War of the Ring is Fantasy Flight's newest battle game. After buying and enjoying A Game of Thrones from FFG at GenCon a year ago, I got excited when I heard that War of the Ring would be for sale at this year's GenCon. I managed to get a copy from a friend who went and have now played it twice. I usually like to try and review a game after playing it more than twice. The length of this one makes this difficult, however, so two playings will just have to do for now.

This game is very complicated, so this review is LONG. Skip down to "MY IMPRESSIONS" if you don't care how to play, but just want to know what I thought. Even with the length of this review, there's no way I can touch on everything that's here. I'll do my best for you die-hards who really want to know, however.

OVERVIEW: This epic battle game plays with 2-4 players, and plays very well with just two. One side controls The Free People, and the other controls The Shadow. While the bad guys try to find the One Ring and swarm over Middle Earth, the good guys try to hide said ring and hold out long enough for Frodo to destroy it in Mordor.

COMPONENTS: All in all, the components are a mix between wonderful and maddening. The sculpts of the various figures are really great. The Nazgul are impressively huge, towering up over other units on the board. Gondorans have a finely detailed White Tree marked on their shields and banners. Saruman's minions are clearly identifiable as wolf riders and Uruk-hai. Character figures are included as well -- the whole Fellowship of the Ring, as well as three Shadow minions. I think I can sum the quality of the figs up by saying that when I opened the box, my 4-year-old went nuts, immediately wanting to play Lord of the Rings with Daddy and his friend. The problem I have with the figures is that it's a hard to distinguish between figures of different nations on the same side, and players have to be constantly careful not to replace Gondorans with Rohirrim or Sauron's orcs with Saruman's Uruk-hai. I found myself squinting at the pieces a lot, especially when they were in a big mass somewhere in the middle of the board.

The board is similarly impressive. It's gigantic, as others have commented. It's made of two quad-fold boards and is among the biggest boards of any game in my collection. Plus, it's beautiful. Beauty in this case has its flaws. There is a lot of important information on the map, and much of it is just very hard to see. Territory borders are not intuitive, snaking around the board in irregular patterns, and players have to stay constantly vigilant not to move an army across a forbidden dark black line, or outside a nation's borders, or even to a space that doesn't actually touch the origin of the army. Especially once the gigantic armies are on the gigantic board, it's tough to see all that nice detail.

Rounding out the components is a sheet of heavy cardboard pieces and two decks of heavy-duty cards. They should stand up well to repeated play. The rulebook is thick and with small print, but that shouldn't be a surprise to the seasoned epic gamer.

All these pieces are held in what might be one of the worst plastic organizers I've ever seen. There are only four bins -- one for each set of minis, one for the cards, and one for the counters. This makes it take forever to set up the game. I'd highly recommend those hosting a game of War of the Ring to set it up beforehand. It took me just over an hour to set it up the first time, and about forty minutes to set it up the second time. I'll definitely be picking up some of those Plano tackle box things to hold all these pieces. Man, I hate that! Especially after Fantasy Flight's excellent job with a plastic tray for Game of Thrones, I expected more.

GAMEPLAY: Wow, where to start? This is a tough game to describe. Be ready to read the rulebook twice or three times, and still miss a few rules. Even late in the second game, I was finding little things that we were doing wrong, and I'm no gaming slouch. I can explain Axis and Allies in about ten minutes to almost anybody, but it takes at least half an hour to even give the basics of War of the Ring. I'll try to do justice to it here and give you an idea of how it works.

The heart of the game is an action dice system that determines what each player can do on a turn. The good guys start with four dice, the bad guys with seven, and each roll the dice to determine what they can do. Each face of each die gives the player one action (Character actions, Recruiting armies, Moving armies, Event Card use, Hunting for the Ring, or Wild) which they take in turn with one another. Thus, the Free Peoples might use a "Character" die to move their characters on the board, sending Aragorn toward Minas Tirith and Legolas toward the Woodland Realm. Then the Shadow might use a "Mustering" die to recuit more troops. Then the Free Peoples player uses an "Event Card" die to play a card from their hand allowing the elves to move toward war. And so on.

The game begins with three Shadow nations and five Free Peoples nations preparing for war. A political track down one side of the board marks how close each of the powers are to mobilizing for war. As you might expect, Sauron and Saruman are very close and require only a gentle nudge to get them to send out the troops. The dwarves and men take a lot more energy to even allow them to recruit new troops, and the Free Peoples player will be concentrating on this for a few turns at the beginning of the game. Nations can be mobilized by several means. Appropriate characters can spur the nation to war, Mustering dice can be used to mobilize the nation, or Event Cards can be used to skip several spaces and go directly to war. Even being attacked by an enemy doesn't necessarily put the attacked nation at war, which I think is in good keeping with the books.

