one month it could be Space Hulk, the next BFG, the next LOTRs, and so on. It would make it easier to come up with unique and interesting articles for each game becuse they would have longer to think about and playtest each one. It would also the Specialty Games more unique and at the same time give some spotlighht time to games that currently get none such as BFG and Necromunda.

[jcflanker]

Gotta say, I am in no way mad that GW showed no support to LOTRs in the most recent White Dwarf. In my opinion it shopuld be considered a Speciality Game. I also think that WD should report on one of the Speciality Games every month. For example one month it could be Space Hulk, the next BFG, the next LOTRs, and so on. It would make it easier to come up with unique and interesting articles for each game becuse they would have longer to think about and playtest each one. It would also the Specialty Games more unique and at the same time give some spotlighht time to games that currently get none such as BFG and Necromunda.

I agree, I think that this is a great Idea. I always thought of LOTR as a waste of 1/3 of the White Dwarf. Even though I don’t play Fantasy I always read or at least look through the fantasy articles. As for LOTR the only thing that I thought was good about it in WD was some decent scenery articles

[DuskRaider]

I can say one thing only... Thank God. I despise the game, and I'm hoping GW will drop it soon to focus more on 40K, WHFB, and hopefully revamp some of the old games.

BTW, Court... Nice Charger. SRT?

[jimbobjeff]

I'm sad to see it go, I still think it is the best ruleset Gw have produced, if more people would actually give it a go rather than thinking "lotr urgh no way" then the only major problem with the system (lack of players) would be solved.

[oni]

The issue I have with LoTR is that I don't feel like I can create my own battles and stories. I can't really dive in and feel like I'm part of the game. The story and its characters have all already been laid out before me in books and in film. I know how how the story ends. It's because I know how it ends that if the bad guys were to win on the table top it wouldn't feel right and I don't want to take part in a game that seems awkward. I think playing LoTR would be like reading one of those alternate history books where some author speculates 'what if it happened like this' say... What if **** Germany had won WW2? It just doesn't seem right.

[Gotthammer]

The Dog in the Manger

A Dog looking out for its afternoon nap jumped into the Manger
of an Ox and lay there cosily upon the straw. But soon the Ox,
returning from its afternoon work, came up to the Manger and
wanted to eat some of the straw. The Dog in a rage, being
awakened from its slumber, stood up and barked at the Ox, and
whenever it came near attempted to bite it. At last the Ox had to
give up the hope of getting at the straw, and went away muttering:

"Ah, people often grudge others what they
cannot enjoy themselves."



Hopefully it is not a trend of the future - the rotating specialist game section would be a good idea though. I think they would gain more interest in LoTR by focussing on the more tactical aspect of it compared to the other games, rather than the 'hey, weren't the movies great' approach.

Oni - there are plenty of other battles that can be played with the system. The entire first and second age are barely described and use most of the forces in the rulebooks. The wars of Beleriand lasted for hundreds of years before the War of Wrath, and the time around the fall of Numenor and the founding of Gondor and Arnor were filled with strife. Also there is the long period between the Last Alliance and the War of the Ring, the siege of Lothlorien, and all the other battles left out.

[Cryl]

The argument that the whole LotR game is historical is no less true for 40k. The universe isn't moved on by any of the tabletop games we play, it's simply a world to use as a backdrop for an abstraction of the characters to be played on the tabletop. So my 40k army is led by Pedro Cantor but I'm painted up as Star Phantoms so he's now "counts as" someone else applies equally to using Imrahil to lead my Gondor army that's based on a different fiefdom.

What JimbobJeff says in his post is true, if more people saw past the "LotR so it must be ****" and tried the game then there would be a lot more people playing it. The games really are good. Honestly. I wasn't going anywhere near the concept until someone talked / forced me into playing a couple of games... people need to get past the idea that it's LotR and it automatically sucks and just give it a go like I did. If it still sucks then that's fair enough. That happened to me with Fantasy, I just don't like it. But give it a go please?

[RocketRollRebel]

I haven't seen the issue yet but I wont miss the LoTR stuff. I love the books and movies but the idea of the game doesn't really seem appealing to me at all. I don't know if its because its based on LoTR so that I feel like I already know all that there is to know about it and nothing new is going to come up or if its the fact that 40k and a bit of FB on the side already eat enough of my cash as it is. Nothing against people who play it tho. The minis are nice and the rules seem pretty solid, but its just not for me I guess.

[Wolfshade]

I'm in two minds about this really, in a way its good that it hasn't been included for the sake of it so more page space can be given to the other areas of the hobby where there are new releases. I've played a couple of starter games of it and have enjoyed it, but on the other hand I feel it has too much page space recently - though that could be just because I like my table top gaming in the grim future, not middle earth. It is also a problem that the mythos has already been established, yes GW back stories for 40k & WFB have also been, but they control them, tweak change and explore grey areas.
I have to say if the pushed out a WD without 40k or WFB then I'd be upset, and LoTR is seen as one of the main franchises and a good way to get people into the hobby, with it's history being more understood by those away from the Hobby and a "simpler" rule set making it more approachable.
Hmm, I appear to be rambling so will finish it here

[brother drakist]

If the Hobbit film ever makes it off the ground expect to see increased coverage. However it is somewhat nice to see less coverage of LOTR in the monthly catalogue that is White Dwarf. Do I like the game? Absolutely, I think it's a fun system but it just has not caught on in my area.

