War of the Ring | BoardGameGeek

Reply: War of the Ring:: Variants:: Re: "The Eye is looking elsewhere": a NON FP MV variant

Ivan M — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:12:45 +0000

Guys, I returned to the original variant version.
But taken in account sevenspirits remarks about the Shadow blitz and a possible Shadow corruption victory, I came up with the following.
What do you think?

"The Eye is looking elsewhere"-variant:

1. A FP MV is not possible in this variant.
(Suppose the FP should control 4 SP points; simply continue the game but take in account rule 2.)

2. Remove 1 "Eye" die result for each Shadow VP point the FP control.
Important: If the number of Shadow VP points controlled by the FP is higher than the "Eye" die results, the FP player may do one of the following things: Change 1 FP die into a "Will of the West" die or Heal 1 corruption.
(All of this takes place immediately after the Action Roll.)

3. Card:"To the Last Battle"
Keep all the original card rules but include following extra rule on the card: "Suppose the Fellowship is on the Mordor track: there is no automatic hunt draw if the Fellowship tries to move; instead roll the hunt dice" (just like outside Mordor).

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Top 4 (Semifinals) & Finals

magic gecko — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:45:43 +0000

by magic gecko

But I wanna conquer the world . . . Waddaya mean I gotta wait?
Oppurtunity may only knock once, but evil rips yer door off.
Tell you what, you start when you want, I'll start when I want.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

loudonhead — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:06:05 +0000

by loudonhead

Seriously. This is The One. How is that not plain to see?

All those games you have on your shelf? Admit that, in each one of them, you were seeking something that you didn't quite get. The pieces weren't detailed enough. The box wasn't satisfyingly designed. Or perhaps, as in the case of Settlers 3D, the game itself just wasn't worthy of the level of design.

You can sell all of those now and use the money to buy The One that you really wanted all along.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Gollum figure from Spielbox magazine 04/2005 still available!!!

Aeroeza — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:22:53 +0000

by Aeroeza

Yep! Still avaliable. I just placed my order in....

I may have purchased the CE but it's still nice to complete my original investment in the game with this little coup! Thanks Sargent for the heads up.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Gollum figure from Spielbox magazine 04/2005 still available!!!

Engoduun — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:13:22 +0000

by Engoduun

Well, I love to hear that!:)

You're welcome!

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Gollum figure from Spielbox magazine 04/2005 still available!!!

Hipsu — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:54:48 +0000

by Hipsu

Ah! I received the figure today! :star::star::star::star::star:

I'd like to thank you, Sargent D, very much for informing us about this opportunity! :sauron:

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

Rompcat — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:52:24 +0000

by Rompcat

loudonhead wrote:
Lesson learned: If you're thinking of dunken it, just do it! Stressing about it will make you sick.

Great advice.

I also advise all you lunks to funking go ahead and dunk it already, funk!

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Top 4 (Semifinals) & Finals

Rafamir — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:23:05 +0000

by Rafamir

magic gecko wrote:
I think the last battle for Moria was way wrong.
I reckon we got the rules wrong.

Well, to be precise, Cruel As Death requires forfeiting 2 Nazgul Leadership, so using the one Naz and one Warg was technically incorrect. I think there were a few 5s that should not have been hits for the Shadow.

magic gecko wrote:
Killing the siege engine dont work, I think. . . .
I think he could have still claimed the extra round.

No, I think that's the whole point of Among the Siege Engines - it potentially denies the attacker a free extra round.

magic gecko wrote:
Since I had killed the WK, and he was besieging Moria, could he have summoned the Balrog? Would it have turned up with the Troll?

That sounds right. With 3 leadership and +2 Combat Strength, you would have been in dire straits.

magic gecko wrote:
Doubly Heroic! What a way to Win!

I liked the minimalist effort with North and Dwarves never going to war. Very economical use of FP forces on the board, though risky leaving MT and Lorien wide open, had the tide turned against you.

Fun replay to watch!

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

loudonhead — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:39:00 +0000

by loudonhead

Dunked it. Struggled with it for a good week. Finally, couldn't bear it anymore. Immediately after dunking it, I came down with something and now I'm sick. I think it was the tension and uncertainty of that week--it weakened my immune system.

Lesson learned: If you're thinking of dunken it, just do it! Stressing about it will make you sick.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Strategy:: Re: to easy with free people.millitary victory.

magic gecko — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:51:34 +0000

by magic gecko

"I did start the game drawing F!F!F!"

Then you were given an chance to play the mythical 3rd game.
To do this you must draw F!F!F! first card.
Second turn is almost and good and certainly workable, but first turn is special.

This is where Free can go FULL OFFENCE.

You say . . .(no char/WoW rolled turn 1). . .hmmm.
Ring to separate everyone to Moria.
Pal - Play F!F!F! (Grey Gandalf in Bree)
Muster - Ents (King + Boro + Hob in Fangorn)

the fourth is an Elite in Bree,
Or
the fourth is Legolas in Lorien

Where Gimli and the other Hobbit go is a trade secret.

"The North actually pushed Sauron to war in their attack on Mount Gundabad from Carrock for my first shadow stronghold."

Should have waited for him to declare Sauron to war.
He might get to play a card. Maybe.

" (The most out of the way one, so more difficult to retake barring some particular SP muster cards)"
Yeah, I figured he just go a nem or two wrong.

"Very different type of game, not moving the FSP. Albeit, I didn't do it as MG described in this thread with 7 to Moria Turn 1, since I left Gandalf and Pippen in the FSP."

Well, yeah.
And they didn't do anything.

"Figuring Gandalf's character card cycling ability more useful in getting to the Sudden Strike, Heroic Death, Mighty Attack, Anduril, Brave Stand and Daring Defiance combat cards."

But, none of the other character cards are worth playing if everyone has buggered off from the FSP and Free nations are at war on turn 2.

You dont get to those cards, and you have fewer Companions to fight with.
Also, Gandalf the Grey is special, he is the only Free piece that actively wants to die.
He cannot die stuck in a stationary FSP.

" Not to mention any Ent cards. (though if I got 3 of them, I'd have to get Gandalf the White in play, but it would be worth it then since a 3 card Ent assault could be FPMV game winning too)"

So Gandalf MUST LEAVE.

I worked this out a long time ago.
Painfully.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

mavo — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:43:29 +0000

by mavo

Ok, sounds very good. Thanks a lot for your patience... Sometimes I think I take things a little bit too complicated... :)

Session: War of the Ring:: A blunder and a card - FP Military win

ender7 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:09:04 +0000

by ender7

Pretty tight game throughout, until the big blunder.

SA brought the S&E and Isengard to war in the first turn, bringing the Southrons up towards Pelargir, and the Easterlings to threaten the DEW line. In the meantime, forces from Dol Guldor went west towards Lorien. FP was moving the Fellowship consistently, but was getting caught each time with 3-4 dice in the Hunt box.

FP mustered the Elves to war in time to recruit two Elites into Lorien before the siege, and eventually dropped Legolas and Gimli there as well. Gandalf was lost in Moriah, even as Cirdan's Elves showed up in Pelargir, while the Corsairs of Umbar slipped in behind them at Lamedon, and laid siege to Dol Amoroth. Fortunately for the FP, Imrahil showed up to bolster the three regulars holed up there, bringing the siege to a stalemate.

Up north, the witch king and another Black Rider showed up to lead the Easterling army against the Iron Hills, and then to lay siege against Erebor. The North moved to war, and King Brand's Men showed up in Dale, joined by the Elves of Mirkwood.

In Rohan, Saruman continued to muster forces. Grima Wormtongue spoke poison to Theoden, who refused to bring Rohan to war, even as Uruk Hai massed at the borders and forded the river Isen. Fortunately, Gandalf the White appeared in Fangorn, and raised both Treebeard and the Hurons to blunt Orthanc's war machine, turning Saruman's attention north, towards Rivendell. Saurman's forces joined up with goblins from around Angmar and Mount Gundabad.

All the while, Lorien held fast under siege, bolstered by the arrival of Gimli and Legolas. Erebor was not so lucky, and fell to the Witch King - only to fall in turn to a relieving army of Elves and Northmen from Dale, who slayed the Witch King and ended the threat on the DEW line for good.

The Fellowship, which had been foundering in and out of Moriah, caught a break when no eyes turned up in the hunt box, allowing it to speed towards Minas Tirith. By now, Strider and Boromir had arrived there already, and Strider, crowned as Aragorn, heir to Isildur, led a large force to Pelargir to meet the Southron threat. Faramir and his Rangers harassed a Sauron army in North Ithilien before falling back to Osgiliath.

At this point, the stage was set. Erebor had been reconquered, but Rivendell had fallen. The siege at Lorien faltered, and a sortie was launched successfully. By now, Wormtongue had done his work, and Theoden, his riders, and Eomer were under siege in Helm's Deep. The North was stirring, with armies gathering in Bree, and the Elves of the Gray Havens were moving east as well. In Gondor, Aragorn and Boromir fell back slowly, retreating after a skirmish in Pelargir, but Gondor still held fast in Osgiliath. SA Forces from Moriah had begun moving west, and made extended camp in Hollin. Once more, forces were massing in Dol Guldor, and setting out towards Lorien.

With Rivendell and Pelargir in enemy hands, Dol Amoroth and Helm's Deep besieged, and forces bearing down on Lorien and Edoras, and with the Southrons and forces from Mordor slowly constricting around Minas Tirith, the war teetered on the edge of a blade. The Fellowship had made it to Minas Tirith, and was en route to Mordor when the discipline of the barbarian Southrons broke.

With Osgiliath still held by Faramir, the Southrons pushed north from Pelargir, seeking to lay siege to Minas Tirith. However, once they had entered Lossarnach, Faramir snuck the garrison (2 reg/1 elite/1 leader) in Osgiliath behind the enemy lines, south to West Harandor (on the FP's last die of a turn), and (on the first die of the next turn) split off one unit to take the empty Umbar, and moved on to Near Harad, threatening a 3rd VP at Far Harad.

The SA, refusing to be distracted by what it perceived as a minor threat, and confident in knowing that it could raise troops in Angmar and the surroundings via event card, thus preventing the FP from taking a 4th point, decided to continue moving north with the Southrons, laying siege to Minas Tirith after a brief skirmish below its walls.

But alas for the SA! The previously beleaguered Elves in Lorien raced with Legolas and Gimli Through a Night and a Day, running through the Dimrill Dale and capturing the empty fortress of Moriah, even as the orcs in Hollin looked on in disbelief. The SA, unable to dislodge either force before the end of the turn, went down in defeat thanks to the enormous blunder of overextending the Southron army up north before securing Osgiliath. Faramir's bravery in sneaking past the enemy, and the valor of Gimli and Legolas in breaking the siege at Lorien and leading the Elves to the gates of Moriah proved more important than the sacrifice of the Ringbearer, the might of Aragorn, or the wizardry of Gandalf.

If not for that mistake, it would have been a very tight race between an SA military victory and a ring dunk. I think FP would have taken it anyway - Fellowship had 1 corruption, Merry and Pippen were still in, all the FP special tiles were in the bag but none of the SA were, and the Fellowship was on the second track, with its last revealed position at Minas Tirith.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Strategy:: Re: to easy with free people.millitary victory.

kwojtasz — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:09:27 +0000

by kwojtasz

Actually it was Dol Guldur which fell after scouting to Western Brown Lands from Eastemnet.

Reading through this thread, I agree with MG. It is possible and tough to get the 2nd stronghold while holding the first. Sitting a large army inside Rohan with Rohan at war is nice too, since I was holding Paths of Woes. So I could teleport out of any danger right to Minas Tirth if needed or to pull Sauron forces from Mordor to Rohan and outflank them, and assault Mordor.

Lots of tricks are possible once you have a decent army with companions in it. Scout cards are gold so long as swarm of bats doesn't kill them. Gives you an extra move for an army. Just be careful not to be encircled by armies or non-free spaces. (ie. enemy controlled settlements)

To Michael's defense too, I did start the game drawing F!F!F!, so the North was at war by Turn 2 (no char/WoW rolled turn 1) and the Elves followed just as closely. The North actually pushed Sauron to war in their attack on Mount Gundabad from Carrock for my first shadow stronghold. (The most out of the way one, so more difficult to retake barring some particular SP muster cards)

Very different type of game, not moving the FSP. Albeit, I didn't do it as MG described in this thread with 7 to Moria Turn 1, since I left Gandalf and Pippen in the FSP. Figuring Gandalf's character card cycling ability more useful in getting to the Sudden Strike, Heroic Death, Mighty Attack, Anduril, Brave Stand and Daring Defiance combat cards. Not to mention any Ent cards. (though if I got 3 of them, I'd have to get Gandalf the White in play, but it would be worth it then since a 3 card Ent assault could be FPMV game winning too)

The log file of the game can be found at:
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kwojtasz/WoTR/fpmv_MS-KW.log
(just right click the link and Save As)

Reply: War of the Ring:: Strategy:: Re: to easy with free people.millitary victory.

magic gecko — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:45:28 +0000

by magic gecko

:)
please bear in mind that this is what new ideas run into on BGG. . .

joefling34 wrote:
Maybe if the Shadow Player rolled absolutely nothing but eyes for the first 10 rounds or so then I think the FPP could pull this off.. . . If i tried that against my very skillfull oppenent he would laugh, wait for me to attack, slaughter me and then go take my defensless strongholds. I will never try this.. . .

I will never try this. . . Can I try this against you?

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

Krieghund — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:09:26 +0000

by Krieghund

Yes, in your example both cards "kick in" at the same time, but technically they don't interfere with one another, so there's no conflict to resolve. The defender's adjusts the attacker's target number required to hit, while the attacker's card adjusts his/her Combat roll itself. These are two different things, though they affect the same thing (the number needed to hit with the attacker's Combat roll).