Before nations are at war, they are very limited in what they can do. They can't move pieces outside their nation's borders, attack enemies, or even recruit new forces. It's fun at the beginning of the game when the bad guys are able to mobilize quickly and start moving hordes of Uruk-hai toward Helm's Deep, while the good guys frantically try to get members of the Fellowship to Edoras to warn them that war is upon them. By the end of the game, everyone is at war, of course, but if the Free Peoples tarry too much, they might not have time to stem the onslaught of bad guys coming toward them.

Once at war, armies can move from their homelands and attack. Battles are relatively simple. Up to ten units can comprise an army (this is known in old-time wargaming terms as a "stacking limit" for you young whippersnappers who never played hex games!) Each unit in the army (other than leaders or characters), regardless of unit type, contributes one to the strength of the army, to a maximum of five. The attacking player gets to decide whether or not to play a card, and then the defending player does the same. Both cards are then revealed and can affect the outcome (usually by modifying the upcoming die roll). Each player rolls a number of dice equal to the strength of the army. Usually, 5s or 6s hit, although defenders in settlements are hit only on 6s. Next, there is a leader reroll. For each leader in the army, one miss can be rerolled. After these two rolls, each hit causes one casualty. Casualties can be taken by either eliminating a regular unit, or reducing an elite unit to a regular unit. If combat is taking place at a Stronghold (like Helm's Deep or Rivendell, or even Barad-Dur) combat then ends. Otherwise, the rounds are repeated until one side dies or retreats.

This is a good place to note one important difference between the two sides. The bad guys have unlimited forces -- if a unit is killed, it goes back into the pool and can be recruited again later. The good guys, however, have a finite number of units. Once that elven leader dies, he's gone forever. The Shadow can certainly win a war of attrition, and such a war is to be avoided by the Free Peoples at all costs!

Combat at Strongholds almost always takes multiple attacks. Because the attacker can only attack once per "Army" die, a few defenders can hold out for several turns. The fact that attackers hit on 6s while defenders hit on 5s or 6s at a Stronghold means that the attacker must bring lots of units, plus have a few more in a nearby region to bring in to reinforce the siege. We saw Stronghold battles go both ways. Sometimes the defender (usually the good guys) could hold out long enough for a relieving army to fight off the besiegers, but most of the time the good guys would, eventually, succumb.

It's not so important that Free People strongholds fall as it is how long it takes them to fall. As the battles rage on in Middle Earth, the Fellowship tries to sneak the ring to Mordor. The Fellowship is represented by a figure of Sam and Frodo that starts at Rivendell. On each turn, Character dice can be used to move the Fellowship toward Mordor. However, the figure is not moved. Only a counter at the top of the board is moved forward representing how far the Fellowship has moved from the "Last Known Position." When the Fellowship moves, the Dark Side gets to roll some dice (the number is determined in an earlier step) to see if the Fellowship moves safely or at peril. If "The Hunt" succeeds, a random tile is drawn from a cup that tells how damaged the Fellowship becomes. Usually, Frodo will take some corruption (kept track of with yet another counter on a track -- I told you there's a lot going on in this game!). If he takes twelve corruption before destroying the Ring, the bad guys win immediately.

Some tiles in The Hunt will cause Frodo to become "Revealed." This means that the Fellowship player must immediately move the Fellowship a number of spaces equal to its position on the Fellowship track. In this case, they may not end in a friendly Stronghold, but must reveal themselves somewhere out in the wilderness. Although the Fellowship can be hidden again by using a die on a later turn (thus allowing them to move once more) while revealed they are subject to all sorts of nasty cards of the bad guys.

If the Fellowship is hidden, the good guys can voluntarily reveal the Fellowship if they've moved far enough to get to a friendly stronghold (I think in most games this will happen in Lothlorien). While thus revealed, the Fellowship can heal one Corruption for each turn they spend there. Additionally, the presence of the Fellowship can trigger certain Event Cards and also automatically helps move the host nation to war.

It should be noted that the Fellowship figure doesn't count for much except how close the Fellowship is to destroying the Ring. Even if a horde of orcs led by eight Nazgul and the Witch King lands in the space occupied by a revealed Fellowship, the Fellowhip is not captured. However, being in such a situation can cause the Fellowship to take extra corruption. The Fellowship can only be "killed" by corrupting them all the way to twelve.

Ready for another mechanic? Travelling along with the Fellowship are the Companions, characters that are familiar to any Lord of the Rings fan. The Companions may choose to separate from the Fellowship, going forth to incite battle or lead armies against The Shadow. Each of them has a card with special rules that pertain to that character. Thus, Legolas can use any die to move the elves to war if he's in an elven stronghold. Aragorn can add one to the strength of an army he leads. Aragorn and Gandalf can, with the completion of certain prerequisites, be promoted to The Heir of Isildur and Gandalf the White respectively. These more powerful versions are cool, but take precious time to recruit, during which time The Shadow comes closer to winning the game.

