It was initially released in to tie in with the movie The Fellowship of the Ring. Later Games Workshop also began to add content that was featured in the original novels but not in the film adaptations e. This was generally supported, but there was mixed reactions when Games Workshop invented characters and wrote histories for lands Tolkien wrote little about, such as Harad. Games Workshop released a complete new edition of the rules and rulebooks in September , entitled "One Rulebook to Rule them All".
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||12 December 2007|
|PDF File Size:||4.10 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.88 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This message was edited 1 time. This message was edited 4 times. This message was edited 2 times. Forum Index. Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The question in the title. Is it expensive? Is it comparable in scale with Warhammer 40K , or is it something more in size with Killteam? How much does the average army cost? What is the average army size? If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
I'm not the most experienced player but I will try to answer your questions best I can. But tying in to your other question, army sizes are smaller than in 40k albeit higher than Killteam as well. Army size depends a bit on what you want to do but from what little I have seen a points game is about models, points is also common and is basically an extra hero and an extra box of models. As for how it plays, I find it very fun and more balanced than 40K.
Turn order is not static and special moves can make parts of your army move out of order. While deployed as units initially, models are free to roam around individually afterwards.
Soup is possible but not nearly as busted as in 40K and the armies are relatively well balanced To end I'll say again I'm a rather inexperienced player myself but I think most of what I said should hold. Richmond, VA. Too far If you convert your basic troops to captains and banners and don't use knights of dol Amroth as you'll need the ones on foot at stupid prices Although the rulebook and "army book" will cost more than an army ValentineGames wrote: If you convert your basic troops to captains and banners and don't use knights of dol Amroth as you'll need the ones on foot at stupid prices Well what point range do you want to play at?
If my estimation was off, like judgedoug mentioned, than 2 boxes and assuming no kitbashing so at least 1 command will set you back around dollars not including FLGS discounts.
In my example that would give you 4 commanders of Rohan, 24 infantry and 6 cavalry units. Well back in the day I found the average size game was about pts. For me at least I remember that being: Captain Banner 24 warriors of minas tirith King of men on horse 6 gondor knights. But wouldn't be legal since the new rules focus too heavily on heroes. I assume pts is still standard. It's hard to say since nobody plays and it's never talked about.
So you'd probably still be looking at a box of infantry each. A box of cavalry each. Then just create your captains from models in those instead of wasting money on the overpriced command box sets. In the third Matched Play , you only need to add another hero to make it legal. Not a major upgrade over six years compared to, say, 40k. You won't be spending hundreds on rulebooks, or replacing them regularly. The rulebook is complete in itself, including rules for sieges and siege engines. If you're really tight for cash, share an army book and the rules with a friend.
The game plays well with a handful of heroes or with an full army. Pretty darn good value. To start with, make your captains stand out by painting the rim of their base silver rather than the usual brown. Some things I don't like - the cost of the command boxes and the elite metal troops can escalate the cost pretty quickly. There are plenty of historical minis and historical plastics out there now though.
You can also convert the plastic troops to be more elite warriors or special characters if you like. The main discussion group online is the Great British Hobbit League on Facebook, rather than forums, and it's very busy.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios. Generally it is a skirmish level game with 30ish models per side. Certain figures in the range are only suited to larger battles though. I would recommend playing the older version of the rules. As mentioned the newer one is too focused on having tons of heroes. The game is more enjoyable when you have 1 hero for every non-heroes. Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Generally it is a skirmish level game with 30ish models per side. Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. OP , here's the info you need. Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game fully realizes and defines the "three ways to play" that is the current Games Workshop ethos - that originated with Lord of the Rings. The original releases of the game in the early 's were designed for scenarios only, and traditional points matched battles were later shoehorned into the game in a haphazard way and didn't work well.
Thankfully, in the current edition the ways to play the game are clearly defined and far more balanced than any previous edition. In Open Play, there is no limit to what you can field. Re-create whatever battle you wish from the books or appendices using whatever models you wish.
In Narrative Play, you use what the scenario tells you to use, and there are dozens of currently available and hundreds of other scenarios ranging from the destruction of Fornost to the Dunedain keeping the Nazgul at bay from the Shire to the battle at the Morannon Gate. In Matched Play, there are army list building restrictions.
This is designed for tournaments or pick up and play gaming. Having a "hero" will allow you to take a certain number of warrior models anywhere from 6 to 24 depending on the hero ; many of these "heroes" are merely captains who are only slightly better than the troops they lead. Back to the OP 's question, if you are interested in Open or Narrative play, then your collection really could include whatever models you want for whichever "historical" or "hypothetical" battles you'd like to play!
If you're more focused on Matched play games, then you'd want to focus on a single army. The game scales incredibly well from literally a few models on the board to over a hundred per side.
To give you an idea of points, a typical skilled man will run 7 or 8 points, with goblins less 4 to 5 and elves more 10 to 14 ; a cavalry model perhaps 15 to 20 points, while a standard human captain would be 45 points plus options. My general rule of thumb is approximately points per hour of a game. As an example army, let's take Minas Tirith. With those three purchases alone, and upgrading a Knight to a Captain on Horse, you can craft a point army list that will form a fantastic core to expand on.
Maybe add Faramir and some Citadel Guard down the road for some elite infantry. A trebuchet or avenger for a defensive force. Maybe a contingent of Rangers with Damrod or Madril or ranger Faramir to lead them? Please let me know if you have any more questions. Overall, the balance is quite good.
Apple Peel wrote: The question in the title. Was invited for a quick game during the Hobbit: AUJ days, in one of the GW stores, and it felt like an entry-level tabletop wargame. The setting is also more accessable and familar than that of Warhammer. Without the Tolkien estate's backing to use material outside of the movies even the Hobbit movies had ownership issues , it was hard to see enough new units to keep the game alive But here it still is and how wrong we were!
I like how the game has the two styles of play - army battles and monster encounters - and even mixes them in certain scenarios. If the new edition is strictly a wargame then I dunno - probably best they'd left that to AOS Glad to hear that the game has had a positive effect on GW games thereafter.
Just thought it was worth asking as well, if or points is the "standard" matched play game size how big is the actual table space? Is it still 4x6 foot like in 40K? And also, is it acceptable to just use AoS terrain or is there a guideline for what kinds to use? Whew maybe I have gone off the rails AngryAngel80 wrote: So this poll reminds me of GW rule design, makes little sense, obviously was placed without any meaningful play testing and we're left waiting for a FAQ because right now the RAW crowd is using the open ended meaning to ruin everyones fun because we know how they intended W but we can't prove it with how it's written.
The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game
It has a skirmish-style character reminiscent of 40k , but turns into one hell of a clusterfuck and slowed down in large scale games if you're not careful. Over points the game slows down, remember this is a skirmish game with you making decisions on each individual model at times. It can be played at under points for a quick fun game, but playing at around points will let you bring some of the big toys such as monsters or wizards , without weakening your main battle line. Back in you may feel old now , the famous kiwi director Peter Jackson who you might remember from his cult hit Braindead or Dead Alive, depending on where you live , a flick that greatly pleased Khorne for being one of the bloodiest movies of all time did what was thought for decades to be impossible: to turn J. Tolkien 's The Lord of the Rings books into movies. GW, having a keen nose for when someone makes more money than they do, approached New Line Cinema film studio behind the movies , Italian publisher Deagostini famous for publishing collector's items and DIY kits, subscription-based and once piece at a time over the span of years , and Tolkien's heirs in one of the biggest crack-conspiracies this side of Snowflame : make that shit into a tabletop strategy game.