Tom Vasel
United States
Homestead
Unspecified
Top 100 Games of all Time
Dice Tower Convention, July 2012!!!!
-
Some games get unbelievable hype before they come out, especially if they are about a popular subject or theme. War of the Ring (Fantasy Flight Games and Nexus Games, 2004 - Roberto Di Meglio, Marco Maggi, Francesco Neptello) got more hype than any game in recent memory. Playtesters howled its praises; and once the game came out, it slowly grew in popularity until it reached its current spot of #3 on the top rated games at www.boardgamegeek.com, with over 100 people giving it the perfect “10” rating. I was intrigued, not just because I was a fan of the books and movies, but because of the massive amount of plastic pieces that came in the box. The game just exuded the “cool” factor, and I was eager to get my hands on a copy.
Now that I have a copy, I can state that the hype was not unjustified. While not a “10”, I rate the game a “9.5” as it’s near perfect. The theme is evident throughout the game, and the designers have managed to present us with a fair, balanced, fun game. As of this writing, there are at least fifteen reviews on the internet, so I’m not going to focus on rules of this game (all twenty-three pages of them). Instead, you can find out the details of the game from another review - I’ll just focus on my thoughts of the game...
1.) Miniatures: My, how Fantasy Flight Games just keeps getting better. From no miniatures in Twilight Imperium I, to the terrible plastic miniatures in Twilight Imperium II, to the marvelous, soft plastic miniatures in this game, the amount of miniatures is staggering, rivaling that of an Eagle game; and the detail on them is very well done. If you head to the internet, you’ll find tons of articles and pictures detailing how to paint them. I’m afraid that my skills are sorely lacking in this regard, but that doesn’t sadden me; because even in their unpainted form, the miniatures still look great on the board. The game provides counters to use if the miniatures crowd up too much room on the board, but I’ve only used them in one situation; because the miniatures provide such a wonderful visual of how the game is progressing.
2.) Dice: I have found the dice system absolutely incredible. From the dark side having an overwhelming amount of dice, showing their sheer physical dominance, to the makeup of the dice the light side has more versatility but has a harder time getting their armies to move. Having the Dark side sacrifice a number of their dice to put them in the “Hunt for the Ring” box is very thematic. Yes, as Sauron you want that ring; but if you waste too many resources chasing it, you won’t put enough pressure on the good forces. Meanwhile, the Light side must agonizingly decide just how many dice to devote to moving the Ring and how many to move those crucial companions.
3.) Companions and Minions: I seriously think that in a game, the less experienced player should play the Dark Side. This is because while the evil player certainly has a lot of decisions to make, they aren’t as difficult as the forces of good. Hardest of these decisions are the companions. Leaving a lot of companions with the party means that the hobbits are less susceptible to the ring and helps absorb damage from the dark side. At the same time, keeping too many companions allows the Shadow to send greater hunting parties, and sending the companions away from the party can crucially help the light side - especially Gandalf and Strider, as they can “morph” into their more powerful counterparts. The extra dice they provide are SO crucial to the Free People. Knowing where to send the companions (should Gimli activate the dwarven nation?) is crucial, but the choice to split them off from the party is agonizing. This doesn’t belittle the Evil Player’s choice of when to reveal the Witch King. Sure, the guy is massively powerful, but he activates all the good nations. Reveal him too early, and you hurt yourself. Reveal him too late, and he doesn’t do much good.
4.) Political System: This is another tremendous mechanic. I really enjoy how the Dwarves and northern armies are basically out of the game, unless the Light player goes to extreme ends to get them involved. The Shadow player has crucial decisions in the beginning of the game. Does he attack Gondor, Rohan, or both? It’s probably best to only attack one nation, as the chance of the Free People spending precious actions to get the other in the war is fairly small. Yet unless Gondor and Rohan unite, they will be eventually swept away in a tide of Orcs. If the Shadow player refrains from attacking too many players, they can keep some of the nations out of war for a good part of the game, tying up many crucial units. At the same time, it would be useful if the Free People could get the Elves into battle quickly, in order to allow their strong forces to stem the flood of evil. As the Free People player, it can be frustrating (true to theme) that they have so many pieces on the board yet can only use a fraction of them. I love the thematic flavor of this (even while complaining about it during the game.)
5.) Chit Pool: More games should involve a chit pool - Air Barons does it, as well as a few other games, and it just makes things a little more exciting than merely rolling the die. The fact that each player can add tiles both helpful and destructive to the pool makes the Hunt for the Ring that much more interesting.