Dissuading a player from simply sending all the Companions out to fight war, leaving poor Frodo and Sam all alone, each Companion can also be sacrificed when the Fellowship is damaged to eliminate corruption they would otherwise take. Most Companions also have a special ability that, as long as they are "The Guide" of the Fellowship, allow the Fellowship some special protection. So it's important to keep at least a couple of Companions with Frodo even as the game wears on.

Don't think the fun is limited to the good guys. The bad guys have characters of their own that must be brought into play through certain conditions. Saruman, The Witch King, and The Mouth of Sauron all have a special figure that can march about the board, also each with cool powers.

Finally (finally!) let me mention the Event Cards. Without Event Cards, the game would really just be Risk with a few recognizable characters thrown in and a time limit. The Event Cards are what gives the game its feel, and creates many of the choices that the players will have to make. Cards are drawn on each turn, and are grouped into two basic types. Strategy cards help with recruiting new guys or going to battle, while Character cards pertain to the Nazgul, the Fellowship, or Sauron's minions. An Event Card die roll can be used to activate any Event Card, and each has a secondary die that can be used to activate it as well.

Each card has two effects -- one that is its main effect, and one that can be used if the card is played during combat. Many of the cards have some prerequisite, such as "Aragorn must be in Rohan for this card to be played." This is balanced by the combat effect -- the more restrictive the main effect, the better the combat effect, and vice versa. So rarely is a player stuck with a card that's completely useless, which is very nice.

Effect Cards can be used to circumvent other conditions of the game. The Free Peoples have many cards that allow them to recruit units in a nation that's not yet at war, which is good. Some cards add bonus tiles to The Hunt that do more or less damage to Frodo. Some allow a large battle to be fought with bonuses. Some allow a siege to take place for longer than a single die roll. Some move Companions more quickly than normal, and give special bonuses if those Companions finish their move in certain areas.

Let me give you a couple of examples to show you why the cards are so neat. There's a card called Book of Mazarbul, a Free People card, that allows all Companions to move on the map. If, at the end of the move, one Companion is in a dwarven stronghold, the dwarves instantly go to war. For those who are familiar with the books, this represents a member of the Fellowship taking the book they found in Moria to the dwarves, showing them how dire the situation is, thus mobilizing the dwarves to war. This didn't really happen in the books (that I know of, but it's been a while and the movies have corrupted me more than a little), but it's entirely plausible.

Another card, this one a Shadow card, is called "The Breaking of the Fellowship." The card may only be played when the Fellowship is revealed. When it's played, a Hunt Tile is drawn from the pool, and a number of companions equal to the corruption the Fellowship would normally take must be separated from the Fellowship. This did happen in the books, of course, and can be recreated in the game with this card.

Before this game came out, I know some people were wondering here on the Geek if the players would be forced to follow the same path as the books. While such a path is definitely a valid strategy, the cards will dictate what can or cannot be accomplished. Maybe the Ents will destroy Orthanc through the timely play of a card, but maybe that same card will be used in combat instead, and then you can imagine the Ents attacking an army besieging Minas Tirith. Maybe the Balrog will hurt the Fellowship as they move through Moria; or maybe the Fellowship will avoid Moria and the Balrog card will be discarded. It's a nice mechanic, and a neat way to include the key events in the books without forcing players to use them, as well as throwing out a few "what-ifs" that can occur.

VICTORY: Good grief, after all that, are you still reading? Victory is attained either through a military or a ring-based victory. The bad guys have to take ten victory points worth of territories -- much easier said than done, as most of the points are tied up in very defensible strongholds. The good guys can win by taking only four victory points of evil cities -- also much easier said than done, as their forces are quite limited in numbers. If the Ring reaches Mordor, the good guys win, of course. And if the bad guys corrupt the Fellowship, the bad guys win. In both games that I've played, the Fellowship was corrupted just as they reached Mordor.

MY IMPRESSION: War of the Ring is a game is a very complex, very neat game depicting the battle for Middle Earth. Virtually every cool aspect from the trilogy is recreated here, from the political machinations of the good guys to the swarms of orcs pouring out from Mordor. Numerous strategies certainly exist to win. By no means are either of the sides limited to only the events that occurred in the books, but if the Fellowship wants to behave just as is written, that can be done in most games.