Someone mentioned that the history of the game has already been mapped out and that takes away from the game. If you were to apply to that logic to 40k then we wouldn't have many Space Marines left in the 40k universe as their seems to be a Space Marine Civil War every weekend I visit my LGS.

[oni]

I also feel that the LoTR game is rather out of place in the whole of GW's product line. Everything GW offers or has offered has been created by GW, but suddenly here's LoTR, a game based on someone elses IP.

It's not that I dislike LoTR as game (I've never played) or as a story, it just doesn't appeal to me as a table top game.

[Aegis]

I have no problem with people championing the game, but the games that I have played, I felt both the base game, and the war of the ring, were frighteningly close to the 'Herohammer' of past editions. In almost every game I played, my rank and file were, essentially, speed bumps, and the only real factors came from the heros. A skirmish or army based game with, as I see it, a flaw like that in the system does not strike me as a good one. People complain about the balancing issues of 40k, but to me, LotR is more imbalanced...

[Aldramelech]

Big fan of both books and film, not a fan of the game at all. Dont like the figures at all. Good riddence...........

[jeffersonian000]

Ironically enough, Warhammer Fantasy Battles was originally based on the themes and setting of Middle Earth. It just happened that over the following decades, the game's focus and background material shifted away from its roots (probably due to copyright issues) into the game setting most people recognize today.

Something most don't remember is that Citadel Miniatures was a separate company from Games Workshop that predated GW by quite a few decades, as it was originally founded by HG Wells to produce historical miniatures as well as "fantasy" miniatures for the average collector. Games Workshop (despite current claims otherwise) had created a set of rules for playing battles in a Middle Earth styled setting using the same fantasy races depicted in the Lord of the Ring novels (not so unusual, since Dungeons & Dragons was based on a miniature game called “Chainmail” that was based loosely on LotR, yet went through its own mutation into what we see today). GW contracted Citadel to produce specific miniatures for their Fantasy Battles game line (Warhammer), and then later for the Fantasy Space Battles game line (Warhammer 40k). Popularity gained a lot of momentum in those early days such that a rival miniature company, Marauder Miniatures, was contracted to product bulk miniatures for both game lines (the infamous “Squad blister packs”). This was about the point I started playing 40k, which was at the tail end of Rogue Trader and the beginnings of 2nd edition.

I remember when Citadel purchased Marauder, and then a decade later when GW purchased Citadel. We all know that GW put Armourcast out of business, and then created Forge World to fill in the "over-sized" miniature niche.

Then came the LotR movies, and GW returned to its roots by producing a game set and miniatures for the LotR product license (which had to have cost them a lot of money to gain the rights too). This in effect brought GW back to its origins.

SJ

[jimbobjeff]

I'd argue against the strategy battle game being herohammer, Wotr is definatly hero based but in the sbg heroes lead troops, there are very few of them that are killing machines when compared to 2 or 3 regular troops (who cost a lot less). The heroes power comes from allowing themselves and nearby allies to move, shoot or fight outside of sequence, they tend to enhance the rank and file rather than take on everyone by themselves.

[jcflanker]

The issue I have with LoTR is that I don't feel like I can create my own battles and stories. I can't really dive in and feel like I'm part of the game. The story and its characters have all already been laid out before me in books and in film. I know how how the story ends. It's because I know how it ends that if the bad guys were to win on the table top it wouldn't feel right and I don't want to take part in a game that seems awkward. I think playing LoTR would be like reading one of those alternate history books where some author speculates 'what if it happened like this' say... What if **** Germany had won WW2? It just doesn't seem right.


This is exactly why I have never gotten into Historical, or WWII games. We know how the war ends and in the case of WWII games it seems like everyone wants to be Germans. I personally would feel like a traitor if I played the ****s (even though they had real snappy looking uniforms).

LOTR may have good game mechanics, I don’t know from firsthand experience I have never played any games of it. Most people I talk to that play it say it plays very well and is very fun. I just had no interest in playing.

It kind of annoyed me that GW spent so much time and effort on the game when they could have been revamping Epic, Warmaster, BFG, Necromunda or pumping up faster releases for 40k and Fantasy or maybe they could have even come up with a new game in the 40k/Fantasy genre.

Someone mentioned that 40k story was already written. To an extent this is true but with the Galaxy being such a big place there is no reason why you can’t make up a sector, system or planet where you write its history and your table top battles mold its future.

[rant_hammer]

Begone i can roll a 6 and win, the rule set is lame and i am happy to know i will not have to flick through half of white dwarf because its full of lotr.

Its also a fact that whit dwarf sells less copies when lotr is on the cover.