6.) Hunt for the Ring: This is a huge part of the game, as the Free People’s only real viable strategy is to get that ring into Mount Doom. Sometimes the good guys can get so caught up in defending their bases (and it really cannot be ignored) that the ring can sit still; but it must keep moving, or all is lost! The hidden movement track is a unique mechanic that allows players to not have to spend precious time tracking where the hobbits are moving via pencil and paper. It also allows the good guys to have a bit more leeway as to where they send the hobbits. True to the book - going over the mountains at the beginning is easier but longer, while going through Moria is quick and deadly. The Shadow player can divert Nazgul to hunt for the ring; but their use in battle is extreme, and shifting them away can cause some of his battles to drag on longer than they should.
7.) Cards: The cards allow the game to have more thematic flavor than a simple war game would, introducing elements like the Ents, Shelob, Tom Bombadil, to the game, where miniatures for these folk would have just gotten too cumbersome. The card’s usage accurately reflects the theme of the book, in my opinion, and playing the right card at the right time can drastically effect the game. The cards also have a dual-use, where players can use them in battle. This causes a player to choose between the usefulness of the card as an event, or the help it would do them in battle. My only complaint about the game actually comes from the cards. A player who has played the game has a leg up on those who haven’t, simply due to the knowledge of what’s on the cards. For example, if a Shadow player doesn’t know anything about the Ent cards, they might leave Saruman undefended, assuming that the Light forces are too weak to break through. The Ent cards could then wipe out Saruman, hurting the Dark player considerably. If I’m the Shadow player, however, I know these cards exist and will make sure that Saruman is NEVER left undefended. This probably means that the first game of any player is going to be a learning game.
8.) Battles: The battle system, while interesting, isn’t anything spectacular, but it works. It allows for a maximum of five dice to be rolled at a time, and the leaders play a powerful role. At the same time, the siege system is much more interesting. It allows the Free People to hole up in a secure spot but forces them to just sit there, taking hits until they are wiped out or rescued (highly unlikely).
9.) Victory Conditions: The game is like a complicated race. The Shadow is racing to destroy as many Light Strongholds as they can, while the Light side is struggling to get the Ring in Mount Doom. The Light side military victory (while non-thematic) is practically impossible, but they must do their best with their forces to tie up the Shadow player as long as possible. It’s all a race with that accursed ring!
10.) Rules: The rulebook is very detailed and long; but after a careful reading or two, the game is fairly simple. At the same time, the game does take a while to explain; even when I explained it the third time to a group, it still took me twenty to thirty minutes before they had a general idea of what was going on. There are PILES of helpful downloads on the internet; and I recommend finding a good one, because you will find yourself referencing it a lot. Everything on the board is fairly clear; but some things like the symbols on the tokens on the political track aren’t labeled, and only a Tolkien fanatic would know what they stood for.
11.) Artwork: A quick note on the artwork - it’s beautiful and very true to the spirit of the books. From the hefty box, to the rulebook, to the huge game board, to the little tokens - everything looks and feels Tolkien.
12.) Fun Factor and Time: The game is a LOT of fun, especially if you’re a Tolkien fan. Games come down to the wire; one of my games ended as the hobbits teetered on the edge of Mount Doom about to cast the ring in. The game is lengthy, running three to four hours; but it’s an involving game, and watching the events unfold is interesting. The game follows the general path of the book, but there’s enough deviation for the replayability factor to be high. It’s a tremendous two-player game (works well with four) and satisfies even a war-game hater like me.
If you like Tolkien, light war games, or just good games in general, then this is one for you. Yes, it’s long and fairly complicated, but the experiences it will provide are worth it. I know it’s not for everyone; many folk who prefer light, fluffy games will be overwhelmed by this heavy, heavy game. Yet if you have any interest at all, pick it up; it certainly will provide one with enough fantasy war to last a long time. This, in my opinion, is the definitive Lord of the Rings game. Knizia’s is fun and interesting; but to get the full experience of the books, look no further - the superlative game has arrived.
Tom Vasel
“Real men play board games.”
-
Stephen Sanders
United States
Henderson
Texas
25% Scottish, 25% Dutch, 18% English, 15% Irish, 9% German, 5% French, 3% "Black Dutch" (?) = 100% American!
-
Re:User Review
TomVasel (#75112),
Anyone wanting a good overview of the game should read Tom's article. I also gave it a 9.5 for all of the same reasons stated above. Well done, Tom.
-
Matt Carlson
United States
West Lafayette
Indiana
-
Re:User Review
Wow, excellent review. Its great to just hear opinions (with explanations) about aspects of a game rather than a rules rehash. Knowing the general genre of the game, I can infer most of the rules I need to know just by reading your opinions.
Thanks!