I think the two sides have very different play experiences. The Shadow gets to move hordes of armies, and bad guy turns tend to take a lot longer. Playing the good guys is more subtle and much more tense. There's constant pressure to run the Fellowship hard, but each move corrupts poor Frodo more, and takes away an action die that might be used to defend Lothlorien or Helm's Deep. I think it's much tougher to play the good guys, and you should, in your first games, put the more experienced and more patient player in the role of The Free People. I've played both sides, and I thought both were fun, but my friend Tom hated playing the good guys. "I want to move hordes of guys!" he kept whining.

The game is long and complicated. It's definitely not for everyone. It takes an hour to set up, probably another hour to completely explain, and at least four hours to play. In the rulebook, they say it can be played in three hours, but I don't believe it. Maybe if you had two expert players that were already familiar with all the cards, this would be true. But I'd give myself six hours to play this one from beginning to end the first time you play. The length and complexity limits it to only a few diehard gamers, I fear, which is too bad for me. I have lots of casual gamer friends that just won't have the patience for a game that takes longer to explain than many take to play!

The map is really a problem for me. It would look simply fantastic hanging on my wall, but it really needs some work as a boardgaming map. Some of the aesthetics should have been sacrificed to make nations more evidently marked, impassable borders more clear, and towns and cities easier to tell apart. Most likely, some carefully crafted strategy will be destroyed because a player finds out suddenly that the two spaces they were going to attack aren't connected, which I can tell you is very demoralizing.

All in all, I'm glad I bought this game, but I can't recommend it wholeheartedly. If you're looking for another Fantasy Flight masterpiece like A Game of Thrones, this probably isn't it. But I'm sure it will have a loyal following, and I imagine I'll see tournaments for it for years to come. It'll probably someday be one of those classic old war games that a few diehards love, and others simply can't master due to the complexity.

If you're a Lord of the Rings fan and a hardcore gamer, and have a friend who'll play a six-hour game with you, definitely check this out. Otherwise, I'd say let someone else introduce it to you.

MUKid (#51471),

Thanks for your very well written review. This game is presently no 1 on my "should i buy this" list. Other reviews have hinted at but not really come straight out and said that this is definately not a 2-3 hour "euro" war game say like game of thrones.

I like 4-5 hour + games but as an adult who works as opposed to a student with oodles of spare time theres a real difference between a "games night" game and a "lets set aside a saturday to play this game" game.

One issue, how much of your overall strategy is determined by your card draw during the first couple of turns. For a game with this time commitment I would rather not have a "Oh I drew cards A & B that means I go with standard attack gondor strategy A" mentality enforced because its simply the most efficient way of proceeding.

Oh who am I kidding. I'll buy this game as soon as its reasonably available anyway....

Jay;

Thanks for the insightful and honest review as usual. This game was "on the bubble" of my want list. Now that I've heard commentary based on actual gameplay, and STILL hear the "Risk with events" comment, I can safely eliminate it from my list of games to buy.

Cheers.

MUKid (#51471),
Very nice review. Thanks for pointing out the highs and lows. I can probably paint the figures I need to distinguish them if required. I will get this if only to play it solo.

myopia (#51687),

Yes, this is definitely not "A Game of Thrones", which is of course an excellent game, but is optimal with 5 players, where War of the Ring is optimal with 2. AGoT plays fast, WotR plays slow. I have a harder time getting 5 players for a boardgame so 2-player games are a real bonus for me, especially one in my favorite fantasy setting.

Regarding Event cards determining your strategy: I think of the Event cards as bonuses to your overall strategy, not the determiner thereof.

You start the game with 2 Event cards, each turn you draw two more and can use Action dice to get additional cards, although this is rarely the best choice for your valuable Actions each turn. You can never have more than 6 cards in your hand, and you generally won't have a full hand until turn 4.

In other words, the cards won't dictate your starting strategy because you won't have very many cards in the early game.

MUKid (#51471),
Thanks for the excellent and honest review. After sending my initial "review" in, I tried to get it changed to a "Session Report" but it was too late.

I love this game for two reasons: 1) I love JRR Tolkien's books (including The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales) and have been a fan of them for over 20 years. Getting to play in his sandbox with this game is a blast. 2) I've wanted this exact game for a couple of years now and every time I've looked at LotR:Risk or Reiner Knizia's LotR games I've put the box back down and walked away frustrated that there wasn't a better LotR wargame. Now there is and I'm damned happy. The wait was worth it.

As always,
Your Mileage May Vary.

MUKid (#51471),

Excellent review!! Now we have to get together to play it!

I had reservations about the game after reading the rules and setting the board up. I have about 400 games in my collection, including some detailed, in depth wargames with enormous rulebooks. Despite the relatively "light" wargaming experience expected, I still found the book very dense with detail and had to read, re-read and take notes just to keep things straight. For most gamers, this will require several reads and references as Jay pointed out.