Let's look at an example. If the two Armies are fighting a field battle, normally the attacker would have to roll a 5 to hit. If he/she plays the combat card in question and the defender plays no card, a 5 is still needed to hit. However, in effect the attacker now only has to roll a 4 (4 + 1 = 5). In the case where the defender plays the card you mentioned, the base number required to hit increases to 6. The attacker still gets +1 on the Combat roll, so now in effect a 5 is required to hit (5 + 1 = 6).

The point is that the defender's card changes the target number required, while the attacker's card modifies the results of the Combat roll. These are two different parts of the combat process that both effect the same thing. Changing one has no direct effect on the other, but it does affect the process as a whole. Does that make sense?

Reply: War of the Ring:: Strategy:: Re: to easy with free people.millitary victory.

Belisarius88 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:39:06 +0000

by Belisarius88

Just lost to this strategy managed by Kevin W. He captured the Shadow Stronghold near Angmar with the North rather easily. We had a bunch of battles in Rohan as most of the Lorien elves marched south to liberate / recruit Rohan from Saruman. Saruman troops did not do well against them and I actually cycled through his armies twice.

At turn 8 I had all of Rohan under my control and Lorien, But a massive army of 5 elites and a bunch of companions was camped in the Ettenmoors, next to equally large WK army and a elite Saruman army. I rolled only two movement dice that turn and blundered into an attack, knowing that I had to destroy that army as it represented a threat anywhere it moved. I expected scouts and an attempt on Orthanc, which I was prepared for with that let me move an army up to two regions if it already contained Shadow troops. For some reason though I did not consider an attempt on Gundabad, which had 4 regulars and was closer. I attacked, he scouted next to mt. Gundabad, then attacked the place. I resigned, as I lacked the movement dice to get an army there, could not recruit there either, and my event card actually said "a free region containing a Shadow army." Well it isn't free if it has enemy troops!

So, it would appear that the Free military strategy can work, provided the Shadow player is lesser skilled or makes a mistake, which is how any strategy can work!

In retrospect I should have recognized my inability to reach or fortify Gundabad if Free scouted there and should have mustered troops there, then waited for the last two action dice to attack his huge army. But it was late and I was tired! Defending against a Free military strategy is stressful!

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

mavo — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:32 +0000

by mavo

If the two Combat Effects "kick in" at the same time and contradict each other (e.g. The Shadow player is the attacker and plays 'Durin's Bane,' which allows him to roll a special attack before the normal Combat begins. The Free Peoples player has played 'Scouts,' however, which allows him to retreat his Army before normal Combat begins) the effect of the defender's card is applied first. (In the previous example the Free Peoples player get to retreat his Army before the Shadow can use his Combat Effect to attack.)

Mmmmh. If I transfer this to my example, then both effects kick in at the same time. They cannot be cumulative, because only one actually "adds" something. I think this would rather prefer my interpretation... Or not?? COnfusing... :(

I'm glad that such contradicting situations happen only seldom...

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

Krieghund — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:59:47 +0000

by Krieghund

Not exactly. The defender's card really only trumps the attacker's if both cards take effect at the same point in the combat round steps. Otherwise, whichever card takes effect first in the sequence takes precedence. This entry from the FAQ pretty well describes how Combat cards interact:

Follow these steps to avoid any misunderstandings and to solve conflicting Combat Effects:

• Read the Combat Effect aloud. Pay close attention to when the respective Combat Effects "kick in" (before the Combat roll, before the Leader re-roll, before removing casualties, after removing casualties, etc.).
• Follow the procedures for the combat as normal but stop just before the first Combat Effect "kicks in" and apply its effect, disregard the other Combat Effect since it is not yet in effect.
• Continue to play through the combat and stop just before the second Combat Effect "kicks in" and apply it, but take the first Combat Effect in consideration if it will affect the second effect since it is in effect.
• If the two Combat Effects "kick in" at the same time and contradict each other (e.g. The Shadow player is the attacker and plays 'Durin's Bane,' which allows him to roll a special attack before the normal Combat begins. The Free Peoples player has played 'Scouts,' however, which allows him to retreat his Army before normal Combat begins) the effect of the defender's card is applied first. (In the previous example the Free Peoples player get to retreat his Army before the Shadow can use his Combat Effect to attack.)
• If both Combat Effects modifies the Combat Roll and/or the Leader Re-roll the modifications are cumulative (e.g. if the Free Peoples player plays the Combat Effect 'Ents Rage', which gives the FP Army +2 on the Combat Roll, and the Shadow player plays the Combat Effect 'Desperate Battle', which gives both armies +1 to both the Combat Roll and the Leader Re-roll the result would be that the Free Peoples player would hit on 2+ on the Combat Roll and on 4+ on the Leader Re-roll while the Shadow would hit on 4+ on both the Combat Roll and the Leader Re-roll if the Battle was fought in a normal Region.)

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

mavo — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:43:14 +0000

by mavo

Ok, that is a good example. So, to summarize it: Could be said that:

"If anyhow possible, both cards are applied to their full extent, simultaneously. If not possible, the defender card is evaluated first."

Correct?

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

gdhog79 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:19:33 +0000

by gdhog79

Nuthin' like 12 Busch Lights & 12 months of anticipation to make that dunk look funkin' hawt! Oh yeah...I funkin' dunked that!

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Yet another spray painting tutorial - Poor man's edition (with pictures)

ender7 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:07:44 +0000

by ender7

Your tutorial was VERY helpful to me, thanks a ton! I used the same brand of paint. Some of the colors were a bit tacky for a few days, so I hit them and all the leaders with the Rustoleum Clear paint (gloss) and that took care of that problem in a hurry.

I went with the following color-scheme:

Race/Base coat/highlight coat

Elves/Meadow Green/Key Lime

Dwarves/Grape/French Lilac

North/ivory silk/white/hints of aqua (these guys were a bit of a disaster at first)

Rohan/nutmeg/almond (then they were too light, so I hit them with more nutmeg)

Gondor/brilliant blue/aqua

Nazgul/Black (gloss)

Mordor Army/Black but as a higlight, so their bodies are still red

Isengard/sun yellow but let a lot of red still peak out

Southrons & Easterlings/real orange/touch of sun yellow, speckled with black

The two-tone approach gave lots of great higlighting that really took the pieces to another level, but took a long time, b/c I had to let the first coat dry for a few hours before starting a highlight.

The worst colors as base colors were aqua (great highlight color though), real orange (just looked bad and flat, even though it was gloss).

I messed up some stuff - I wish Rohan was a bit lighter - when I highlighted them with almond over the nutmeg they looked fantastic, but they were too light, and hard to tell apart from the North. As for the North, I tried to do them with aqua as a base coat, but it didn't stick well to the plastic and just ran off op them. You can still see some hints of it after I sprayed them white (which ended up looking cool).

I really liked how the SA came out. Isengard and that sun yellow were the best, and then the Mordor armies with their black n red scheme. The S&E looked terrible in the orange I started with, and I ended up speckling them with yellow and black to make them look like they came from the desert or something.

I wish I'd taped off my leaders better. I just wanted to hit the bases and flags, but got color on their horses and faces too. Still, the pieces look great on the board, they're not tacky, and they're very easy to tell apart from each other.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Top 4 (Semifinals) & Finals

dave65tdh — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:50:31 +0000

by dave65tdh

mg, sorry, but it may be a few days--middle of next week at the earliest (work dependent). I will be in touch.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Finals

Belisarius88 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:56:22 +0000

by Belisarius88

Wow, an upset of sorts as the undefeated player was eliminated. Well the finalists of the 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament are:

Dave (Free) v. Magic Gecko (Shadow)

Good luck to both!

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

Krieghund — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:44:05 +0000

by Krieghund

Say a battle is taking place in Lorien between an Elven Army of four elites and a Sauron Army. The Shadow player chooses Durin's Bane for his Combat card, and the Free Peoples player chooses Charge. Since both cards' effects occur at the same time (before the Combat roll), the defender's card will take effect first.

If the Elves are defending, they will attack with all four elites before Durin's Bane is resolved. If Sauron is defending, Durin's Bane is resolved first, and the Elves may only attack with the elites that remain after removing the resulting casualties.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Top 4 (Semifinals)

Lord Aragorn — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:21:07 +0000

by Lord Aragorn

Shadow (Dave) won against Free People (Alija Vila).

It was a military victory. Don't know why but I tried to keep the Fellowship together. I guess I had lack of Companions in the battle. In my opinion, I had upper hand until turn 8.

Turn 8 messed everything up.
Ents attacked WK in Fords (4HP army). They had 3 hits. He had 0 eyes, Fellowship was two steps away from Mordor. He used Character (had Captain of Despair). With only one die his hunt was successfull twice. Second time he revealed me in Morannon. I couldn't hide Fellowship, because Strider left (I will go alone). Playing I will go alone was the dumbest thing I did in this game. I lost the entire turn in Mordor.

At the end Fellowship was 4 steps away from the Crack of Doom.

It was a nice game, and a great tournament for me. I am very happy and surprised with my performance.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

mavo — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:24:06 +0000

by mavo

Mmmh.. so, but when is the rule "defender card has is evaluated first" (or similar) applied? Do you have an example?

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

Krieghund — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:50:07 +0000

by Krieghund

The order of evaluating the cards doesn't matter. One card says you need a six to hit, and the other card says add one to your Combat roll. If you add one to five, you get six.

The defender's card is simply changing the base number required to hit. This has no effect on the attacker's Combat roll modifiers.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

mavo — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:00:03 +0000

by mavo

Thinking once again about that battle card issue, I'm once again confused:

The order of playing the card matters: If the card "hit on 6" is evaluated first (because it is the defender card), and then the "+1" card: then the hit will be on 5 and 6, obviously.

But if it the other way round: Defender plays "+1" (evaluated first), attacker plays "hit on 6": Would this not mean that hits are only made at 6, because card 2 cancels card one? Sorry, I'm really confused now... Is there a general card-playing-rule that I am missing?

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Gollum figure from Spielbox magazine 04/2005 still available!!!

Tsugo — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:24:25 +0000

by Tsugo

Early this morning, I received confirmation that my payment was complete.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Gollum figure from Spielbox magazine 04/2005 still available!!!

Engoduun — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:48:27 +0000

by Engoduun

Don't worry, I ordered 2 times now, everything was fine.:)

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Gollum figure from Spielbox magazine 04/2005 still available!!!

Hipsu — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:39:45 +0000

by Hipsu

They responded last Tuesday, I believe to all of us, as it began "Dear Sirs". I paid for it immediately but have not had any confirmation email from them.. but I'm not worried yet, maybe they don't confirm and the figure just appears at mail sometime next week or the following.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

Aeroeza — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:17:27 +0000

by Aeroeza

Why thank you kind sir! I'll be sure to 'geek' myself up in the fullness of time with such generosity!! :)

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Gollum figure from Spielbox magazine 04/2005 still available!!!

Tsugo — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:21:15 +0000

by Tsugo

Engoduun wrote:
This is madness...:shake:

You got that right. With a $30 profit, I should have order a dozen of them.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Gollum figure from Spielbox magazine 04/2005 still available!!!

Engoduun — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:08:21 +0000

by Engoduun

Tsugo wrote:
... Also, one just sold on eBay about a week ago for $42.00 US.

This is madness...:shake:

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Gollum figure from Spielbox magazine 04/2005 still available!!!

Tsugo — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:34:49 +0000

by Tsugo

I sent an email to the original address you provided. I got a response a few days later. For shipping to the US, it came to EUR 8.00 or about $12 US.

Maybe a bit pricey for something not really necessary, but I intend on keeping my original WotR and it will be a nice addition. Also, one just sold on eBay about a week ago for $42.00 US.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Gollum figure from Spielbox magazine 04/2005 still available!!!

Engoduun — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:13:33 +0000

by Engoduun

Corran Horn wrote:
Haven't heard back from them yet, but with everyone from BGG sending them mails they might be pretty busy right now. :D

Just received another Gollum figure today, will bring it tomorrow!;)

Maybe this email address helps as well:
jasmin.pfister@nostheide.de

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

Rompcat — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:12:30 +0000

by Rompcat

Welcome to BoardGameGeek. Have some Geek Gold!

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replacement Map Purchase

Tsugo — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:24:51 +0000

by Tsugo

Just because I've been meaning to make a large map, I did so last night. I found a scan of the board and then printed it out. I've yet to trim the margins off the twenty-five 8.5" x 11" pages. However, when I pieced it all together, I've got a map that is roughly 50" x 33.5". It's quite a sight to behold.

Perhaps I'll do the same thing once I get my CE.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replacement Map Purchase

whac3 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:00:04 +0000

by whac3

Tsugo wrote:
PMGeuze wrote:
I just got my copy through a no-return retailer and the map mounting was very disappointing.

How so? The board that came with my copy had warping issues. After contacting FFG customer support, they sent me a new board.

I don't think you can get an unmounted board, but you can do what others have done. Scan your board and print it out.

]]>Mine had warping issues. FFG sentme a new one.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

Aeroeza — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:56:49 +0000

by Aeroeza

I just registered with BoardGameGeek so as I could proudly and eloquently claim the following...

...I too FUNKEN DUNKED IT! :devil:

Thanks for a great turn of phrase!! And yes it feels that good!

... now does anyone know where I can also invest in 4 pairs of velvet gloves (one pair being lined with cleverly disguised interlocking plates of iron)? ;)

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

magic gecko — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:12:12 +0000

by magic gecko

The thing about the replayablity is that it is also very different depending on which side you wish to play. The basic objectives change.
There are 4 different victory conditions, each ones occurance varies depending on how good a player each side is.