-
christopher smiley
United States
sacramento
California
-
Re:User Review
TomVasel (#75112),
great review, and well said...
thanks!
-
Mike O'Toole
United States
Perrysburg
Ohio
-
Re:User Review
TomVasel (#75112),
This is one of the rare games that basic game is more fun than the advanced version. Its no where near perfect. Here's my take:
1) Minitures - not bad but many companies do better. Mine were in terrible shape. Lots of mold fouling and warping. Most of the Nazguls don't stand.
2) Dice System - works well in the basic game. It becomes very muddled in the advanced game. You get too many action cards and most of your dice are consume trying to play cards.
3) Companions, the Hunt, and Politics - I found all the additional rules here very tiresome. There is precious little strategy involved in all the dice rolling and chit picking. They add little to the game except time tracking all this stuff.
4) Cards - there are just way to many of them. You spend most of your time figuring how to get rid of them. They take much excitement out of the game as your just following the cards. Allowing non-warring nation to muster with a card is a mistake.
5) Battle System - It is really well done. Fits well in the strategic game and the advanced rules flush it out nicely. Again, the over prevalence of cards detract from this elegant system.
6) Victory Conditions - They are great and define the game. However, it is a looonng game. The basic game between equal players goes for 3-4 hours. The advance game could be twice as long.
My other main beef is all the counters and markers. All of the symbology gets very confusing. It drives up the set up time remarkably.
-
Jeff Kuhn
United States
Garner
North Carolina
-
Re:User Review
mlotoole0@excite.com wrote:
TomVasel (#75112),
This is one of the rare games that basic game is more fun than the advanced version.
I disagree. The basic game strips most of the really useful and interesting mechanics from the game. Besides, this is a pretty simple game, relatively speaking. For what purpose are basic rules even included? It takes only a little more effort to master the full rules.
1) Minitures - not bad but many companies do better. Mine were in terrible shape. Lots of mold fouling and warping. Most of the Nazguls don't stand.
I love to gripe as much as the next person, but let's not rush to judgement. The miniatures are VERY well sculpted and obviously a lot of time was spent on them. Even the coloring is not a major issue, because players become familiar with the units pretty quickly (the result is that, with good guys all blue and bad guys all red, it's easier to see how the tide is flowing with a glance at the board) The only problem is that they were made of such soft plastic instead of a nice strong resin such as Games Workshop uses. I noticed this when I went to "repair" my miniatures.
I'm not trying to single you out on this comment because it's a frequent gripe about the game. But let's not forget, a couple of days in a warehouse or the back of a hot UPS truck is enough to cause the warping that most people are seeing, even if the minis came pristine from the manufacturer. (moral: don't leave your game packed in a hot car this summer, esp. if you painted those minis!)
However, I do disagree with most of your points here concerning the standard vs. basic game. The dice and cards are really the only thing that keep this from being a boring, predictable and scripted game.
-
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
-
Re:User Review
Hey Tom,
This is one of those situations where it might pay to play the game a few more times. 
While I think War of the Ring has some strengths, there are some serious issues too that would bear mentioning. I'll focus here on the downsides, since you've mentioned the good stuff already.
First off is the very poor functionality of many components. These have been griped on in great detail in many placed, but suffice to say they include area so small they are unusable (at the same time roughly a third of the board is wasted space), diplomacy counters that are detailed but so similar as to be indistinguishable without inspection, and figs that are way too hard to tell apart and too subject to poor manufacturing quality. Iconography is routinely used extremely poorly (Why is the sword your movement allowance? Why is a shield leadership? And why does a sword with a slash through it mean "stop"?). And never mind the miniscule font sizes are cards that are mostly empty. Every single person I've played with has been baffled by many of these choices.
The balance on the card deck is poor; too many event cards are worthless.
The game is long, and significant chunks of that time are spent fiddling (mustering guys one or two at a time, or moving armies through the 7 spaces or whatever required to get to the front lines).
Also, as you play the game, too many of the apparently rich strategic choices fall away. I don't think even the serious fans of the game would disagree with me when I say that actually spending an action to allow a Companion to leave the fellowship is a bad, bad idea, as there is virtually zero upside. If you seriously look at them, none of the compansion's special abilities once they've left - other than Gandalf, who is leaving anyway via death - are worth anything in actual practice (the possible exception here is Gimli if the SP is persuing an oddball strategy, but the odds are quite remote even in that case). Most objectives for the Shadow Player are non-viable once the Free Peoples realize that the answer is to push the fellowship at every opportunity.