Despite the complexity and disappointment with several of the components (limited figure color mix, poor map demarcations -- stuff Jay already pointed out), I am very excited about this game. There is definitely a strong element of luck, but that appears to be mitigated by having numerous options at your disposal for how you apply die results, event cards and the like.

Jay's review helps reinforce what I like about the game, but if you're on the fence about whether or not to get this game, do your best to check it out at a hobby shop first, or read some more reviews. I definitely think some people will be disappointed with the game -- thinking it might be a very accessible license-based game like Confrontation, LotR co-op (with Friends & Foes and Sauron Expansion) or even LotR Risk. It is a far more complex game than the general audience may be used to.

aforandy (#51763),

Thanks for your lengthy reply to my lengthy review! Your comment when I asked "Are you still reading?" and you answered "Yep, are you?" cracked me up.

I'm sorry we disagree about the complexity of the game. I think it is a complicated game. This isn't off-putting for me; I like complicated games. Let me clarify here -- when I say "complicated," I just mean a game that takes me a while to teach. Not a game that's impossible to learn, or impossible to play. A game like Puerto Rico is also complicated, but a game like Risk really isn't. I don't even think Axis and Allies is all that complicated. This game has lots going on, which makes it tough to explain properly. I think that's one of its strengths, but a casual gamer isn't likely to think so. My wife, for example, is a big-time gamer, but I know she won't like this game.

I'm very impressed about two things you mention. First, you said "the record" was 65 minutes. That's the longest game of War of the Ring that you played? Surely I must be misreading this. I can't imagine playing this game in 65 minutes. Also, you said that you can set up the game in 100 seconds. I suspect this is a bit of hyperbole, but I am curious to see how you set the game up so quickly. It takes me quite a while to get it all set up. I haven't yet organized the minis in any way except to put them in the two bins that come with the game, so I spend a while picking apart the various nations, setting them up on the table, separating out all the cardboard counters, and so forth. Doubtless once I have done a little more organizing (I mentioned buying one of those Plano tackle box things) it'll be much faster. So, how do you manage to play so fast, and how do you manage to setup so fast? Maybe we can get together sometime and you can show me how you do it.

Oh, one last thing, you don't like Game of Thrones? That surprises me. The two games seem to appeal to the same kind of gamer.

Thanks again,
Jay

aforandy (#51763),
It sounds like it has been a long, long time since your first playing.

The game is complex to learn, the rules are daunting, and the playtime is long.

I have seen ASL veterans get annoyed at rookies because they are too slow at 'getting' it. They forget the time it took them to learn.

I am an experienced Magic Realm player and the game seems relatively easy now, but I still remember struggling for days to catch on.

WotR is certainly not as complex as these two games, nevertheless, experienced gamers should recognize and remember that there is an effort to learning this one.

MUKid (#51767),
I suspect by record time of 65 minutes he means the fastest game ever played, though I was also thrown off by the comment the first time I read it. But considering he later refrences some games going 3 1/2 hours it certainly can't be the record for longest game. I think overall most people will find the initial game times to be long depending on how thorough they read the rules prior to playing. It's hard to teach any game if you don't really know the game yourself and have to constantly reference the rules for any questions. even if you have read over the rules, I know I often kind of browse thru them and want to jump right in and start playing. I would presume that initial games would be long since you are probably teaching yourself and anyone else playing at the same time, but after experience the time would go down significantly.

myopia (#51687),

One issue, how much of your overall strategy is determined by your card draw during the first couple of turns.

I'd say overall, not much. Your first couple of moves might be influenced by the cards you have, but that's to be expected. As with most such games, it's all about taking maximum advantage of what you've got in your hand at the time. I like that aspect of the game a lot -- you might be planning an assault on Helm's Deep, but then you draw a card that makes an attack on Minas Tirith much more feasible, and so you do that instead.

morpheus133 (#51772),

But considering he later refrences some games going 3 1/2 hours it certainly can't be the record for longest game.

Ah, good point. I bet you're right. Sixty-five minutes is pretty darn fast for War of the Ring. Did somebody get trounced? Hopefully it wasn't you, aforandy -- I know how ASL players get when they don't do well.

Woo! Getting a little hot in here.

Thought #1:
We all have to take deep breaths and realize that we're not all going to universally agree on how great or terrible a game is. You can't convince everyone to love the game you love or hate the game you hate. You just give your opinions and let it go at that (or politely disagree). At least, that's what I think.

Setup Time:
The game designers recently said elsewhere that setup time with beginners took them 15 minutes. I think bagging each army seperately would both speed setup time and alleviate the issue people have voiced about the armies being the same color of plastic. Once I had them deployed on the table, they were easy enough to tell apart. I think that once you've got the contents organized and seperately bagged, played the game once or twice, you could have the thing setup in under 10 minutes.