Also, regarding replay, it just aint fair to compare a eurogame that takes 40 minutes with this epic that can take between 1.5 to 5 hours.
The quality of those 3ish hours will be quite high.

It is very rare for concessions due to lack of hope or interest, provided they have finished a least their first game already.
There is dealing with the chaos and hope that dice cause.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Strategy:: Re: to easy with free people.millitary victory.

magic gecko — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:32:00 +0000

by magic gecko

Yes, I think he made some bad decisions.
I made a couple of shockers too.

Thing is, it is much easier to make big errors when you are playing something you have not done before.
If Sauron was allowed to play a second game, I think he would have scored better.

Trying to defend all the shadow stronghold is quite hard.
Doing a second time is easier, both in offence and defence.

Sometimes all that is needed to win the game is to think of something the opponent has never seen before.

I think the title of this theme is dead wrong though.

It is not to easy to win a FPMV.
But, It is very satisfying.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replacement Map Purchase

Tsugo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:01:08 +0000

by Tsugo

PMGeuze wrote:
I just got my copy through a no-return retailer and the map mounting was very disappointing.

How so? The board that came with my copy had warping issues. After contacting FFG customer support, they sent me a new board.

I don't think you can get an unmounted board, but you can do what others have done. Scan your board and print it out.

]]>

Thread: War of the Ring:: General:: Replacement Map Purchase

PMGeuze — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:31:47 +0000

by PMGeuze

Has anybody been able to purchase a replacement map, preferably unmounted. I just got my copy through a no-return retailer and the map mounting was very disappointing. I would rather just simply buy an unmounted map and have it framed at the local store under plastic.

Any ideas....

Reply: War of the Ring:: Strategy:: Re: to easy with free people.millitary victory.

Belisarius88 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:18:12 +0000

by Belisarius88

That was a crazy game, I need to review the action slowly though because I shocked that this strategy worked when Shadow was not placing eyes in the hunt box and did not roll many eyes during the 8 rounds, including the first round!

I can't believe the Free can win military, giving notice to the Shadow of this plan, and Shadow not placing eyes in the hunt the entire game! Shadow must have made some bad decisions.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Strategy:: Re: White Gandalf - is how to keep the first Stronghold in FPMV

kwojtasz — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:02:57 +0000

by kwojtasz

sounds like an army in need of a warg stack attack... :-) Though once entrenched, you'd have to just wait around outside with the wargs to keep them from making more problems...

New Image for War of the Ring

Gamer10150512 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:47:23 +0000

by Gamer10150512

]]>

Overhead view of WotR in progress.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Strategy:: Re: to easy with free people.millitary victory.

magic gecko — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:47:21 +0000

by magic gecko

:)

It is good to attempt the unlikely.
Especially when it works solely because everyone else believes it is impossible.

An intelligent mind that is willing to try is particularly uncommon.

:)

I just won the semifinal of the 2009 online tourny with Minas T taking Moria, and Dol Amroth taking Dol Guldur.

I got lucky, and we may have played a couple of things odd, but FPMV can happen.
Frodo never left Rivendell.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Top 4 (Semifinals)

magic gecko — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:36:37 +0000

by magic gecko

Hey wow!, right.

I did that intentionally because I needed somewhere to retreat to.
Bum about it still being controlled by the Shadow. :) Really. :shake:
Retreating to Eastenmet would have been similar, but very much not the same. I am not surprised that neither of us noticed. How often have you used Ents to clear a retreat path for the King?

After the Ents, I realised I should have attacked the Fjords again with the second die anyway because Eastenmet does touch Fangorn. I couldn't see the connection because of all the pieces and my tiny screen. :)
Attacking the Fjords again means I get to retreat there if I take it out, which was unlikely after the first attack.

Online is VERY different. A complete record of your mistakes being displayed can be embarrassing. I play the weird parts of the game. I can also be random, bad, and shambolic on occasion. . :D

I really tried to do the normal things, didn't work.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Top 4 (Semifinals)

Hipsu — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:31:58 +0000

by Hipsu

BTW MG, on turn 5 you made an illegal move and retreated (with scouts) to Westemnet but that settlement was still in Shadow's control. (You had freed that area with an Ent attack but Ents don't claim settlements back.)

Strange that neither of you noticed that.

Thread: War of the Ring:: Strategy:: White Gandalf - is how to keep the first Stronghold in FPMV

magic gecko — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:55:01 +0000

by magic gecko

White Gandalf removes the Nazgul rerolls.
White Gandalf can Heoricly die for three more Hits.

White Gandalf joining with The King and a Gondor 10 Stack seems to be the easiest best way of starting a FPMV.

At least, it has been for me.
And against me.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Sessions:: Re: Elves and the North for the Military Victory

magic gecko — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:49:37 +0000

by magic gecko

The reason he was still placing 3 Eyes is because he did not believe what you were trying was possible.

Well done.

Bear in mind it is going to be harder next time.
But, you will have some clue as to what you are doing.
If you try this again, go slower, he cannot win without opening holes.
Next time, go straight into Mordor with 14 points of King and White Gandalf Gondor Goodness !
Use White Gandalf in Combat, you take FAR fewer casualties because they roll far fewer dice.
White Gandy in a Shadow Fortress is WAY tough, preferablly far from the Wolves.

If you are really playing the fool, maybe advance the FSP until it gets revealled, they swear a lot, but never hide the FSP for the rest of the game.
That way, maybe he will be able to play all those "if FSP is Revealed" cards he was complaining about. :)

"I have to give credit to magic gecko. I don't think I ever would have consider a strategy remotely close to this one. "

Thanks. . . :meeple:

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Top 4 (Semifinals)

magic gecko — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:32:15 +0000

by magic gecko

In my defence, the Morrocan Lamb was still yummy.
And my guests arrived with 3 dice to go...
I missed a lot of details in the last 2 rounds.

I think the last battle for Moria was way wrong.
I reckon we got the rules wrong.
Killing the siege engine dont work, I think. . . .
I think he could have still claimed the extra round.
Siege Engine are so rude against FPMV.

And also, in the last round, Since I had killed the WK, and he was besieging Moria, could he have summoned the Balrog?
Would it have turned up with the Troll?
If so, I think that turn would have turned out VERY different.
Gangy and The King should be dead, but Galadriel would have come in.

And Also, in the last round, did I roll too many dice?
Surely it wasn't Doubly Heoric in one turn?

He had 1 mobile leadership at that point!
He was a long way from 10 points, so the game wasn't over, but it was suddenly looking hard.
Not many troops left & Too many red men.

Maybe One more push could have been mounted from nowhere . . .

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

Krieghund — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:26:09 +0000

by Krieghund

With this card combination, the attacker would hit on a 5 or higher.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

mavo — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:11:56 +0000

by mavo

So, I finally found the cards I was looking for. They are from the expansion (BOTTA): Grim defense and Battle Rage (freely translated from German, of course they could have completely different names in English :-)

One card says (as mentioned above): Enemy only hits when the dice shows a 6, the other says "add +1 to your combat roll". Anyway, after re-reading it, I found the situation quite clear. I think Rauli (post above) was right?

I will post a few questions over at the expansion game page any time soon...

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Top 4 (Semifinals)

Uthoroc — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:36:08 +0000

by Uthoroc

I'm holding off updating the spreadsheet, so I don't spoil people.;)

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

Dam the Man — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:52:23 +0000

by Dam the Man

Even (or especially) at a young age, I was into planes, so my pet peeve were the Mig-28s :what: .

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

Belisarius88 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:42:00 +0000

by Belisarius88

I still listen to the soundtrack. I still think the movie is fun, and it was my first exposure to motorcycles and inspired me to get one in high school. But the actual combat turns me off, not sure how realistic all that head turning is when most kills are beyond visual range. Also the Soviet Migs just got one kill and the Americans kill 5? So many US war movies are like that, it is only so much I can take. Granted this was reality in many battles and conflicts, but I would think the Soviets would be a better match.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

Dam the Man — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:27:14 +0000

by Dam the Man

Belisarius88 wrote:
I was indeed thinking of Top Gun when I wrote that, as a kid I loved that movie.

So if it's on these days, you won't watch (and enjoy) :whistle: :laugh: ?

Top Gun is a guilty pleasure.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

Belisarius88 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:19:58 +0000

by Belisarius88

I was indeed thinking of Top Gun when I wrote that, as a kid I loved that movie.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

Dam the Man — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:16 +0000

by Dam the Man

Belisarius88 wrote:
Good luck to all and remember there is no plaque for second place!*

*unless Jim Spoto wins it all, which case we might consolidate the Novice + Champion plaque and then be able to award a second place plaque.

I though Iceman had it right:

"Iceman: The plaque for the alternates is down in the ladies room." :D

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Top 4 (Semifinals)

Belisarius88 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:53:51 +0000

by Belisarius88

kwojtasz wrote:
Tournament Site updated with log files that I have received and link to Google doc spreadsheet.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~kwojtasz/WoTR/wotr2009.html

Excellent work Kevin!

Ooh I am so excited about find out who won above..., can't wait until I get home.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Top 4 (Semifinals)

jspoto — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:07:46 +0000

by jspoto

MG and myself have finished our game, and the result is...

... oh, you'll have to check it out for yourself. MG pursued an MPMV once again, as expected. The game comes down to my last action of turn 8, in a siege of Moria against almost all of the FP's leadership:
http://veldrin.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=downloadattach...

For those who simply can't be bothered to watch the replay:
[o]MG takes it on turn 8! Well played, and a worthy victory. Pushing too hard with the WK cost me his life, and the game IMO.

Congrats to MG, and best of luck on his next game!
[/o]

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

Rompcat — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:47:18 +0000

by Rompcat

Simon: You're coming from Smelly Harbor? For a month?! Where's your family?! Maybe we can PLAY your War of the Ring CE!

Serge: I met a man yesterday who looked exactly like Roberto DiMeglio, but he was just a stupid American like myself with a non-awesome accent. The difference in effect was . . . dramatic.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

ixian — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:17:11 +0000

by ixian

After getting my wife to watch the video of Roberto Di Meglio talking about WOTR:CE and showing her that Roberto is a grown man too (I also used the fact that he is an italian to my advantage as my wife is an italian)...she said.."alright then, just get it if you have to!"

AND THEN IT GOT DUNKED FASTER THAN A DONUGHT IN GOOD JOE!

She is good to me.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

alfabits — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:03:31 +0000

by alfabits

Rompcat wrote:
If you Funken Dunked the War of the Ring Collector's Edition, MAKE SURE that you post here that you "Funken Dunked It."

If that means I did pre-order, then I Funken Dunked the Collector's Edition.

It goes to relatives house in California, but I will get it when I travel to US in February. I stay for one month, so I hope it ships by then.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

Shadowrydor — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:45:13 +0000

by Shadowrydor

Ordered it yesterday.

I panicked when I saw that I missed the first 400 shipping before the end of the year, so got my order in for the second 400. Looks like I have to wait until 2010.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

RobertDD — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:26:16 +0000

by RobertDD

I, uh, Funken Dunked it...

Reply: War of the Ring:: Sessions:: Re: Elves and the North for the Military Victory

Tsugo — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:05:12 +0000

by Tsugo

Sphere wrote:
Seems odd that he was still placing 3 in the hunt box at this point. Also, with 2 palantirs, it seems to me that the chances of him being able to muster are still pretty good. Or did he not have any strategy cards in hand?

I'm not sure why he continued to place so many eyes in the hunt box, especially after turn three. I think there were a couple of reasons though. First off, I don't think he suspected the attack from the elves, especially since no other FP nations were close to war. Additionally, I was really struggling with my actions, and I think that led to the belief that his eye strategy was successfully preventing me from plotting my own strategy.

He always had plenty of cards, but he was using a lot of them in combat. Also, he complained that most of the cards in his hands were of the "If the Fellowship is revealed" or required him to besiege a FP stronghold or they allowed him to muster units that weren't readily helpful.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Sessions:: Re: Elves and the North for the Military Victory

Sphere — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:26:45 +0000

by Sphere

Very interesting session.

Tsugo wrote:
It was turn 4 that I had to press my assault. Another 3 eyes went in the hunt box, but the SP rolled another 3. Of his remaining actions, he had 2 army dice and a 2 palantirs. I knew that he couldn’t muster.

Seems odd that he was still placing 3 in the hunt box at this point. Also, with 2 palantirs, it seems to me that the chances of him being able to muster are still pretty good. Or did he not have any strategy cards in hand?

Reply: War of the Ring:: Strategy:: Re: to easy with free people.millitary victory.

Tsugo — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:13:58 +0000

by Tsugo

Well, despite my doubts, I tried this strategy in a recent session and was able to lead the FP to a military victory. My first ever.

You can read the session report here.

Session: War of the Ring:: Elves and the North for the Military Victory

Tsugo — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:07:57 +0000

by Tsugo

After following this thread about a strategy for a FP military victory, I became intrigued about the possibility. I will admit that I was a doubter, but still compelled.

In a recent game, my long time opponent opted for a different strategy, which served as encouragement to give this FP military pursuit a try.

Normally, this opponent only places a single eye, and often times no eyes in hunt box. However, in several of our previous plays with me as the FP, I have been able to run the fellowship to Mordor to achieve a ring victory. In this game, he was consistently placing a minimum of 3 eyes in the hunt box.

I spent a good couple of minutes plotting my first time. My opponent easily sensed I was struggling at this change in strategy. I wanted to try this FP military option, but I couldn’t even fully commit to it on my first turn. I did separate Legolas and used two more actions to move the elves closer towards war, but I didn’t have it in me to ignore the fellowship. I ended up moving it. The hunt was successful with the "3" tile being drawn, so Gandalf was sacrificed. That would be the last time I moved the fellowship for the rest of the game.