I would agree with you that the novice should play the Shadow, but my reasoning is somwhat different ... if the Free Peoples mistakes this for a primarily military game, the game can take absolutely forever and this is a game that's only going to be fun for 2, 2.5 hours tops.
War of the Ring is a game that's not bad, but doesn't hold up too well next to wargames like Hammer of the Scots, Rommel in the Desert, or Lock 'n Load, all of which are of similar ballpark complexity. Too much effort was spent on the theme (which is at best partially successful), and not enough on making sure the fundamental game was sufficiently robust.
-
Mike O'Toole
United States
Perrysburg
Ohio
-
Re:User Review
cfarrell (#79611),
Well said Mr. Farrell. Precisely why I found the basic game to be more challenging and tense than the advanced version.
The basic rules play faster and give players more critical choices to make. Hallmarks of an exciting game.
The only area I differ on is the event card thing. I found them to be too important. This may due to a rules issue. We allowed players to play muster cards for nations not at war. This allows the FP player to mount effective defense very early and clearly detracted from the game. Perhaps that is a wrong interpretation.
-
Jeff Kuhn
United States
Garner
North Carolina
-
Re:User Review
mlotoole0@excite.com (#80469),
Mike, I believe you are indeed playing that correctly. The rulebook states:
"If a card text directs you to Recruit units or Leaders, these units or Leaders are taken from your available reinforcements. Such Event Cards may be used even when a Nation is not “At War” and also allows you to place units in a Stronghold under siege (where you normally may not recruit units). Other restrictions (such as the limit to the number of units in a Region or the fact that a Region must be free from enemy units) still apply."
I realize that is not in the introductory rules, but in the intro. set under restrictions it says that nations not at war cannot muster using a die. It says nothing about using cards.
I would comment that speed of play is a relative term. I find the advanced game to be extremely fast-paced, so I feel no need to have it speed up further. Play speeds as the rules are learned as well, which for WotR seems very quickly, so I don't think that's an issue for most people. I also feel that the way the cards are used in the intro. game does not in fact add to the tension. In the adv. game, the effects listed on the cards (ignored in the basic game) are what really has you worried and tense. The same is true of the Hunt. In the basic game, it only boils down to which happens first: the FP reaches Mordor (auto-dunk) or the SP captures 5 cities/strongholds. So basically, the SP moves the Fellowship figure away from Mordor to lengthen the game. In the adv. game, the fellowship track and corruption adds a lot more tension because 1.) nobody (even the FP) knows where the Fellowship is exactly and 2.) when those Hunt tiles come out, the FP needs to figure out how to deal with it. That adds so many more critical choices to the game. Do you play an event card? Do you discard one now to hold onto a good one for later? Do you split off members to limit the Hunt? Who is going to die to soak up corruption? etc.
Decisions, decisions. I just see a hell of a lot more of them in the adv. game than the basic game.
-
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
-
Re:User Review
2.) when those Hunt tiles come out, the FP needs to figure out how to deal with it. That adds so many more critical choices to the game.
Well ..
Do you play an event card?
If it helps against the hunt, yes.
Do you discard one now to hold onto a good one for later?
Yes. Although the question is kinda vague, there are always borderline events to discard to keep the good ones.
Do you split off members to limit the Hunt?
No.
Who is going to die to soak up corruption?
Doesn't matter. The only tactical matter is to make sure you don't waste hits, i.e., you never let a companion die while absorbing less than his level. But practically speaking, your choices are limited (burn the guide, or burn someone random).
This really is my main gripe with the game. A lot of these choices seem interesting when you first play the game, but as you move on it becomes clear most of them really are non-choices.
-
You can call me Foob
United States
Deale
Maryland
-
Re:User Review
cfarrell (#81161),
Pretty big gripe.
-
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
-
Re:User Review
fubar awol (#81199),
Yeah, well, if you consider 3-4 plays OK from a $60 game, then it's not such a big deal. Personally, I'm not sure.
-
John Tesoriero
United States
Brooklyn
New York
-
Re:User Review
cfarrell (#81161),
Not having played the game, I'm not able to fully understand this, I'm sure.
However, having a mechanic in a game that allows for situations like you've described doesn't necessarily make it a bad game. The so-called "non-choice" for one player is often the result of a skillfully played move on the part of the other player. A skillful chess player can give his/her opponent several apparent non-choices during a game, including but not limited to incurring "check".
Like I said, I don't know how these Hunt tiles work, but does the game at least allow for some strategy regarding the timing of these non-choice situations? Can the SP be clever about when he/she chooses to attack the companions? Does the FP player have another means of avoiding the attacks?
-
Walter Akkermann
Germany
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Re:User Review
Why do you play WotR? I play it because I love the story. The advanced rules get me into the story. The basic game doesn't.