Event Cards:
I don't think Event cards determine your strategy at all:

As the Evil player, you're going to want to assault Lorien and Minas Tirith early regardless of what cards you get in order to make the Fellowship more vulnerable. Beyond that initial move, you're going to want to strike where your opponent looks weak, or take advantage of cards as the opportunity arises, but not base your overall strategy on them.

I haven't played as the Free Peoples yet (that's tomorrow night ), so I can't say how much that side relies on the cards, but your overall strategy is still going to be based on the overall victory conditions. A card or two is not going to throw the game one way or the other.

War of the Ring vs. Risk:
I've never played Risk, so I can't say whether this game is "Risk with Event cards" but I doubt it. For one thing, combat does not work the same way as I understand it for Risk (Strongholds and Leaders play a BIG part in WotR battles); for another, the victory conditions are wildly different; Risk is best with 4 players, WotR is best with 2; the Fellowship, Companions, Minions, Political Track, Elven Rings, Strongholds, Cities, Fortifications and Action Dice are all elements you don't see in Risk and I'm sure there are a few more things I've left out without even mentioning the Event cards. The game is vastly different from Risk.

Complicated Rules:
This comes down to personal experience and opinion, but in the long run I don't think these rules are complicated at all. They appear a bit detailed at first for a boardgame, but as a miniatures wargamer, I've played systems with literally *hundreds* of pages of rules that make this game ridiculously simple by comparison. As Jay mentions, ASL and other board games are far more complicated.

I'd suggest reading the rules prior to your first game (not immediately before, but say the day before), expect to make a few mistakes in the first couple games; read the rules *after* you've played (the day after). My prediction is that once you've played 2-3 games you'll have it down cold.

One side note: I think it's really cool how the Evil side has unlimited reinforcements, but limited Leaders, while the Good side has very limited reinforcements but an abundance of Leaders. In gameplay, this results in the Evil player being able to throw his troops at the enemy with wild abandon, but may find himself unable to crack an army or Stronghold with several Leaders in it. The Good player can't really expect to aggressively attack, but can hold out for a long time against superior numbers due to their Leaders. This results in two very different styles of combat that effectively models what takes place in the books. Brilliant and simple, imho, and I doubt nothing like this exists in Risk/A&A.

I have played or supervised this game in playtest 54 times. My main opponent was Andy Daglish who has played around 50 times. We know a lot about this game and it is true that this influences our judgements. My first game took close to 5 hours. Once we got the hang of things this reduced to between 2 and 2.5 hours with the quickest being just over an hour. What really irritates me are the idiotic suggestions that this game is basically Risk with some bells and whistles added - this is banal nonsense. Playing this game well is rather like peeling the onion - more strategies and skills emerge the more you play it. The key is flexibility - the cards are important and do guide your overall approach to some extent.

Talarius (#51785) et al,

Woo! Getting a little hot in here.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, let me say that I'm not trying to be argumentative or even debate, really. No hard feelings here! Hopefully that goes both ways. It's tough on email or online to come across the way you mean to, but let me say that I hope I'm not coming across as contrary.

Now, at the risk of sounding contrary (heh), let me just point out two things:

1) Complex does not equal bad in my book. I get the idea that maybe the pereception is that I'm dogging the game because it's too complicated. Not so - I like it, despite the fact that I think it's complex. All I mean is that there are many things going on, many things to keep track of, and the casual Euro gamer probably won't enjoy this one.

2) I agree that this isn't Risk with Cards, any more than Axis and Allies is Risk with Tanks. There are, as Talarius points out, lots of things going on here. And that's just my point -- there are LOTS of things going on, making this a much more complex/complicated/in-depth game than Risk (pick your word!)

I'd suggest reading the rules prior to your first game (not immediately before, but say the day before), expect to make a few mistakes in the first couple games; read the rules *after* you've played (the day after). My prediction is that once you've played 2-3 games you'll have it down cold.

Agreed, 100%. I couldn't say it better myself. That kind of objective statement is probably what I should have said, instead of, "This game is complex." Some people will think, "Gosh, that sounds hard," and others will read that and say, "No problem, par for the course." And that's the idea of reviews on the Geek -- they're there to see if you and your gaming group would enjoy a game, or throw it in the closet in disgust.

Thanks again to all for the discussion. It's making a slow day at work go by a little faster.