The SP on his first turn, got Isengard and Sauron to war and mustered Saruman. He mustered using Saruman, and moved armies and nazgul.

The SP stuck with his strategy and placed another three eyes in the hunt box and rolled a 4th. By my second turn, the Legolas had mustered the elves to war and Strider and Boromir had reached Minas Tirith. I mustered in the Woodland Realm and Rivendell. The SP must the Witch King and started building forces in Dol Goldur

Turn 3 had another three eyes in the hunt box. To distract the SP, I kept counting spaces from Rivendell to Mt. Gundabad. The trick worked as he sent armies from Dol Guldur and Moria towards Lorien leaving his strongholds empty. I didn’t want to start moving my elven armies yet because I knew the SP would start mustering in those strongholds or send his armies back. When he besieged Lorien, I knew that I would need to attack soon. I crowned Aragorn and used cards to increase units in both Gondor and Rohan.

It was turn 4 that I had to press my assault. Another 3 eyes went in the hunt box, but the SP rolled another 3. Of his remaining actions, he had 2 army dice and a 2 palantirs. I knew that he couldn’t muster. I started moving the army from the Woodland Realm towards Dol Guldur, and an army out of Edoras. The SP played Pits of Mordor, placing 2 regular units in Dol Guldur, Moria, and Mt. Gundabad. I saw my easy victory because somewhat more difficult. I used Through a Day and a Night to get Legolas and his Rivendell army to Hollis, and on my next action, besieged Moria. The army besieging Lorien attacked. The SP kept up the fight for 3 rounds, but in the process took several casualties, while the elves in Lorien managed to take only a single loss. Rather than besieging Dol Guldur, I chose to use my last action, a Will of the West to bring Gandalf the White in Fangorn. The SP broke off the attack on Lorien and marched back towards Moria.

On turn 5, the SP switched back to placing a single eye in the hunt box, but questioned himself for even doing that. Since the SP was now armed with many more actions, I besieged Dol Guldur before he had a chance to muster anymore units there. He moved to reclaim Moria, but Legolas managed to fend off Sauron’s armies. The army besieging Dol Guldur managed to defeat one the units there, but could not claim the stronghold. My hopes at a FP military victory were waning. With only a single regular holding Moria, I knew that it would be reclaimed on the following turn. I was confident I would get Dol Guldur, but where could I hope to go for two more VP. None of my other nations were anywhere near going to war.

On turn 6, I drew the card that gave me a glimmer of hope. I drew Fire! Fear! Woes! Because I had moved the fellowship once during the first turn, Gimli was able to move 3 regions and get to Bree, thus advancing the North directly to war. With the siege over at Lorien, that army marched towards Dol Guldur to reinforce the elves there. The army in Dale headed west moving to join the army in Carrock. The SP reclaimed Moria, then moved to take Lorien that was empty. He then attacked Iron Hills and moved to sweep into Dale and the Woodland Realm. Dol Guldur fell to the reinforced elves. Gimli joined the army in North Downs. The men of the North now marched toward Gundabad and the SP began mustering elites there.

On the final turn, the army led by Gimli besieged the stronghold and the army that had come from Carrock reinforced. The SP moved his army that had taken the Woodland Realm back towards Dol Guldur. Gimli and the men of the North were successful in their assault. It took rounds, but Gundabad fell. The SP simply did not have the necessary actions to get his army to Dol Guldur, so the FP were victorious by military victory.

Although I won, it was definitely a challenge and I doubt my opponent would so easily succumb to it again. Also, if I had not drawn the card that moved the North directly to war, the SP would most assuredly been able to retake Dol Guldur, thus stripping me of the necessary VP. I would probably then had to focus actions on getting Gondor or Rohan to war to seek VP either at Minas Morgal or Orthanc. But that would have given the SP additional time as well.

I have to give credit to magic gecko. I don't think I ever would have consider a strategy remotely close to this one.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Gollum, revealing in a FP stronghold

kwojtasz — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:13:01 +0000

by kwojtasz

Not busting on you Dave. :) As I too forget about the basic game, and just didn't want an expansion game reader forget about the effects of declaring in a city/stronghold with smeagol as compared to gollum. Which has different results, just like the declare vs reveal differences.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Gollum, revealing in a FP stronghold

Yemeral — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:11:40 +0000

by Yemeral

Thank you very much!

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Gollum, revealing in a FP stronghold

MrWeasely — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:20:23 +0000

by MrWeasely

Errr... I stand by my use of "Smeagol" may declare. Of course if the version of the game you're playing has no Smeagol, then guess what: you can't do it.
:)
I forgot there was a base game. Sorry.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Gollum, revealing in a FP stronghold

kwojtasz — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:15:02 +0000

by kwojtasz

MrWeasely wrote:
There is "revealing" the fellowship, which is bad for Frodo and involuntary.

Then there is "declaring" the fellowship, which is usually good for Frodo, and always voluntary. You can do this with Smeagol as guide, or more commonly during the Fellowship phase.

Now that you see the difference in language, you might want to reread the rules. Some rules apply to declaring, some to revealing, and some to both revealing and declaring.

Note too, the above mention of Smeagol, should be Gollum. (Since in the expansion with Smeagol you can declare into a FP City/Stronghold with Smeagol as guide, but that will cause Smeagol to be eliminated and We Shall Get It enters play for the SP.)

New Image for War of the Ring

avyssaleos — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:08:47 +0000

by avyssaleos

]]>

A shot of the table showing all the contents of the Collector's Edition (Nexus booth at Spiel Essen 2009)

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Gollum, revealing in a FP stronghold

Krieghund — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:47:12 +0000

by Krieghund

perfalbion wrote:
Dave's right, but since Gollum's ability is "reveal to prevent one corruption" and is triggered by a successful hunt, that would make it illegal for the fellowship to be revealed in an FP stronghold.

Correct, but bear in mind, per the FAQ, that the Fellowship may not be revealed in a Free Peoples City or Stronghold, but it may be revealed in a Free Peoples Town.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Gollum, revealing in a FP stronghold

perfalbion — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:25:46 +0000

by perfalbion

Dave's right, but since Gollum's ability is "reveal to prevent one corruption" and is triggered by a successful hunt, that would make it illegal for the fellowship to be revealed in an FP stronghold.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Gollum, revealing in a FP stronghold

MrWeasely — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:20:43 +0000

by MrWeasely

There is "revealing" the fellowship, which is bad for Frodo and involuntary.

Then there is "declaring" the fellowship, which is usually good for Frodo, and always voluntary. You can do this with Smeagol as guide, or more commonly during the Fellowship phase.

Now that you see the difference in language, you might want to reread the rules. Some rules apply to declaring, some to revealing, and some to both revealing and declaring.

Thread: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Gollum, revealing in a FP stronghold

Yemeral — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:58:43 +0000

by Yemeral

Hi. First of all, sorry for my bad English

I have been looking for this in the forums and in the FAQ but I couldn't find anything about it.

The rules say that if the Fellowship is revealed due to a hunt it cannot be placed into a FP settlement. But what happens if you reveal it willingly using Gollum's skill? Can you reveal the Fellowship in a FP settlement? I suppose you can't but my usual opponent disagrees.

Today I allowed him to reveal the Fellowship in Minas Tirith and I finally lost the game because of this...

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

Veldrin — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:45:54 +0000

by Veldrin

You can always separate the Companions, but they start their move in the besieged Stronghold and must stay there.

You never need to keep track where the Fellwoship is exactly, only where its last known position is (the Region with the Frodo and Sam figure).

Glad to hear that the FAQ helped you.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

mavo — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:42:51 +0000

by mavo

Hi all,

and thanks for your replies!

3) If one battle card effect (let’s say defender) says "enemy only hits on 6", and the attacker plays a card "add +1 to your roll"... what happens? I know the defender card is executed first, but I’m unsure anyway. What would happen if cards were played vice versa?

I will look for the cards I meant - it could be that the situation occurred in an expansion game, not in the base game...

Is it true that companions cannot separate from the fellowship unless the FSP was in the stronghold before the siege started and the FSP progress counter is on space "0"?

So, this part is definitely wrong - correct?

Sorry for not finding 2 of my points in the FAQ - I really solved MANY issues using your really great FAQ! My list with questions was quite long before reading it ...

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

Veldrin — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:39:38 +0000

by Veldrin

mavo wrote:
1) Is an enemy city really captured on entering the corresponding region or only when ending movement there? Reason for the question: There is a card that allows movement of three spaces, and I’d like to know if I can capture cities "on-the-go"

Yes, when an Army enters a region containing an enemy City
or Town that Region is considered captured.

mavo wrote:
2) In a besieged stronghold: Is it true that companions cannot separate from the fellowship unless the FSP was in the stronghold before the siege started and the FSP progress counter is on space "0"? Read this anywhere, but cannot remember where...Guess it is not true. I would say: If separated while fellowship is in a besieged FP stronghold (no matter where the progress marker is), the companions must stay inside the stronghold (until it is no longer besieged).

Yes, if the Last Known Position of the Fellowship is in a Region with a besieged frinedly Stronghold any separated Companions must stay in the Stronghold.

From the FAQ (located at www.warofthering.webb.se):

Q Can I detach a Companion from the Fellowship when the Fellowship is in a friendly Stronghold under siege and leave the Companion in the besieged Stronghold?

A Yes, you must leave the Companion in the besieged Stronghold in this case.
If the Fellowship Starting Point is in the besieged Stronghold, the Companion starts his movement during separation there, and as he is not allowed to leave the Region, he must remain in the Stronghold.
The only way a Companion could leave a besieged Stronghold is by staying with the Fellowship and once the Fellowship is Declared in a new Region, outside of the besieged Stronghold Region, the Companion can separate as per the rules for separation.
(The Fellowship is never stopped by armies, while the movement of Companions when they are separated must obey to all Companion movement rules).

mavo wrote:
3) If one battle card effect (let’s say defender) says "enemy only hits on 6", and the attacker plays a card "add +1 to your roll"... what happens? I know the defender card is executed first, but I’m unsure anyway. What would happen if cards were played vice versa?

Could you provide the name of the combat cards we are to compare? I don't know of a card that changes your opponent's target number, only ones that modifies it.

mavo wrote:
4) May Saruman use his ability "Voice" (replace regular with elite units) when Orthanc is under siege? I would say yes...

No, from the FAQ:

Q Can the voice of Saruman be used to upgrade 2 Regular units to Elites while Isengard is besieged?

A No! You are never allowed to Muster in Strongholds under siege unless it is done through an Event card. This automatically makes Saruman unable to upgrade Regulars to Elites when Orthanc is under siege.

mavo wrote:
1) Grond: I’m quite sure I already read this before... if I use Grond as attacker, do I have to battle at least 3 rounds or can I end the battle earlier, let’s say after 2 rounds?

You have to fight all three rounds.

mavo wrote:
2) Eagles are coming: Do all adjacent Nazgul count, or only the Nazgul in one region?

Only in one Region.

mavo wrote:
3) Blade of Westernesse: The card says something like "use one hit to eliminate one minion". Is this meant in addition to the hits on units or instead of hits on units? Can I also choose a Nazgul instead of a minion?

Instead of hitting an army unit, and no only Minions are targeted by it.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: A few questions

Dam the Man — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:26:21 +0000

by Dam the Man

If it's empty, then movement suffices, don't need to end there.

2)I would say: If separated while fellowship is in a besieged FP stronghold (no matter where the progress marker is), the companions must stay inside the stronghold (until it is no longer besieged).

I think this is correct.

Attacker hits on 6, getting +1 to Combat and/or Leader rolls. Without the card, attacker would hit with 4+, with the card, he needs 5+.

4) May Saruman use his ability "Voice" (replace regular with elite units) when Orthanc is under siege? I would say yes...

FAQ, p. 14:

"Q. Can the voice of Saruman be used to upgrade 2 Regular units
to Elites while Isengard is besieged?

A. No. You are never allowed to muster in Strongholds under
siege unless it is done through an Event card. This automatically
makes Saruman unable to upgrade Regulars to Elites when
Orthanc is under siege."

Card questions:
1) Grond: I’m quite sure I already read this before... if I use Grond as attacker, do I have to battle at least 3 rounds or can I end the battle earlier, let’s say after 2 rounds?

It's a must 3 rounds, unless one sides is wiped out before that.

2) Eagles are coming: Do all adjacent Nazgul count, or only the Nazgul in one region?

One region is affected.

3) Blade of Westernesse: The card says something like "use one hit to eliminate one minion". Is this meant in addition to the hits on units or instead of hits on units? Can I also choose a Nazgul instead of a minion?

I think BoW is specifically a Minion killer, no Leaders can be targetted. Not 100% on this one though.

Thread: War of the Ring:: Rules:: A few questions

mavo — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:39:26 +0000

by mavo

Hi all, after many years of absence I finally got my War of the Ring game back to the table. I read the official FAQ, read the rules, but still a few questions are left after using the search-function here in the forum (although I’m quite sure they could be found anywhere using the right keywords...):

Rules questions:

1) Is an enemy city really captured on entering the corresponding region or only when ending movement there? Reason for the question: There is a card that allows movement of three spaces, and I’d like to know if I can capture cities "on-the-go"
2) In a besieged stronghold: Is it true that companions cannot separate from the fellowship unless the FSP was in the stronghold before the siege started and the FSP progress counter is on space "0"? Read this anywhere, but cannot remember where...Guess it is not true. I would say: If separated while fellowship is in a besieged FP stronghold (no matter where the progress marker is), the companions must stay inside the stronghold (until it is no longer besieged).
3) If one battle card effect (let’s say defender) says "enemy only hits on 6", and the attacker plays a card "add +1 to your roll"... what happens? I know the defender card is executed first, but I’m unsure anyway. What would happen if cards were played vice versa?
4) May Saruman use his ability "Voice" (replace regular with elite units) when Orthanc is under siege? I would say yes...