1) Minitures
Some Nazgul really fall over all the time. But then I wrote an email to Phalanx and they sent me new ones (same with wonky dwarves). While I agree it's better to be perfect from the beginnig, I think this service makes up for their mistake.
2) Dice System
Having few dice to choose from is one of the things I love. You never can decide. And throwing away good cards hurts, but then you HAVE to.
3) Companions, the Hunt, and Politics
Without these things the game is basically Risk.
4) Cards
Sure, WotR can seem to be scripted. But just count the number of cards you use in a game. I don't think it will be all. Anyway, waiting for the right moment to strike Saruman from Fangorn so you get an extra movement, then get Strider to Pelargir with an army and turn him into Aragorn at the same time - and then look at Sauron's face - great feelings!
It is long if you're lucky (in my opinion). But then this is a game impossible for everybody to love. I assume that without having read the books and without still loving the books this game is just too complicated. Why bother for something you're not involved with? And seeing the movies won't hook you, they are too conventional and "kitschig". So if you don't care about LotR test before (not) buying. But I'm keeping my copy (btw, I'd like to get my hands on an english copy!)
-
Mike O'Toole
United States
Perrysburg
Ohio
-
Re:User Review
Xookliba (#80892),
I find the advanced game to be simply playing cards. You are constantly trying to match your cards to your dice to minimize discards. This gives the game a whole new feel from the basic version. Player choice is almost eliminated.
It also changes the game dramatically for the FP player. He no longer needs to get his nations to war. He can card muster and build up adequate defenses. Thus, he is free to concentrate on moving the ring.
As far as Game Length goes, our basic games usually go 3-4 hours. The advanced games twice that. It is very hard to complete an advanced game in one night. That is a very bad thing as it is impossible to leave this massive game set up.
With all games, simplicity is beauty. That is why chess is a great game. Easy to learn, impossible to master (and yes you can finish a game in one night). The advanced game gets more complex with less decisions and strategic thinking.
-
Jeff Kuhn
United States
Garner
North Carolina
-
Re:User Review
mlotoole0@excite.com (#81796),
Mike I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I see your point, and I will go as far as agree with a couple of observations you have made (if not your conclusions):
Quote: I find the advanced game to be simply playing cards. You are constantly trying to match your cards to your dice to minimize discards. This gives the game a whole new feel from the basic version. Player choice is almost eliminated.
I see both the dice and the cards as an abstract model of your resources as a player. Instead of being able to do anything you want, you must choose wisely. You can view it as a restriction of choices, or you can view it as "real-world constraints."
Quote: It also changes the game dramatically for the FP player. He no longer needs to get his nations to war. He can card muster and build up adequate defenses. Thus, he is free to concentrate on moving the ring.
Yeah, that is somewhat true (as long as the WK enters play, activation is free). OTOH, there is no activation mechanic in the basic game's political system. As I see it, that mechanic lends a nuance to the game which actually increases the amount of choices which must be made (ie, when weighing the consequences of activating a nation). Also, only with certain special cards may they muster, which is where the intro. and adv. games differ. You may not use a card with a muster icon to muster troops as in the intro. game. A card with a muster icon simply may be played using a muster die result. (Regardless of what I said earlier, I would probably play the intro. game that you cannot muster with cards OR dice until a nation is "At War," even if mustering with a card is not explicitly stated as a restriction in the intro. rules) So actually, the effect you site is true only in the basic game, not advanced game.
Quote: As far as Game Length goes, our basic games usually go 3-4 hours. The advanced games twice that. It is very hard to complete an advanced game in one night. That is a very bad thing as it is impossible to leave this massive game set up.
This is really a matter of relativity, or YMMV. Some would agree with you, others would not. Many have stated that play time is more on the order of 1.5-3 hr. for the majority of adv. games (with familiarity to the rules). For me, anything that can be played in 1 day is a short game, relative to the types of games I normally play. Also, realtively speaking, I find the game quite compact. Most of my games would not fit on the dining room table. Again, different strokes...
Quote: With all games, simplicity is beauty. That is why chess is a great game. Easy to learn, impossible to master (and yes you can finish a game in one night). The advanced game gets more complex with less decisions and strategic thinking.
Simplicity is often elegant, no doubt. Simplicity also lends itself to quick play. Some players like more chrome, others do not. So what you say here is no doubt true for some. I guess I just see the added chrome as less of a burden, such that the increase in the gaming enjoyment is greater than the added rule burden. As I said above, you can view it as restricting decisions, or you can view it as a constraint which affects your decision-making process. I would comment that chess is about limiting your opponents choices while maximizing your own.