Hi Jay, thanks for taking a lot of your time in reviewing the game. I'm glad you are not taking offense in the defensive posture some of our playtesters have assumed, and I would like to explain their position by pointing out the following statement:

Without Event Cards, the game would really just be Risk with a few recognizable characters thrown in and a time limit

This is a hasty conclusion that actually contradicts your conclusive view on the game, especially on the basis of your recent post of precisation:

I agree that this isn't Risk with Cards, any more than Axis and Allies is Risk with Tanks. There are, as Talarius points out, lots of things going on here. And that's just my point -- there are LOTS of things going on, making this a much more complex/complicated/in-depth game than Risk (pick your word!)

Unfortunately, the former assumption seems to cling decisively on some readers' minds (see 'Fawkes' post here)and that's why it's starting to get unnerving to some.

Francesco

P.S.
Looking at the post and its quoting, I see it looks too serious! I don't want to act as a lawyer, just setting things straight if I can. I must admit I personally dislike the comparison with that other game , as I find it highly inaccurate and unfair.

First of all, I am doubly biased, figuring on WotR both as one of the designers AND the production manager

Others have discussed the points on the actual gameplay raised by a very honest review (honestly I got the impression that the "Risk" remark on the original review was quite a casual statement used to emphasize the importance of Event cards rather than the vital statement that other readers perceived it to be, but I could be wrong). So I will go a little into the production issues.

I must honestly admit that getting a good, playable map out of a beautiful John Howe's painting of Middle Earth was quite a nightmare and walking the line between "beautiful and playable" and "difficult to read" was really hard.

I think you must take some attention in the first couple of games to assess adjacent regions, after that things become much smoother and we took a lot of effort to make sure that there is no "real" ambiguity in reading the map. All you need to see is there - just look carefully!

On the figures, essentially we had two choices, at the production level to keep the game within a reasonable cost range (compare the pricing/component level with most releases, even from company bigger than we are, and I hope you will appreciate that we were quite successful in the goal): either represent the armies with similar figures and different colors (a la Risk) or use all the sculpts we wanted to see in the game but mold them in a limited number of colours. In the end we decided for the second path, thinking of what we as fans would prefer. Spraying your figures with a red or black coat if you want is easy if you want. Re-sculpting your Troll to make a Mumak out of it is not that easy! Still, we considered the problem and tried to make all figures as different from each other as possible within the range of "likely" subjects. So the Isengard Regular is front-facing and on a big rock, while the Sauron Regular is walking as if seen from aside and hunched; the Rohan Riders sport horse-mane on their helmets and are much less armored than Gondor Knights...

For the tray problem, the two big trays were a necessity (the box is really FULL and that was the only phisical way for everything to fit - and a bigger box was more $$$ on your pockets without a real gain). I heartily recommend a few ziplock bags, one for each Army and one for each different type of counter. For less than $ 1 the problem will be solved and your setup time will be drastically lower (still with the plastic figures is going to be higher than the setup time mentioned by Andy, achieved with counters).
By the way a tip on the setup (it works for me): for some reason I find quicker to go through the setup chart by columns rather than rows. So, rather than put all the troops in Erebor, I set all the Dwarf Regulars, then all Dwarf Elites, then all Dwarf Leaders, and so on.

Last, the "learning curve".

I really recommend playing with the Intro rules, which are a fun and easier game, if you feel scared by the complete rulebook! The Intro rules are very "true" to the complete ones: they introduce faithfully many of the core mechanics (the action system, the combat system, the idea that Events are actually "stored" actions for the future) without the additional sub-systems needed to manage the Fellowship, Characters and Sieges. All the latters systems are drastically simplified in the Intro rules, and you may add them to the game when you are more familiar with the basics.

However, I will really look forward to the questions and doubts which will arise in the next few days because it is quite possible that the rules appear more intimidating than they really are.
A Tutorial on www.warofthering.it is a very real possibility as we get to understand better which are the obstacles in making a play "out of the box" easier to achieve.

That said, we WANTED a game which you want to play more than a couple of times, and wanted a game that actually gave you back the feel of playing Lord of the Rings, not something which could as well be set with Rabbits vs. Moles fighting for the Magic Carrot. The first two or three games are still a part (hopefully a fun part) of learning the game, and then you would then be ready to play 'seriously'. After playing more times than I can count I still make new discoveries when I play, so I feel quite confident that the effort taken in learning how to play is not wasted!

Francesco Nepitello (#51819),

OK, now I see where this is coming from! I thought the responses seemed a little steamed, and I totally missed the fact that I made that statement in the review. It seems I touched a nerve, and I'm sorry that I made you guys spontaneously explode!

Yes, yes, you're right, I shouldn't have phrased it like that. I don't really think the game is Risk With Cards, I promise. My point with that statement was to accentuate the cool nature of the Event Cards and how they make the game totally unlike any other; not to dog the rest of the game and say that without the cards you might as well just play Risk.