Card questions:
1) Grond: I’m quite sure I already read this before... if I use Grond as attacker, do I have to battle at least 3 rounds or can I end the battle earlier, let’s say after 2 rounds?
2) Eagles are coming: Do all adjacent Nazgul count, or only the Nazgul in one region?
3) Blade of Westernesse: The card says something like "use one hit to eliminate one minion". Is this meant in addition to the hits on units or instead of hits on units? Can I also choose a Nazgul instead of a minion?

Thanks a lot in advance!

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Siege question

Tsugo — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:55:30 +0000

by Tsugo

Rafamir wrote:
To build on Uthoroc's answer, from the moment a stronghold region faces attack, it helps to think of the stronghold as a separate space within the stronghold's region. Thus, the only opportunity for the defender to retreat is during the initial attack on that region, and moving units in to reinforce the besieging army requires that they first move into the stronghold region.

Yeah, after re-reading the rules on Reinforcing a Siege, it is clear. I was just hoping to get a free action in there.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Siege question

Rafamir — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:07:32 +0000

by Rafamir

To build on Uthoroc's answer, from the moment a stronghold region faces attack, it helps to think of the stronghold as a separate space within the stronghold's region. Thus, the only opportunity for the defender to retreat is during the initial attack on that region, and moving units in to reinforce the besieging army requires that they first move into the stronghold region.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: VP questions

Tsugo — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:34:03 +0000

by Tsugo

Luftwaffe Flak wrote:
Ok thanks for that clarification, after 4 games Im STILL learning all the nuances of this game.

I'm still learning nuances after sixteen games.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: VP questions

Luftwaffe Flak — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:54:20 +0000

by Luftwaffe Flak

Uthoroc wrote:
There is normally no victory track (might be different in the CE).

People just count their victory points at the end of the round, 2 per stronghold conquered, 1 per city conquered. Lost cities/strongholds have no effect (except that you do not count them, obviously).

Ah ok this makes more sense, we've always used the fellowship progress tracker for VP's (just using the Light and Dark tokens). And weve tracked them by every time something was lost or taken. No wonder its been abit easier to do military stuff haha.

Ok thanks for that clarification, after 4 games Im STILL learning all the nuances of this game.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: VP questions

Uthoroc — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:49:48 +0000

by Uthoroc

There is normally no victory track (might be different in the CE).

People just count their victory points at the end of the round, 2 per stronghold conquered, 1 per city conquered. Lost cities/strongholds have no effect (except that you do not count them, obviously).

Thread: War of the Ring:: Rules:: VP questions

Luftwaffe Flak — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:57:30 +0000

by Luftwaffe Flak

If you lose a city or fort worth VP's do you move your point marker down? Or just the sides you lost it to up?

What I mean is if I had a city worth 2 VP's and then the light player took away that city, would I lose 2 VP's (if I had them to lose) and the light player gain the VP's.

Or would the light player just advance his track by 2?

Second question is this, say I lose a shadow stronghold, and then I am able to retake it, do I get VP's for retaking it? Or do I only get VP's for taking items that never originally belonged to me?

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Through a Day and a Night question

TVDinner — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:19:55 +0000

by TVDinner

dave65tdh wrote:
edit: hey, how did this answer get above the question?--Must be some weird time change artifact since the time change occurred in the central time zone but not yet here in CA.

Say no more! You have taken no harm...wiser ones might have done worse in such a pass. But mark this! You have been saved, and all your friends too, mainly by good fortune, as it is called. You cannot count on it a second time.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Siege question

Uthoroc — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:39:47 +0000

by Uthoroc

You must first move the adjacent units into the stronghold region before you can attack with them.

Thread: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Siege question

Tsugo — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:07:39 +0000

by Tsugo

If I have an army that is besieging an enemy in a stronghold, and I have a second army that is in an adjacent region, must I first use an action die to move the adjacent army into the besieged region and then use a subsequent action die to conduct a siege?

Or, can I simply use an action die to attack the besieged opponent's army with my adjacent army?

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Through a Day and a Night question

dave65tdh — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:00:53 +0000

by dave65tdh

No. The card is for moving an army, not attacking. The unit in Moria would have blocked the easy takeover.

edit: hey, how did this answer get above the question?--Must be some weird time change artifact since the time change occurred in the central time zone but not yet here in CA.

Thread: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Through a Day and a Night question

Tsugo — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:37:04 +0000

by Tsugo

Can this card be used by the FP to attack a SP army?

In a recent game, I had an elf army in Trollshaws led by Legolas. Was it legal to play this card to move my army into Hollin and then attack the SP army in Moria? (Yes, the elves were at war.)

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Assign new guide even if not required?

MrWeasely — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:17:16 +0000

by MrWeasely

Yeah, its kinda wierd, but any change to the fellowship, even the loss of a nameless shrimpy guy, can trigger a reorganization.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Assign new guide even if not required?

ekted — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:05:23 +0000

by ekted

I asked the question after reading that section. I wondered if the intent was that you could only change the guide if he was eliminated (outside of the fellowship phase). I guess it's as plain as it's worded.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Assign new guide even if not required?

Desiderata — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:42:42 +0000

by Desiderata

Here is what Evgeny is referring to on pg. 17 in the rules:

The Free Peoples player may nominate a new Guide at the end of each
Fellowship Phase, or when, during the course of a turn, the composition
of the Fellowship changes (due to a Character being separated or
eliminated from the Fellowship).

So, yes, you could change the guide in your case.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Assign new guide even if not required?

azuredarkness — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:34:00 +0000

by azuredarkness

You can change the guide during the "declare the fellowship" phase (even if you don't actually declare), or when the composition of the fellowship changes.

Thread: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Assign new guide even if not required?

ekted — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:42:49 +0000

by ekted

I choose to eliminate a random companion, which ends up being a low-level one. I have 2 companions of equal and highest level in the Fellowship still, one of which is the guide. May I switch guides now even though I don't need to?

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Top 4 (Semifinals)

kwojtasz — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:14:01 +0000

by kwojtasz

Tournament Site updated with log files that I have received.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~kwojtasz/WoTR/wotr2009.html

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

kwojtasz — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:28:23 +0000

by kwojtasz

Gary and Kevin's round 4 game has been completed. Kevin's Shadow was victorious in a close game in Turn 9. Gary's lack of will of the wests most of the game caused Strider to sit in Minas Tirth the whole 2nd half of the game and really hampered his ability to move the FSP.

As was mentioned above, being good at one side doesn't mean you are good at the other side. I know with myself I can play a better shadow game than free peoples... which my tournament showed too, being 2 wins for the SP and 2 losses for the FP (though poor luck in losing Aragorn/Strider in both those losses didn't help matters either)

I like MG's tournament idea. Possibly expand it to a shadow player half and free peoples half. Albeit it would take some time to work both sides down to winners, so participants would probably need 6-8 months before the end of it all.

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: War of the Ring Collector's Edition Pre-orders (official)

cogollo — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:44:48 +0000

by cogollo

Taibi wrote:
cogollo wrote:
Hristo Filipov wrote:

No, you can order from Nexus - http://shop.ituoigiochi.it/product_info.php/products_id/544

The the price is actually 250 euros if you are in the EU. And the shipping is free!

Hi, the Nexus site asks me to provide a "Codice Fiscale". I've provided several numbers (my Spanish ID, for example) but it always tells me it's wrong... anybody knows what this "Codice Fiscale" is about?

tcamprubi wrote:
And you will find the way to get this code here :
http://gratis.pietrelcinanet.com/codice_fiscale/codice.htm
Assuming the Italian words can be translated via Google...

Quoted as posted earlier in the thread... ;)

It worked! Thanks a lot for the tip.

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: War of the Ring Collector's Edition Pre-orders (official)

Taibi — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:02:54 +0000

by Taibi

cogollo wrote:
Hristo Filipov wrote:

No, you can order from Nexus - http://shop.ituoigiochi.it/product_info.php/products_id/544

The the price is actually 250 euros if you are in the EU. And the shipping is free!

Hi, the Nexus site asks me to provide a "Codice Fiscale". I've provided several numbers (my Spanish ID, for example) but it always tells me it's wrong... anybody knows what this "Codice Fiscale" is about?

tcamprubi wrote:
And you will find the way to get this code here :
http://gratis.pietrelcinanet.com/codice_fiscale/codice.htm
Assuming the Italian words can be translated via Google...

Quoted as posted earlier in the thread... ;)

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: War of the Ring Collector's Edition Pre-orders (official)

cogollo — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:53:28 +0000

by cogollo

Hristo Filipov wrote:

No, you can order from Nexus - http://shop.ituoigiochi.it/product_info.php/products_id/544

The the price is actually 250 euros if you are in the EU. And the shipping is free!

Hi, the Nexus site asks me to provide a "Codice Fiscale". I've provided several numbers (my Spanish ID, for example) but it always tells me it's wrong... anybody knows what this "Codice Fiscale" is about?

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: War of the Ring Collector's Edition Pre-orders (official)

Hristo Filipov — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:33:54 +0000

by Hristo Filipov

Cosworth wrote:
So the only way to get an english version is through FFG? That's a lot of added shipping and customs taxes :soblue:

No, you can order from Nexus - http://shop.ituoigiochi.it/product_info.php/products_id/544

The the price is actually 250 euros if you are in the EU. And the shipping is free!

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: War of the Ring Collector's Edition Pre-orders (official)

Cosworth — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:55:53 +0000

by Cosworth

So the only way to get an english version is through FFG? That's a lot of added shipping and customs taxes :soblue:

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: New Question added to the FAQ!

Veldrin — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:25:44 +0000

by Veldrin

My site ( www.warofthering.webb.se) has all the FAQs for both the main game and the expansion and its "operational games".

Look in the menu on the left, there is a link to the expansion page, where you will find the FAQs for the expansion games.

And if any one wonders, all the answers have been approved by the designers, so they are official.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: New Question added to the FAQ!

Tsugo — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:17:07 +0000

by Tsugo

Does the FAQ on your site only relate to the base game or does it also cover the expansion?

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Question's about cards

GeneralSengers — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:11:12 +0000

by GeneralSengers

Great! thanks a lot fot the help...
starting a game right now :D

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: New Questoin added to the FAQ!

Veldrin — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:32:13 +0000

by Veldrin

If it was allowed, they could (in the expansion) play it to get the Sauron nation to war and then bring in Galadriel.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: New Questoin added to the FAQ!

mooselord — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:55:16 +0000

by mooselord

Why would the free peoples want to advance a shadow nation?

Thread: War of the Ring:: Rules:: New Questoin added to the FAQ!

Veldrin — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:37:19 +0000

by Veldrin

The FAQ (located at http://www.warofthering.webb.se) has been updated with the following question (which I thought I had added months ago, but apparently that updating had been corrupted):

Q Can the Free Peoples player use 'Wisdom of Elrond' to advance a Shadow nation on the Political track?

A No, the card should say "Activate one Free Peoples Nation of your choice."

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Question's about cards

Uthoroc — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:26:50 +0000

by Uthoroc

You got it right.

The card could still be used to move the Nazgul around, but the "find the Fellowship" part would not work in Rivendell.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Question's about cards

GeneralSengers — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:44:55 +0000

by GeneralSengers

Wow, thnx for the fast replies guys!
Just to make sure that I get it ( you must hate newbies by now :D ),
in my example in the question the Nazgul cards are played useless since the Fellowship is in Rivendell, which is still in FP hands, therefore the Nazgul can't be placed there and the Fellowship cannot be found?
If they were, their location somehow previously revealed, in a random other place ( other than a free FP stronghold) and the NAzgul would be placed there, the card is effective?

Ent card is perfectly clear, thnx for that!

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

magic gecko — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:42:17 +0000

by magic gecko

NNNNNNNnnnoOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo........ . . . . . . .. . . .

Thread: War of the Ring:: General:: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Top 4 (Semifinals)

Belisarius88 — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:16:14 +0000

by Belisarius88

After founds rounds of exciting play, but with one game still unreported, we are nonetheless able to determine the Top 4 players who will now play at the single elimination finals. They are:

Alija Vila (Lord Aragorn) with a perfect 4-0 record
Magic Gecko (aka Magic Geek) with one loss to Lord Aragorn and a 3-1 record
Dave65 at 3-1 with one loss to Magic Gecko
Jim Spoto at 3-1 with one loss to Alija Vila

The semifinal matches are:

Free_________Shadow
Vila Alija v. Dave65
MG v. Jim Spoto

Good luck to all and remember there is no plaque for second place!*

*unless Jim Spoto wins it all, which case we might consolidate the Novice + Champion plaque and then be able to award a second place plaque.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

Belisarius88 — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:04:45 +0000

by Belisarius88

SevenSpirits wrote:

Only possible omission I can think of is that the order of Dave and Jim might be reversed by the remaining match going the other way. I'm not looking at the match data though.

I did not consider that possibility. But the current matches have a plus in that the semifinalists are facing each other for the first time.

As for assigning sides, I hereby decree that the sides are:
Free________Shadow
Vila Alija v. Dave65
MG v. Jim Spoto

:-) Sorry MG!

Good luck to all and remember there is no plaque for second place!*

*unless Jim Spoto wins it all, which case we might consolidate the Novice + Champion plaque and then be able to award a second place plaque.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

Double Dan — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:22:47 +0000

by Double Dan

MrWeasely wrote:
That strategy sort of works like this

Note: Skip ahead to 0:46

As you can see, it works really well when they're not expecting it.