-
Andy Daglish
United Kingdom
Cheadle
Cheshire
-
Re:User Review
Cards - there are just way to many of them.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086879/
Check the trivia section. Clearly this type of criticism has been around for a long time.
to continue with some of Chris's points:-
First off is the very poor functionality of many components. These have been griped on in great detail in many placed, but suffice to say they include area so small they are unusable (at the same time roughly a third of the board is wasted space), diplomacy counters that are detailed but so similar as to be indistinguishable without inspection, and figs that are way too hard to tell apart and too subject to poor manufacturing quality. Iconography is routinely used extremely poorly (Why is the sword your movement allowance? Why is a shield leadership? And why does a sword with a slash through it mean "stop"?). And never mind the miniscule font sizes are cards that are mostly empty. Every single person I've played with has been baffled by many of these choices.
Ok, but the design and the componentry [and the Chinese people who presumably screwed up the collation, which really is an issue], are unconnected. One reason for the nature of the published game's components was to get the price down to 35 dollars or so and this has made it available to a wider audience. Tolkien's maps I find a tad childish, but they are what every designer has to go with, and indeed there is lots of space east of Mirkwood of no significance to either book or game. Obviously the countersheet is international and therefore language free. FFG's input was overseeing the English version and they ignored offers of help on that. Then we can tell top fantasy artist John Howe that he could have done better, and for sure titles on the political markers, and bigger markers, would have been an excellent idea. Unit replacement counters don't work but luckily they are not actually necessary. i agree that this could all be done differently, and such comments were made by -ahem- certain persons in good time prior to publication. However I still have hopes for a deLuxe version costing twice as much, or possibly more.
The balance on the card deck is poor; too many event cards are worthless.
absolutely positive?? there's only one event notorious for rarely being played, which is Last Battle, but this is balanced by its devastating, emergent game-changing effect when it does come out. Another one I recall was House of Stewards, as Boromir always seemed to die long before Gondor. Most of the rest can be game-winning/losing, if they can be played at the right time. To say many cards are "worthless" suggests that their worth has yet to be experienced, and this isn't going to happen in a few plays.
The cards are split-action which further devalues the idea that an individual card can have no use. As for balance, I am at a loss to know what this means. We can all agree that the worth of a card is mainly dependent on when it is drawn and the game circumstances at that time, and whether it can be played at all. I find it hard to see where "balance" fits into that.
The game is long, and significant chunks of that time are spent fiddling (mustering guys one or two at a time, or moving armies through the 7 spaces or whatever required to get to the front lines).
i think if you play with someone who can't wait for their next move, there may be some benefit. You may find you keep him waiting, before he musters his next two elites in Isengard. i think with a game of this quality its not so much componentry as opponentry which is the problem and I cite as my evidence both the clever comments on this geek page, and the rest also. Too many notes indeed.
Also, as you play the game, too many of the apparently rich strategic choices fall away.
Well, there are none for the FP. They are going to the mountain whilst attempting to survive miltarily. Making a "strategic choice" when you have none is death for the SA, so they'd tend not to do that either. The variation you hope for is of course in those worthless events and the order in which they emerge. Both sides are managing an emergency situation. The power of offense and defence is low so both sides must promote whatever they have got, and either side can suddenly be confronted with an upsetting situation. This game is for Mr. Tactical, not for 1914 generals.
I don't think even the serious fans of the game would disagree with me when I say that actually spending an action to allow a Companion to leave the fellowship is a bad, bad idea, as there is virtually zero upside. If you seriously look at them, none of the compansion's special abilities once they've left - other than Gandalf, who is leaving anyway via death - are worth anything in actual practice (the possible exception here is Gimli if the SP is persuing an oddball strategy, but the odds are quite remote even in that case). Most objectives for the Shadow Player are non-viable once the Free Peoples realize that the answer is to push the fellowship at every opportunity.
entirely dependent on the cirumstances, but again this kind of comment is, shall we say, wrong in alignment. Gandalf and Strider are separating anyway. The other five are not that significant as this matches the books. However companions can win a game merely by causing a siege to fail, if they separate at the right time and place. For sure this may not happen often, and personally I see no special signifance in Gimli especially as the Dwarves are a near-irrelevance [maybe getting rid of Smaug was their 15 mins of fame, 50 years before], and I agree separation of them will most often not be a good idea. However leaving companions outside Morannon or Morgul so that you can enter Mordor with two left in the Fellowship is possibly an indication that better play would have placed them somewhere more useful. And of course this is especially true if the FP subsequently lose militarily whilst the FSP is on the V space.