I agree that it's unfortunate that my first statement clings to readers' minds, and hopefully this comment will rectify that situation somewhat.

Thanks for the nice reply!

MUKid (#51840),
what is your final vote to the game?
It does not come out clearly from the review, but maybe I missed it.

I think this is one of the most interesting reviews I've ever read here. Thanks you for the good review Jay, and for all those who replied to him with their reactions. I think this article has been the single deciding factor for me to go out and buy this game as soon as possible.

bretorm (#51852),

Oh, gosh, I liked it! I had a great time playing twice, and look forward to playing again.

Just for the record (we see how the record has gotten me in trouble so far today, but what the heck!) I don't like writing reviews that just tell you what I think of the game. I mean, that's useful information too, especially if you know the gamer personally, so I don't mean to detract from people who review games with that in mind. But when I write a review, I want to tell you how to play, what I liked, what I didn't like, and who else I think might like this game.

But anyway, if I had to give a game thumbs-up or thumbs-down, I'd give it thumbs-up!

aforandy wrote:
Selected Highlights:-

This game is very complicated

I'll say it once again: this one is a lot more solid and sophisticated than the standard you are used to, and reviews such as this are not helpful because they are grossly premature.

OK, this is ridiculous. I played this with two friends on Thursday at Gencon with Francesco.

It took well over 6 hours.

How can you claim that it is not complex? I am sure that once you have played if 50 times, it takes less time, but this doesn't make it any less complex. Why is it premature? He played the game, he thinks its complex. I often post a review of a game after one play. I played this, I think its complex. I liked it, but come on, compare it to the top 50 on BGG - would you say that WOTR is less complex than, say, Carcassone? Puerto Rico? PowerGrid? Of COURSE it's complex. It's VERY complex. That's why its GOOD.

steveowen (#51803),

I have noticed over time two issues those who use the term "like Risk" are talking about.

First, the combat resolution system (if I can call it that) in Risk introduces very little advantage to the attacker for bring a huge army. Since this game is a "hit on 5 or 6" system, the potential of a single defender outlasting a full army assult (even with the "only hit on a 6" rule for settlements) is pretty minimal. It would appear from the description that the potential of a "single army in the Ukrane" destroying 12 armies is virtually nil.

The second part of Risk that annoys people is the "flowing massive armies" caused by attacking again after movement. That also doesn't appear to be the case in this game.

So if the primary annoying "Risk like" features are not present, I would assume the reviewer was refering more to the zone movement, lots of pieces "feel" of Risk, which is shared by games such as Axis and Allies and most other modern wargames not using cardboard chits. I don't see that as an insult to the game, perhaps just a poor choice of words.

That said, I am always disappointed when game testers come out like mad dogs and use words such as "idiotic" to respond to a review they don't agree with. It diminished my respect for the design group to see the attacks upon this review, which was carefully considered in the whole and warned up front that this was based on only a couple of playthroughs.

Godeke (#51951),

Couple of points--most importantly, the design team did NOT attack this review, or at least not anyone from Nexus (Roberto and Francesco, both of whom comment in this thread, make very reasonable and interesting comments. Francesco has now had to argue against the idea that this game is like Risk on several threads, and you can see from Fawkes' response in the thread that being compared to Risk takes this game out of consideration for purchase for some. It's understandable that Francesco is trying to explain the game more fully so that people like Fawkes won't see a key word and not buy the game.) Andy Daglish, one of the testers, is the one who wrote a sometimes acid critique of the review. You can feel how you like about what he wrote, but you shouldn't see it as WotR's design team's views.

I don't really get the Risk comparison myself, though I've never really played the game. Once I have, I'll certainly be disappointed if it reminds me of Risk, but I very much doubt it will. Maybe some gamers just lump any games with combat involving dice but no CRT into the Risk/A&A group?

I have to agree with the poster that says he's excited the game is complex. Thank GOD it's tricky to learn! If it were streamlined, chances are it wouldn't be as much fun as this one looks to be.

MUKid (#51471),
The only thing better than the review is the insightful commentary provided here promoting opposing views. Thanks to Andy and those that have played the game 50+ times I now have a better picture of what to expect. I'll still purchase the game unplayed because the opinions presented here are valid since they're based on personal subjectivism. Thanks for all the further enlightenment.

As far as being compared to Risk and/or A&A, who cares. What game involving dice and figures probably hasn't been compared to those. Ignore it. What amazes me is why nobody has compared it to the Richard Berg War of the Ring, not that there's any comparison between the two either other than the theme. The comparison game is used every day in all walks of life. How many times have you though that one movie reminded you of another or one song sounded similar to another, or one car looks and rides like another. I say "Be happy in your game". (Hmm, I wonder if that sounds too similar to something someone said in a movie?).