Nice!

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: French Ed. Pre-Oder out of Canada?

LoneCat — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:34:51 +0000

by LoneCat

La suite sur le sujet spécifique nouvellement ouvert sur le forum du jeu version Deluxe.

Ciao,
LoneCat

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

Uthoroc — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:57:57 +0000

by Uthoroc

Download the log file of Dave's and my game. Edited for spelling, removed some chatter and fixed turn numbering messed up by crash.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

SevenSpirits — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:27:20 +0000

by SevenSpirits

So unless I've made a mistake the semifinals are:
Vila Alija v. Dave65
MG v. Jim Spoto

Only possible omission I can think of is that the order of Dave and Jim might be reversed by the remaining match going the other way. I'm not looking at the match data though.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

magic gecko — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:00:24 +0000

by magic gecko

Seems fair.
Well, except maybe for 5th.

I have played the other two in the final 4 anyway.

Could you please assign Free / Shadow?
Hope I get Shadow, otherwise I might be lead into temptation.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

Belisarius88 — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:05:19 +0000

by Belisarius88

Well Gary Libby's match against Kevin W. has not reported yet, although I suppose I could calculate strength of schedule as if he wins and see whether he makes it in. We have one 4-0, three 3-1s + possibly Gary becoming the fourth 3-1.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

magic gecko — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:54:47 +0000

by magic gecko

I have had Dol Amroth take Moria twice . . .
I have tried the Dwarves invade Mordor, a couple of times.

Going for the Southrons won't work, only three points.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

dave65tdh — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:50:01 +0000

by dave65tdh

I'll second what Ralf said--good game. Shadow had a great start with 5/6 rolled dice as muster or spicy muster dice. Then Misty Mountains made an easy DG/Moria early assault which caught Galadriel napping in turn 3. Below average C/Ws really slowed things down for the FSP as it was turn 4 before they got through Moria. We both were using Rings like they were going out of style and Ralf finally only got 1 of them back. I probably should have left a regular behind in the Fords when Isengard was finally unleashed on HD, but I thought I might need everybody against GW and took the chance--it would be interesting to see how killing Saruman instead attacking the besieging force would have played out. Still, really good game.

:)

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: 2009 War of the Ring Online Tournament, Round 4 Pairings

Uthoroc — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:03:42 +0000

by Uthoroc

Kudos to Dave65tdh for winning with a Shadow Military victory in Turn 10. It was a tight game, one more round would possibly have seen the Fellowship at Mt Doom (still led by Pippin) and it was only at 1 Corruption.

Gandalf the White defended Helm's Deep until his last breath, after which the Witch-King took Edoras easily for the 10th VP (the others in order being Lorien, Woodland Realm, Dale and Erebor). Aragorn was crowned in Minas Tirith during the mid-game, but never saw action, with Gondor being the only nation not to go to war.

I should have removed Saruman with the ents, instead of taking a shot at the besieging army at Helm's Deep. My worst mistake in the end-game, as I didn't think of the leadership that would have cost the Isengard armies.

Thanks Dave, for a very enjoyable game. I'll be happy to play again anytime :)

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Question's about cards

Krieghund — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:49:52 +0000

by Krieghund

As Ralf pointed out, the Nazgul have to be in the same Region with the Fellowship figure, also known as the Last Known Position of the Fellowship. As this term suggests, this Region is the last place where the Fellowship was known to have been. Having Nazgul in this Region represents the fact that they're tracking the Fellowship, not necessarily that they know exactly where it is right now. The fact that they're tracking the Fellowship has an effect on the success of the Hunt.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

MrWeasely — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:59:59 +0000

by MrWeasely

That strategy sort of works like this

Note: Skip ahead to 0:46

Youtube Video

As you can see, it works really well when they're not expecting it.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Why no separate entry for the collector's edition?

Harv — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:58:30 +0000

by Harv

Belisarius88 wrote:
But there is no difference in play between the editions, it is purely aesthetic.

Even with small changes in play I still would not want to give it a separate edition!

Apparently there are some significant rules re-writes between the two versions. For that reason alone, I want to see two different entries. And for n00bs to the game, I think that separating the images is useful.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Question's about cards

MrWeasely — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:47:20 +0000

by MrWeasely

Re: the fellowship track:

Its important to remember that the Fellowship's progress is all from Sauron's point of view. Sauron doesn't know where they are. Because the Fellowship is blessed, it turns out that whenever they're revealed, they've been following the exact optimal route ... at least to the limits of the Free Player's wisdom. The Free player does not have to plot or record the fellowship's path until s/he decides to declare or is revealed.

Re: Ent Cards:
An army does not have to be in Orthanc. The dilemma for Sauruman is how much of his army to leave behind. He can either attack Rohan with a large army, and risk getting murdered in his sleep at Orthanc, or he can attack with a small army and risk the horse lords using Ent cards in combat to defeat him. That's the idea anyway... in practice there usually aren't enough Rohan army units, to make the Isengard armies afraid.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Re: Question's about cards

Uthoroc — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:45:35 +0000

by Uthoroc

Hi Marek, glad you're enjoying this awesome game.

The Nazgul Strike & Nazgul search

This is something beginners get wrong regularly. "In the same region as the Fellowship" literally means when the Nazgul figure is sitting in the same region as the Fellowship figure. When the game mentions the location of the Fellowship, it always means the place the physical figure is. The number of spaces they have moved do not matter.

Note though that a Nazgul may not move into Rivendell (or any other free strongholds) as long as its not conquered or besieged. The Fellowship is safe from these cards there - as long it remains in the hands of the FP.

Awakening of the Ents: Huorns

The Ent cards no not require the presence of a Free Army.

Hope that helps.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

Double Dan — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:42:53 +0000

by Double Dan

Veldrin wrote:
magic gecko wrote:
Look, if you are unwilling to explore the concept of Dol Amroth setting off for Mt Gundabad from the start of the game I just do not believe you are going to see it happen. :)

This is the strategy I am going to use next time I play, the wife will never see it coming!

:sauron: :) :sauron:

Cmon guys, everyone uses that strategy.

Try "Dwarven Do South and South and East" for a real challenge. Muster up the Dwarves in Ered Luin. This will confuse your opponent. Then send them to Mordor via Gondor...swiftly taking out Minas Morgul and Barad-Dur for the win.

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: Collector's Edition is OUT OF STOCK at FFG!

JohnMcKendrick — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:38:36 +0000

by JohnMcKendrick

Well thanks to Andy Poulter and Jens above I now have an account with Nexus. But still no game:(

I'd like to contact Andy but the fates seem to be against me as when I attempt to verify my Email I get a 'link broken' message. And so I can't send a private message.

Somebody up there does not like me!

Thread: War of the Ring:: Rules:: Question's about cards

GeneralSengers — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:32:13 +0000

by GeneralSengers

Hello,

recently started playing this awesome game and finished 2 times now, but have some questions about how to use some specific cards. I have a Dutch version so i'll try to literally translate the cards.

Dark forces:
The Nazgul Strike & Nazgul search.
Both are only playable when condition: The Fellowship is on tile +1 of the Fellowshiptrail(?). Player can then move all Nazgul.
Action happens when" at least 1 Nazgul is in the same region as the Fellowship".
And there lies my question/problem: Since the Fellowship is supposed to be hidden from startingpoint, how can the Nazgul find them? I mean, if the Fellowship is in Rivendell, and have say +6 on the trail, they can be basically anywhere. Does the Light player have to keep track of the hidden journey or something?

Light Forces:
Awakening of the Ents: Huorns
Play this card when Saruman is ingame, and Gandalf the White is in Rohan or Fangorn.
Attack a Dark army in Orthanc, throw 3 dice and kill with 4+. If no enemy's survive remove Saruman.

Can this card be played, when there is no Light army near Orthanc? ( There are more of these kind of cards). Since, at least when I played it, it's near impossible to get a substantial army near Orthanc, I think it's kinda useless

O, perhaps I should mention that I played two 4 player games...

Any help on this would great!!
Enjoy youre games and thnx in advance!

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

Veldrin — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:06:54 +0000

by Veldrin

magic gecko wrote:
Look, if you are unwilling to explore the concept of Dol Amroth setting off for Mt Gundabad from the start of the game I just do not believe you are going to see it happen. :)

This is the strategy I am going to use next time I play, the wife will never see it coming!

:sauron: :) :sauron:

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

magic gecko — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:46:50 +0000

by magic gecko

Look, if you are unwilling to explore the concept of Dol Amroth setting off for Mt Gundabad from the start of the game I just do not believe you are going to see it happen. :)

Replayability is not really a problem.

Chess has very little in the way of terrain, or set up options.
Seems OK with replay.

Buy it.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Collectors edition..... Is it just me or does it look quite awful?

Ithkrall — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:28:52 +0000

by Ithkrall

Well, I paint like a glaciar and am only half way through my copy of space hulk. But once that is done I will be painting my brand new copy of War of the ring. I will create another progress blog/forum post about that project once it begins.

So no Collectors edition for me, but lets see if I can make my models as good if not better :)

Space hulk so far

http://s458.photobucket.com/albums/qq305/ithkrall/40k/

Axis and Allies

http://s458.photobucket.com/albums/qq305/ithkrall/AA50/

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

MrWeasely — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:42:33 +0000

by MrWeasely

I've played minimum 200 times, and Magic Geek is still bitching at me to go explore underutilized play lines, effectively calling me a noob. The action dice are the ultimate in terms of creating replayability. Eventually, after 30-100 plays, you'll want to buy the expansion...

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

Tsugo — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:01:00 +0000

by Tsugo

With the base game, there is no changing terrain or different scenarios, but I feel there is a great deal of replayability.

People have mentioned that the game changes depending on which cards are drawn and dice thrown. Additionally, the game feels and plays very differently whether you are playing the Free people or the Shadow armies. The other thing I noticed was that after playing for a while, I was trying new things and not always going with the tried and true strategies.

I average two to three games per month. I'd play more if my schedule didn't interfere. For a while, I was playing at least once a week. Even though I play against the same person each time, every session is a new experience.

As far as game length, ours average 90 minutes. Mind you, the very first game we played took at least 8 hours, or second 4 hours, and our third game ran about 2 hours. By then, we had a good grasp of the rules and weren't referring to the rule book every other action.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

Uthoroc — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:30:09 +0000

by Uthoroc

I played two of my latest games in under 2 hours, with 2-3 being normal. If both players know what they're doing and at least one plays aggressively, it can be over very quickly.

On the other hand, if you're new to the game, play very defensively and are prone to analysis-paralysis, the game easily tops the 5 hour mark. ;)

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: Collector's Edition is OUT OF STOCK at FFG!

JohnMcKendrick — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:11:54 +0000

by JohnMcKendrick

jens_hoppe wrote:
JohnMcKendrick wrote:
Has anyone in the UK managed to pre-order this game? I was advised to do so through NEXUS. Although I can get a translation of their site I just can't seem to register. Specifically the *field* which asks for Tax Code. I really have no idea what this means when I enter my own personal code it just gets rejected.

You mean the Codice Fiscale, or whatever it's called, right?

I had never heard of it before and still find it entirely suspect, but this post has a link to page where one can 'calculate' it...

I am not in the UK, of course, but I did manage to make an order for the game on the Nexus site.

Thanks for the answer Jens. Did you have to calculate a codice fiscale? I did and still have had no success:(

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

Hipsu — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:00:18 +0000

by Hipsu

Cale wrote:
Replayability's very good. It's not a game with a wide variety of completely different strategies that could be implemented from session to session, but the narrative, cards/dice and tuning make this one a joy to replay.

This. I've played this game maybe ten times, but every game had a different narrative going on.

About game length, last time I played it took 8 hours......but that was an exceptionally epic game that lasted over 20 turns. And we ate in between. And we both were totally paralyzed in analyzing it.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

Phreedh — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:48:00 +0000

by Phreedh

You don't need to worry about replayability. Unless it's played very intensely with the same people over and over, the many choices and different strategies will keep you occupied. And, there is of course the expansion which changes the game quite a bit (ie offers new opportunities).

I wouldn't say game time is anywhere near 2 hours, but that might say more about me than the game itself. =) 3-5 hours is the time we use when we play it.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

Cale — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:46:59 +0000

by Cale

Replayability's very good. It's not a game with a wide variety of completely different strategies that could be implemented from session to session, but the narrative, cards/dice and tuning make this one a joy to replay. The game's almost always a photo finish either way, usually lending to a long post-game analysis about the critical moments of the session. I very, very much enjoy this one and consider it one of my two current favorites.

Game time is generally around 2-3 hours.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

Lothiam — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:46:55 +0000

by Lothiam

Cool thanks for the reply!

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

Krieghund — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:23:10 +0000

by Krieghund

Between two and four hours is probably the average game time. The Collector's Edition is a very limited run, and it will not replace the standard edition. If FFG is out of stock, it's probably just time for a new print run.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

Lothiam — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:17:03 +0000

by Lothiam

About how long are the games, I have seen in reviews from 1-3 hours, what has been your experience? Also I notice FFG says it is unavailable, but I see copies in online retailers shops, is it being discontinued because of new collectors edition?

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

jerkules — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:09:07 +0000

by jerkules

The way the cards come out, the dice roll, as well as the varying strategies I think make the replayability just fine. That being said, I don't get to play it that much due to length and interest level amongst my game group.

Still, for the few games I have played, I've enjoyed every one and look forward to my next one.

I think Battles of the Third Age adds specific scenarios, although I have not played it.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Replayability

Windopaene — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:06:29 +0000

by Windopaene

No it does not.