The designers wanted separation of companions to be a big deal but I think that circumstance, and the design, was against them, not least because the issue is in fact unimportant.
I would agree with you that the novice should play the Shadow, but my reasoning is somwhat different ... if the Free Peoples mistakes this for a primarily military game,
he'll lose
the game can take absolutely forever and this is a game that's only going to be fun for 2, 2.5 hours tops.
the 3 1/2 hour games are the best of all, as here both ring and military games remain knife-edge simultaneously.
War of the Ring is a game that's not bad, but doesn't hold up too well next to wargames like Hammer of the Scots, Rommel in the Desert, or Lock 'n Load, all of which are of similar ballpark complexity. Too much effort was spent on the theme (which is at best partially successful), and not enough on making sure the fundamental game was sufficiently robust.
it is a game where you can't say who is winning after 3 hours despite an extremely dynamic situation. There aren't many of those. The system seems to be a step on from the GMT card series, but owes everything to the dual-game nature of the Ring and military endeavours. The design is solid and spectacularly effective given its simplicity. A failure to discern what are significant features of it, and what are not, on the part of those who have played it a few times, should not affect this! The old problem of theme is a case in point. This seems to be a particular issue with German-style games in America, and the Euro view may be best described by saying that theme is totally unimportant compared to quality of game design, and the proof is that a good design may be themed several different ways over various reprints [and no one much cares what the themes are, so long as it looks good]. It is therefore very like paint on a car. Quite how theme affects WotR is hard to figure as we all know the book situation so well. I would say the books portray the war as an almost absurd exhibition of failure, this game does not.
-
John Cataldo
United States
Somerville
Massachusetts
-
Re:User Review
6) Victory Conditions - They are great and define the game. However, it is a looonng game. The basic game between equal players goes for 3-4 hours. The advance game could be twice as long.
Just as a data point, the first time I played it took just under four hours to finish the advanced game (having never played the basic game; I didn't bother).
I expect future games with players who have played at least one full game (i.e. know the rules) will take three hours or less, nothing like the six to eight hours you fear.
.
-
Jeff Kuhn
United States
Garner
North Carolina
-
Re:User Review
Quote: I see no special signifance in Gimli especially as the Dwarves are a near-irrelevance [maybe getting rid of Smaug was their 15 mins of fame, 50 years before]
So maybe that means they are ideed totally irrelevant, because they did not get rid of the Dragon, that would have been Bard of Dale ("The North" nation, I guess).
Maybe they should get credit for partially clearing Moria, although they were over-matched there big time.
-
Stephen Sanders
United States
Henderson
Texas
25% Scottish, 25% Dutch, 18% English, 15% Irish, 9% German, 5% French, 3% "Black Dutch" (?) = 100% American!
-
Re:User Review
aforandy (#82083),
Yes, Andy, you have said it well. I see the above response as quite an overraction because of impatience with learning the game system. I have had some fantastic 3 hour games, which were fun to the end. It is actually the mark of a brilliant game system that demands several games of play before one can really appreciate the various strategic opportunities that are possible to affect the outcome. I continue to enjoy the game, knowing that I will be committed to close to three hours of thoughtful play. The cards are an important part of that planning and execution.
-
You can call me Foob
United States
Deale
Maryland
-
Re:User Review
aforandy (#82083),
Andy is way too close to this one to be objective. Chris is right.
-
Bruce Sturrock
United Kingdom
Bradford
West Yorkshire
-
Re:User Review
fubar awol (#83785),
Oh, this is becomeing a game that people either love or hate. I love it - unfortunatly the people I play against hate it...they've mainly played the Shadow though and find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that they constantly feel like they're losing until they snatch victory at the edge of mount doom. There's various stuff that I do as the FP that others don't that really winds them up - I spend a lot of my dice playing cards that they think are more powerful than theirs because they are busy moving their troops.
I do break the fellowship and use companions to their full potential in defending strongholds and my opponants hate and fear the sight of these individuals moving over the map to the places they are about to attack...worth using the dice? Yeah - double the bonus if you've got an event card that adds extra effects.
I had gandalf surrounded in Edoras with Shadow armies on all sides - and my risk playing friend was rubbing his hands thinking he was going to destroy the wizard and his small token army. Obviously I chose to flee Gandalf through his armies and leave the Rohirrm to their doom with my first dice. This caused so much consternation I couldn't really understand - Is it such a hard leap to see that a single white wizard on a swift horse could ride through the riddermark and avoid the approaching Uruk-Hai army? To my friend is seemed unfair - what I found difficult to make him understand was that although I may have kept my extra dice - I had wasted an action this turn and Edoras was being gifted to him by Gandalfs cowardice.