However, the hand of cards you are dealt prior to the first move, and the vagaries of the dice you roll each turn to determine what you can do, tend to make how the game plays out, different each time.

Thread: War of the Ring:: General:: Replayability

Lothiam — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:01:26 +0000

by Lothiam

Curious about this game and wonder how good the re-playability is. Does it have different scenarios and changing terrain or anything to make it not feeling like playing same thing again and again? Appreciate input! Thanks!

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: War of the Ring Collector's Edition Pre-orders (official)

Shadowen — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:40:43 +0000

by Shadowen

Tsugo wrote:
koobra wrote:
Check again. I've pre-ordered one a moment ago. Just over $500 with shipping to UK, it's a gift for my wife. She will be amazed :D

I've also pre-ordered one a short time ago...though not a gift for my wife. Additionally, a different adjective will be needed to express her feelings when she learns of this purchase. :angry:

If I ordered a game that was $400, my wife would also be amazed, but not in the same way.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Variants:: Re: "The Eye is looking elsewhere": a NON FP MV variant

Ivan M — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:38:31 +0000

by Ivan M

joedogboy wrote:
[q="
I think that changing dice to Will of the West could get unbalanced very quickly. The idea that a FP player who is militarily successful could then change military dice (muster and army dice) to character dice and use that military success to move the fellowship makes the FP military strategy a way to kick-start the Fellowship and get them moving faster (and with less chance of successful hunt rolls).
.

Ok, but if the FP controls 1 SP stronghold then they can change only 1 die, if the FP is controlling 2 SP strongholds then they can change 2 dice but in regular WotR this should mean a FP (military) victory anyway, so this situation may give the FP some great advantage.

When I was thinking about changing any FP die in a WoW then it is also possible to change character die in a military die and this can make things even more interesting.

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: War of the Ring Collector's Edition Pre-orders (official)

Joe Casadonte — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:32:37 +0000

by Joe Casadonte

lamplite wrote:
Confirmed! and I started building a special table for it this weekend for display and play made of Cherry, Ebony and Birdseye Marple woods.

Post pictures, please!

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: War of the Ring Collector's Edition Pre-orders (official)

lamplite — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:28:42 +0000

by lamplite

Confirmed! and I started building a special table for it this weekend for display and play made of Cherry, Ebony and Birdseye Marple woods.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Variants:: Re: "The Eye is looking elsewhere": a NON FP MV variant

SevenSpirits — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:01:31 +0000

by SevenSpirits

Krieghund wrote:
SevenSpirits wrote:
Krieghund wrote:
SevenSpirits wrote:
Really what it's doing is removing action dice. What the shadow player wants to focus on is up to them. However, I suspect they'll want to focus on military in order to get their action dice back.

Meanwhile, the Fellowship may be moving two or three Regions per round for free. I don't see the Shadow allowing that to happen and winning.

Er, if that's happening then the FP have 4 Shadow VPs. When that happens, the Shadow is usually one turn away from military victory, or have already won a military victory.

I should have said moving unopposed, not moving for free.

Let's say the FP have 2 VPs. If the Shadow puts no dice in the Hunt Box, with the idea that the first two will be removed anyway, the Fellowship will move twice for free, plus moving unopposed for any Character or WoW dice rolled. If the Shadow throws away two dice on preventing the first two free moves, the Fellowship will still be able to move unopposed with any Character or WoW dice rolled. If the Shadow player allocates three dice, free and unopposed movements will be eliminated, but the military campaign still suffers rather than the Hunt.

That sounds about right.

This position sucks for the shadow; if they don't bite the bullet and let the Fellowship get in some free moves while they take back the stronghold, that will keep happening every single turn and the Shadow will lose easily.

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: War of the Ring Collector's Edition Pre-orders (official)

Tsugo — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:56:02 +0000

by Tsugo

koobra wrote:
Check again. I've pre-ordered one a moment ago. Just over $500 with shipping to UK, it's a gift for my wife. She will be amazed :D

I've also pre-ordered one a short time ago...though not a gift for my wife. Additionally, a different adjective will be needed to express her feelings when she learns of this purchase. :angry:

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: War of the Ring Collector's Edition Pre-orders (official)

Captain Hook — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:51:02 +0000

by Captain Hook

koobra wrote:
Check again. I've pre-ordered one a moment ago. Just over $500 with shipping to UK, it's a gift for my wife. She will be amazed :D

She's a lucky gal!

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: War of the Ring Collector's Edition Pre-orders (official)

koobra — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:33:37 +0000

by koobra

Check again. I've pre-ordered one a moment ago. Just over $500 with shipping to UK, it's a gift for my wife. She will be amazed :D

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Why no separate entry for the collector's edition?

sigmazero13 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:32:00 +0000

by sigmazero13

fatetwister64 wrote:
Only Space Hulk is special enough to get new entries per edition. Well and Blood Bowl. Anyone see a theme?

Ummmm:

Twilight Imperium
Twilight Imperium 2nd Edition
Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition

Runebound (First Edition)
Runebound Second Edition

Risk
Risk 2210 A.D.
Risk - Star Wars: The Clone Wars Edition
Risk (Revised Edition)

Just to name a few :) In the TI case, I don't know the difference between 1 and 2, but between 2 and 3 they are practically completely different games.

I don't know Runebound 1st vs Runebound 2nd, but I do know the combat system is slighly different in that it uses 2D10 in 2E, whereas 1E had 1D20.

Most Risk editions, while playable using regular Risk rules (even if you use a different map), have completely separate "special" rules.

I think a new edition = new entry is warranted if the rules are not the same. In the case of WotR and WotR:CE, the CE (as mentioned) combines WotR and the expansion - and thus, as one package, it is neither the original nor the expansion, but a separate combination of both.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Variants:: Re: "The Eye is looking elsewhere": a NON FP MV variant

joedogboy — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:31:33 +0000

by joedogboy

Ivan M wrote:
joedogboy wrote:
Another possibility would be to have FP character/will of the West dice used to move the fellowship not go into the hunt box if the FP have possession of a shadow VP location. In addition, strongholds (2VP locations) would allow the FP to change a muster/army die to a character die - allowing the fellowship to have more moves while the SP is "distracted by the military situation".

This allows the SP to use all of their dice (rolling for each eye), but negates the hunt modifier for multiple fellowship moves in one turn.

Example:
FP holds Angmar (1 VP), so the first time they move the fellowship, they don't place the die into the hunt box, and the SP needs to roll "6"s when the FP moves the fellowship a second time.

Example 2:
FP holds Moria (2VP), so they can change one muster/army die to a character die and get an extra opportunity to move the fellowship. The first time they move the fellowship, they don't place the die into the hunt box, and the SP needs to roll "6"s when the FP moves the fellowship a second time.

This avoids the problem of limiting the SP's dice, and creates a situation where aggressive FP military action allows the fellowship to be more mobile.

Joe, have to say that I really like your first suggestion.

I want to discuss your second suggestion:
What about making it a bit stronger by allowing to change ANY FP die into a Will of the West die (that way it can also be used for a crucial FP military operation like recruiting an extra elite just before a siege.)

(and yes I know about that special event card to remove WoW dice but that's making it even interesting imho)

Another option could be to heal 1 corruption (so that the FP can chose between changing a FP die or healing 1 corruption). This healing thing can be interesting when the FP is near to Mordor or also when the FP is heavily corrupted yet.
.

I think that changing dice to Will of the West could get unbalanced very quickly. The idea that a FP player who is militarily successful could then change military dice (muster and army dice) to character dice and use that military success to move the fellowship makes the FP military strategy a way to kick-start the Fellowship and get them moving faster (and with less chance of successful hunt rolls).
I think that this is important because the background story tells us that a strategic FP military victory should be next to impossible while the ring is in existence (holding the status quo should certainly be possible, if the various Free Peoples ally together).

I wish I had the time (well, I have the time, but my regular opponents don't) to play test this variant a few times.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Why no separate entry for the collector's edition?

Belisarius88 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:47:52 +0000

by Belisarius88

My opposition to multiple entries for essentially the same game comes from practical considerations for general use of this site over specialized concerns such as yours. I can see how having separate entries for each Magic CCG expansion could be relevant- it could be used for discussion on Block specific (expansion limited) gaming formats or tracking of the sets owned. But I find these benefits are outweighed by someone typing in Magic CCG and getting 50 entries when in probably most cases they are searching for the general game itself and not expansion specifics. This confusion could be eased by having the base game listed first above expansions.

Hmm, the other issue, as mentioned by Jeff T, is multiple forums for the same game. In War of the Ring for example it can be confusing since the expansion, Battles of the Third Age, includes essential pieces for the base game. So rule questions have to be split between the forums depending on whether they applied to the base game or pieces of the base game that came with the expansion or the entirely separate expansion game. I find it easier to have one forum for such things as rule discussions than multiple forums. But I suppose there is nothing to stop players from ignoring forums for expansions and sticking to the base game forum.

I suppose I cannot offer any convincing arguments against all of these multiple entries for a game. I don't like it though!

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Why no separate entry for the collector's edition?

Walt Mulder — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:29:34 +0000

by Walt Mulder

Only Space Hulk is special enough to get new entries per edition. Well and Blood Bowl. Anyone see a theme?

Another misinformed conception. Space Hulk has an entry for the original and 3rd edition. It doesn't have an entry for the second edition which had significantly different mechanics, dice, and no timer. If anything, the 1st and 3rd editions should be lumped together and the 2nd should have its own entry.

And your "theme" logic is broken by Dominion having 3 entries. By allowing it to have three entries there's no argument for not letting MtG have separate entries for each release as Dominion is nothing more than a card game that's not collectible.

There are many inconsistencies on BGG as to what gets its own entry and what gets approved. As for me, I'm happy for each individual entry that helps chronicle the history of games.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Variants:: Re: "The Eye is looking elsewhere": a NON FP MV variant

Krieghund — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:29:16 +0000

by Krieghund

SevenSpirits wrote:
Krieghund wrote:
SevenSpirits wrote:
Really what it's doing is removing action dice. What the shadow player wants to focus on is up to them. However, I suspect they'll want to focus on military in order to get their action dice back.

Meanwhile, the Fellowship may be moving two or three Regions per round for free. I don't see the Shadow allowing that to happen and winning.

Er, if that's happening then the FP have 4 Shadow VPs. When that happens, the Shadow is usually one turn away from military victory, or have already won a military victory.

I should have said moving unopposed, not moving for free.

Let's say the FP have 2 VPs. If the Shadow puts no dice in the Hunt Box, with the idea that the first two will be removed anyway, the Fellowship will move twice for free, plus moving unopposed for any Character or WoW dice rolled. If the Shadow throws away two dice on preventing the first two free moves, the Fellowship will still be able to move unopposed with any Character or WoW dice rolled. If the Shadow player allocates three dice, free and unopposed movements will be eliminated, but the military campaign still suffers rather than the Hunt.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Variants:: Re: "The Eye is looking elsewhere": a NON FP MV variant

Ivan M — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:09:20 +0000

by Ivan M

joedogboy wrote:
Another possibility would be to have FP character/will of the West dice used to move the fellowship not go into the hunt box if the FP have possession of a shadow VP location. In addition, strongholds (2VP locations) would allow the FP to change a muster/army die to a character die - allowing the fellowship to have more moves while the SP is "distracted by the military situation".

This allows the SP to use all of their dice (rolling for each eye), but negates the hunt modifier for multiple fellowship moves in one turn.

Example:
FP holds Angmar (1 VP), so the first time they move the fellowship, they don't place the die into the hunt box, and the SP needs to roll "6"s when the FP moves the fellowship a second time.

Example 2:
FP holds Moria (2VP), so they can change one muster/army die to a character die and get an extra opportunity to move the fellowship. The first time they move the fellowship, they don't place the die into the hunt box, and the SP needs to roll "6"s when the FP moves the fellowship a second time.

This avoids the problem of limiting the SP's dice, and creates a situation where aggressive FP military action allows the fellowship to be more mobile.

Joe, have to say that I really like your first suggestion.

I want to discuss your second suggestion:
What about making it a bit stronger by allowing to change ANY FP die into a Will of the West die (that way it can also be used for a crucial FP military operation like recruiting an extra elite just before a siege.)
Another option could be to heal 1 corruption (so that the FP can chose between changing a FP die or healing 1 corruption). This healing thing can be interesting when the FP is near to Mordor or also when the FP is heavily corrupted yet.
.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: War of the Ring Collectors Edition: Did You Funken Dunk It?

Hristo Filipov — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:58:22 +0000

by Hristo Filipov

I FUNKEN DUNKED IT! :)
I ordered from the Nexus site. It says 299 euro, but when I registered the price changed to 249. I guess that is because I am from EU (Bulgaria) - less shipping expenses.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Why no separate entry for the collector's edition?

HauRuck — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:52:54 +0000

by HauRuck

It really depends on how you use the site. If its solely for forum type stuff then I would agree as now you'll have to search more places for rules questions etc. Though there are some differences they may well be minor.

However I also use the site HEAVILY to determine what I want to collect/play and for math trades, regular trades, sales etc. and in that regard editions like this MUST have their own entry.

It perhaps wouldn't be as necessary should the site somehow be enhanced otherwise, but as-is it is the only useful way to distinguish one from another for those purposes.

Thanks Octavian!

New Image for War of the Ring

Uthoroc — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:06:46 +0000

by Uthoroc

]]>

My Gondor pieces: Leader, Regular, Elite

New Image for War of the Ring

Uthoroc — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:03:58 +0000

by Uthoroc

]]>

My Rohan pieces: Leader, Regular, Elite

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: French Ed. Pre-Oder out of Canada?

cedthebear — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:48:59 +0000

by cedthebear

Je ne suis pas sur qu'Asmodee fasse de la distribution au Canada, donc pour eux ce serait de l'import depuis la France et ça commencerait peut-être à douiller dur niveau tarif.

I'm not sure that Asmodee delivery Canada. Canadians must import the game from France (if it comes out) and this will make the price even higher.

Mais vous êtes bienvenus sur le sujet de lobbying pour une version Francaise.
However you are welcome on the lobbying subject for a french version.

cedthebear(Grumly)

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: Collector's edition photos from Spiel in Essen

Richardbliss — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:09:33 +0000

by Richardbliss

Veldrin wrote:
Nice work, can't wait for the interview with Roberto Di Meglio.

I've posted the Roberto Interview on War of the Ring

http://richardbliss.typepad.com

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Why no separate entry for the collector's edition?

vliam — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:01:18 +0000

by vliam

Belisarius88 wrote:
I am, in principle, opposed to separate entries for each edition.

Agreed.

Mahjong has one combined entry for dozens of different rules and variations. I don't see how an extended CE version merits an additional entry.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Why no separate entry for the collector's edition?

fatetwister64 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:58:05 +0000

by fatetwister64

Only Space Hulk is special enough to get new entries per edition. Well and Blood Bowl. Anyone see a theme?

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Why no separate entry for the collector's edition?

Walt Mulder — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:49:05 +0000

by Walt Mulder

Without the expansion, you could not play the standard edition to the same level as the collector's edition. The difference is not purely aesthetic. The standard edition is a similar game but not the same game as the CE.

The CE most certainly deserves its own page given that BGG is an archival tool as well as a hobbyist rallying point. I use it very much as an archival tool and have my entire collection databased here for reference. I want to see separate entries for every version of every game ever produced on this site though it may be impractical. Given today's computer memory capacity and computer and Internet speeds there's no reason to combine separate items so long as the descriptions identify the differences however small they may be.

I've often argued, though unsuccessfully, that there should be separate entries for every MTG set and Axis & Allies:Miniatures set that have been released. Each set whether CMG or CCG often adds new rules, scenarios, game mechanics, etc. that make them worthy of their own entry by BGG standards, but most often they're shot down by administrators as being the "same game". Perhaps, aesthetically, they are but in the case of WotR:CE, the games will play out differently though in fact if you play the CE version with only the components and same cards that the standard edition has, you could conceivably play the same game.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Why no separate entry for the collector's edition?

Octavian — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:38:46 +0000

by Octavian

http://boardgame.geekdo.com/boardgame/60153

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Why no separate entry for the collector's edition?

Belisarius88 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:25:54 +0000

by Belisarius88

I am, in principle, opposed to separate entries for each edition. That is how we have the Monopoly fiasco here. I do not believe War of the Ring Collector's Edition requires a separate entry. There are other games with similar publications, such as Caylus, that do not have separate entries. I believe this to be best practice. For example, we could end with three places for rules questions rather than the two we have today, War of the Ring and the Expansion entry, But there is no difference in play between the editions, it is purely aesthetic.

Even with small changes in play I still would not want to give it a separate edition!

Reply: War of the Ring:: Strategy:: Re: to easy with free people.millitary victory.

joedogboy — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:56:30 +0000

by joedogboy

kogou wrote:
i don't speak english very well sorry.

Actually, your English is much better, and you are easier to understand than some people from English speaking countries (yes, I'm looking at you, Magic Gecko).

Thread: War of the Ring:: General:: Roberto Di Meglio explains why the game costs so much

Richardbliss — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:23:39 +0000

by Richardbliss

So many people have been asking why the game costs so much that I decided to ask Roberto Di Meglio myself. I got 10 minutes of interview and asked him on camera to explain why he didn't think the game was overpriced. He gives a pretty compelling explanation about the decision. I personally think it was completely convincing, and this was before it went on sale and people started buying it up around the world.

He also talks about how Nexus ended up getting the rights to the game. It is interesting because even he admits that Nexus was the most unknown company to be chosen.

If you have wanted to know the reasons for the creation of the game and what the thoughts were that went into its creation, Roberto does a great job of addressing those questions.

You can watch the video at http://richardbliss.typepad.com

Here is a photo of Roberto explaining the game to some potential customers.

]]>

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Collector's Edition changes: What's up with Dale?

Rafamir — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:10:46 +0000

by Rafamir

Thank you, Francesco, for putting our concerns to rest! The CE looks great.

Thanks to Tsugo, Veldrin and everyone else who weighed in, wherever in the shlubarchy you may rank.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Variants:: Re: "The Eye is looking elsewhere": a NON FP MV variant

SevenSpirits — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:46:41 +0000

by SevenSpirits

Krieghund wrote:
SevenSpirits wrote:
Really what it's doing is removing action dice. What the shadow player wants to focus on is up to them. However, I suspect they'll want to focus on military in order to get their action dice back.

Meanwhile, the Fellowship may be moving two or three Regions per round for free. I don't see the Shadow allowing that to happen and winning.

Er, if that's happening then the FP have 4 Shadow VPs. When that happens, the Shadow is usually one turn away from military victory, or have already won a military victory.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: French Ed. Pre-Oder out of Canada?

Manu71 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:44:01 +0000

by Manu71

Bonjour!
Sur ce post sur Tric Trac:
http://www.trictrac.net/jeux/forum/viewtopic.php?t=69810&hig...=

nous tentons de recenser tous les joueurs francophones qui seraient prets à acheter la version Collector si Asmodée en sortai une VF...

Alors s'il te plait viens ajouter ton nom à la liste....et préviens si tu le peux tous tes amis canadiens. ;)

Tchuss.

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: The 'official' word on the War of the Ring Collector's Edition

ekted — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:33:09 +0000

by ekted

Keep trying. It keeps going back and forth from out of stock to in stock.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Variants:: Re: "The Eye is looking elsewhere": a NON FP MV variant

joedogboy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:19:37 +0000

by joedogboy

Another possibility would be to have FP character/will of the West dice used to move the fellowship not go into the hunt box if the FP have possession of a shadow VP location. In addition, strongholds (2VP locations) would allow the FP to change a muster/army die to a character die - allowing the fellowship to have more moves while the SP is "distracted by the military situation".

This allows the SP to use all of their dice (rolling for each eye), but negates the hunt modifier for multiple fellowship moves in one turn.

Example:
FP holds Angmar (1 VP), so the first time they move the fellowship, they don't place the die into the hunt box, and the SP needs to roll "6"s when the FP moves the fellowship a second time.

Example 2:
FP holds Moria (2VP), so they can change one muster/army die to a character die and get an extra opportunity to move the fellowship. The first time they move the fellowship, they don't place the die into the hunt box, and the SP needs to roll "6"s when the FP moves the fellowship a second time.

This avoids the problem of limiting the SP's dice, and creates a situation where aggressive FP military action allows the fellowship to be more mobile.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Variants:: Re: "The Eye is looking elsewhere": a NON FP MV variant

Krieghund — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:56:09 +0000

by Krieghund

Ivan M wrote:
So basically Kevin and Mikka, you found the first version of the variant the best?

No. I actually prefer the idea of re-rolling one Eye die for each Free Peoples Victory Point and changing the Shadow military victory conditions to require the Shadow to have ten VPs and the Free Peoples to have none. This allows the Free Peoples the possibility of free Fellowship movement (especially if there are only one or two Companions) while increasing the Shadow's military difficulty to somewhat offset the military advantage gained by re-rolling Eyes.

Reply: War of the Ring:: Variants:: Re: "The Eye is looking elsewhere": a NON FP MV variant

Krieghund — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:54:54 +0000

by Krieghund

SevenSpirits wrote:
Really what it's doing is removing action dice. What the shadow player wants to focus on is up to them. However, I suspect they'll want to focus on military in order to get their action dice back.

Meanwhile, the Fellowship may be moving two or three Regions per round for free. I don't see the Shadow allowing that to happen and winning.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Mixing components from regular and collector's editions

Tsugo — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:04:57 +0000

by Tsugo

Well that settles it then. I guess I'll have to use the CE components. :laugh:

Beside, with 2 copies of the game, more people can play.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Mixing components from regular and collector's editions

Francesco Nepitello — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:58:59 +0000

by Francesco Nepitello

Tsugo wrote:
With the CE, I'm considering doing the same, only reprinting them with the updated text. I'm also debating if I'm going to punch everything out or keep everything unpunched and simply use the cardboard bits from my current copy.

All the cardboard is done in Germany at their usual very high quality level, so all the counters do not need to be 'punched' out, they simply come out, and can be perfectly placed back. I know, as I did it at the end of most days of the fair... :)

Tsugo wrote:

Of course the painted minis and new board will see regular use.

What I like about the CE as it took form in the end, is that it really enhances the gameplay in all ways. So it MUST be put to use!

Francesco

Reply: War of the Ring:: Variants:: Re: "The Eye is looking elsewhere": a NON FP MV variant

Hipsu — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:36:06 +0000

by Hipsu

Hmm, yeah, I like of the first version best. It's clever, thematic and simple. The latest change makes the Shadow player to put a crapload of eyes to the hunt (unthematic) and on top of that try to get his Strongholds back with only a couple dice he has left (also a bit unthematic, why does Shadow's military might in Mordor weakens when Moria is taken by Free Peoples..?).

But I don't know.. I don't want to sound too pessimistic here and I'm not pro enough to come up with anything better.

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: The 'official' word on the War of the Ring Collector's Edition

qaesyan — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:29:51 +0000

by qaesyan

Wow, I wish I checked this thread more often. 4 days later and the first batch of 400 is sold out. Guess I'll have to wait for the post-Christmas batch and hope I get lucky.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Card Sleeves for Collector's Edition?

Gattolardo — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:22:04 +0000

by Gattolardo

gpsilberman wrote:
...Hopefully the custom box will accommodate sleeved cards...

Cheers,

Greg

Not by the look of it... :what:

]]>

Reply: War of the Ring:: Variants:: Re: "The Eye is looking elsewhere": a NON FP MV variant

Ivan M — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:52:00 +0000

by Ivan M

So basically Kevin and Mikka, you found the first version of the variant the best?

I am wondering what others are thinking.
Francesco?

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Card Sleeves for Collector's Edition?

Smoo — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:12:17 +0000

by Smoo

I wouldn't say it's too low. The best price point is the one that leaves both parties satisfied. You want to make money, and you want your consumers feeling they got a good (or at least fair) deal. I think they nailed it.

Thread: War of the Ring:: General:: WotR: Collector's Edition now has its own page

Walt Mulder — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:01:15 +0000

by Walt Mulder

The most recent rendition was accepted. Thank you BGG.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/60153

Photos needed, so if you took some at Essen, please post them on the new page.

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Card Sleeves for Collector's Edition?

FlyingArrow — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:33:56 +0000

by FlyingArrow

Mike Wene wrote:
Smoo wrote:
wytefang wrote:
It's a joke - get a sense of humor. Anyway, there should be no statute of limitations on mocking something that deserves to be mocked - like this edition and its ridiculous price point. ;)

It sold out in less than 24 hours. Sounds like it was priced just fine.

It really sounds like the demand outweighs the supply. So, the price must indeed still be too low.

Then again, I did very poorly in my lone economics course. :p

Certainly too low, but probably not by very much. They probably could have sold out in a month or so at $450, though, right?

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: Collectors edition..... Is it just me or does it look quite awful?

Big Bad Lex — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:30:12 +0000

by Big Bad Lex

Reference to previous comments regarding the collector's edition will reveal me to have been pretty critical about this entire emterprise. Two years ago the promised photos of the painted pics failed to materialise beyond the first tranche. Last year at Essen the quality of the paint job was frankly disgraceful and the lack of any tangible progress with the rest of the project made me doubt that this venture was anything better than a pipe dream.

Time to eat humble pie. I've just got back from Essen and the CE package on display is a masterpiece. The paint quality is head a shoulders better than last year. They took the criticism on the chin and raised their game. Sure the pics of painted figures on BGG shows better work but as has been stated above, you pays your money you takes your choice. For 300 euros an awesome job has been achieved and no one can expect to finance 80 hours of work achieving a dry brushed, detailed figure for that money.

The book/ box with figure trays is a spectacular and neat touch, the bigger board, the larger cards with bigger text and embroidered hunt pool bag are all very special.

Well done, its taken a long time but if you can replicate the game for your 2000 editions to a level that matches the show copy, you have excelled yourselves.

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: Collector's Edition is OUT OF STOCK at FFG!

jens_hoppe — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:24:34 +0000

by jens_hoppe

JohnMcKendrick wrote:
Has anyone in the UK managed to pre-order this game? I was advised to do so through NEXUS. Although I can get a translation of their site I just can't seem to register. Specifically the *field* which asks for Tax Code. I really have no idea what this means when I enter my own personal code it just gets rejected.

You mean the Codice Fiscale, or whatever it's called, right?

I had never heard of it before and still find it entirely suspect, but this post has a link to page where one can 'calculate' it...

I am not in the UK, of course, but I did manage to make an order for the game on the Nexus site.

Reply: War of the Ring:: News:: Re: Collector's Edition is OUT OF STOCK at FFG!

MFinch — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:13:39 +0000

by MFinch

I would imagine that in a year or two, this will sell for $800 to $1000 on eBay.

I'd agree. $800 for the game and $200 postage... :D

Reply: War of the Ring:: General:: Re: CE Board

jrodgersh — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:08:27 +0000

by jrodgersh

joefling34 wrote:
=This has been brought up before, but not answered (at least not that I have seen). Is Dale still apart of the North Nation? Because it appears that it isn't.

Your question has been answered. The map will be fixed!
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/4115674#4115674