He went on to win the game - the fellowship floundering on the 3 space in Mordor while the DEW area struggled to react to the Easterlings forces.
Seems to me that the game creates in the players the passions of the forces they play. The SA players hate so much they get all angry and evil looking - while I soldier on unremmitting optimisic and bravely utilising all my resources until the end when doom stares me in the face...
B
-
Günter D'Hoogh
Belgium
Wespelaar
Brabant
-
Re:User Review
cfarrell wrote:
Hey Tom,
This is one of those situations where it might pay to play the game a few more times.
While I think War of the Ring has some strengths, there are some serious issues too that would bear mentioning. I'll focus here on the downsides, since you've mentioned the good stuff already.
First off is the very poor functionality of many components. These have been griped on in great detail in many placed, but suffice to say they include area so small they are unusable (at the same time roughly a third of the board is wasted space), diplomacy counters that are detailed but so similar as to be indistinguishable without inspection, and figs that are way too hard to tell apart and too subject to poor manufacturing quality. Iconography is routinely used extremely poorly (Why is the sword your movement allowance? Why is a shield leadership? And why does a sword with a slash through it mean "stop"?). And never mind the miniscule font sizes are cards that are mostly empty. Every single person I've played with has been baffled by many of these choices.
The balance on the card deck is poor; too many event cards are worthless.
The game is long, and significant chunks of that time are spent fiddling (mustering guys one or two at a time, or moving armies through the 7 spaces or whatever required to get to the front lines).
Also, as you play the game, too many of the apparently rich strategic choices fall away. I don't think even the serious fans of the game would disagree with me when I say that actually spending an action to allow a Companion to leave the fellowship is a bad, bad idea, as there is virtually zero upside. If you seriously look at them, none of the compansion's special abilities once they've left - other than Gandalf, who is leaving anyway via death - are worth anything in actual practice (the possible exception here is Gimli if the SP is persuing an oddball strategy, but the odds are quite remote even in that case). Most objectives for the Shadow Player are non-viable once the Free Peoples realize that the answer is to push the fellowship at every opportunity.
I would agree with you that the novice should play the Shadow, but my reasoning is somwhat different ... if the Free Peoples mistakes this for a primarily military game, the game can take absolutely forever and this is a game that's only going to be fun for 2, 2.5 hours tops.
War of the Ring is a game that's not bad, but doesn't hold up too well next to wargames like Hammer of the Scots, Rommel in the Desert, or Lock 'n Load, all of which are of similar ballpark complexity. Too much effort was spent on the theme (which is at best partially successful), and not enough on making sure the fundamental game was sufficiently robust.
Sorry, but I think you can't compare this with "Hammer of the Scots" or "Rommel in the Desert"!! I own alomost every game from Columbia Games, and "War of the Ring" (which I also own and like VERY much) is totally different from the afore mentioned games! IMHO "War of the Ring" is a very good game if you like the fantasy theme!
-
Jason Little
United States
Eden Prairie
Minnesota
-
Re:User Review
TomVasel (#75112),
Wow -- the game Tom's describing sounds awesome!!
Unfortunately, it's not the same game that came inside my copy of War of the Ring. I've still got to go with a great big ol' "yucko" for this game... The game that came with my WotR box is plodding, dry, unnecessarily convoluted, riddled with special exceptions, overly reliant on luck and overly reliant on advanced knowledge of all the game components (hunt tiles and event cards), and as several people have stated, takes several playings to get the feel for. If I'm going to invest that much time, I better be enjoying myself along the way.
For the time investment, I'd far prefer playing Twilight Imperium 3, A Game of Thrones, Hammer of the Scots, Axis & Allies: D-Day... Or several shorter games.
-
RIK FONTANA
United States
Sandy
Utah
-
Re:User Review
Hey Tom and others, Have really enjoyed following this link (like a boxing match!). Appreciate his great review and other's contradictory opinions. I was all set to get the game at GEN CON, but then went to watch a demo in progress. Now I am in my 50's and admit that my eyesight isn't what it used to be. But HOW could they possibly have gone with that itty, bitty print on the cards!!! I just couldn't read it. So I watched awhile, and then checked back several times. The first game, which featured four players (2 novice and 2 playtesters) PLUS a moderator, ended at the 4.5 hour mark. And they were moving along at a fairly brisk pace. The evening game went about the same length. While this is no problem for me, I knew my gaming buddys prefer 3 hour range tops. It is interesting given that defenders of the system maintain their battles last about that long. Just don't see how they do it, having watched a few games live run by the publishers.
-
|
|
Top 100 Games of all Time
