LotR War(ish) Games

[Bison]

I'm currently looking at both The Battle of the Five Armies and The War of the Rings board games.  I love the writings of Tolkien and want a game based on his works.  I have the LCG game which I'm not overly fond of playing.  And area control games are one of my favorite game mechanics so both of these meet that requirement.

Has anyone played either of these two?  I've read that the Five Armies game is more tactical while the WotR game is more strategic.  Both have a good deal of luck or as I like to refer to it dice based variance. 

[Ubercat]

I managed 3rd place in the WotR tournament at WBC 2011. It's a good game and my mini's are approximately 85% painted, but I haven't touched it in several years. Runewars took over that particular gaming spot in my heart.

I'm not a fan of the LCG, either, and will be selling my core set in the auction store at WBC this year.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I haven't tried Five Armies but War of the Ring was fun.  It reminds me a bit of Star Wars: Rebellion.  It does have some quirks though.  The two that stood out to me were that the good guys couldn't attack the Mordorians until a state of war was able to be declared so even though you can see a massive army of orcs camping out right on the border of Gondor, there's nothing you can do about it other than wait for the hammer to fall.  The other thing that stood out was that (and this is based only on one play through myself and conversations with others who've played a few times) it seems like Sauron's forces can force a win just through attrition warfare rather than concentrating on hunting down the Ring.

(I actually rather like playing the LCG...)

[Bison]

I looked briefly at Runewars at one point, but I think I dismissed it due to the idea that it plays better with 4 than 2 or 3.  IIRC there is a bidding mechanic in the game, which isn't a mechanic I feel works well at 2 player counts.

Isn't one of the win conditions for the shadow player to do just that though?  I mean whittle down the Free Men and control territory?

[Ubercat]

A Shadow military win is perfectly feasible and realistic. Orcs breed like rabbits and the Southron/Easterlings also have large populations. What that boils down to in the game is that shadow basic and elite units can always be rebuilt when they die. Free peoples units are out of the game when they get killed. This forces the good guys to try like hell to dunk the ring.

It's also possible for the good guys to win a military victory but I've never seen it happen. Going on the attack means besieging enemy fortresses, which means heavy losses. The west's fortresses are vital to their holding out long enough for a ring victory. Orcs and bad humans typically die like flies while Sauron tries to force a military victory. The West can't afford such losses even though their military victory conditions are much less onerous.

[Nefaro]

I'm hoping to play a game of Rune Wars sometime this year.  Still haven't done so.  May try 2-player to see how well it works.  The blind bidding part doesn't bother me.  Reminds me of the way it works in the Mage Knight game.  Selecting from your set of priority cards and then showing to figure out the turn order (faster turn order means situational bonus on something.  Which means you'll generally have to make a decision between acting quickly, or doing your intended action a little bit better but slower.  Good thematic mechanic if it's done well.

My undecided point is whether I'd like combat resolution based on card draws, but it should be fine other than having to shuffle a bit more.  However, it would drive me nuts if it were someone who couldn't shuffle worth a damn.



WotR has been gathering dust on my shelf.  It's an interesting game, just haven't found the mood or opponent.





I suppose you could also try others like:


Chaos in the Old World   --
Heard great stuff about this one.  You play the Chaos Gods vying to take over the world, in Warhammer Fantasy theme.  Unique factions, card-driven mechanics.  Out of print a few years.. may take some searching.  Doubt it will ever get reprinted since GW pulled their licenses from FFG.


Defenders of the Realm   --
Co-op & solitaire area control, fairly light on rules.  But you play an individual hero as opposed to an army.  More like an 'area defense' game.


Kemet
Has a fantasy ancient Egyptian theme, but still fantasy.  The Area Control facet isn't all that strong (often temporary) but it has a lot of faction abilities to 'buy' & customize with as you play, including big ass monsters.  They have other related ones (Cyclades iirc?) that are somewhat similar, and Kemet has an expansion last I looked.

[Ubercat]

My undecided point is whether I'd like combat resolution based on card draws, but it should be fine other than having to shuffle a bit more.  However, it would drive me nuts if it were someone who couldn't shuffle worth a damn

There are 30 combat cards in Runewars. It's easy enough to map out the possible draws for each unit to numbers on a 30 sided die. I bought half a dozen 30 siders and printed up a very simple chart sheet to show the possible results for each class of unit. It definitely makes combat go faster. Also, you don't shuffle the deck until you run out of cards. Obviously this makes it possible to remember what successful cards were drawn in the previous combat so you can judge your odds of success in the next one. The dice fix that problem, too.

[Bison]

Kemet and  Cyclades are on my radar.  There some aspects of Kemet I'm just not sold on completely like the card driven combat and the area control really seems limited to the couple of temples.  It gets rave reviews, but for what it is I just wonder if games like Small World aren't better.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I played Kemet for the first time about a month ago.  Didn't care for it.  It felt too much like just another Cyclades or Blood Rage with a slightly different skin.  Combat was underwhelming and the area control stuff just didn't feel that compelling to me.  It seemed like it was just a race to get monsters and then turtle until someone gets weakened and then siege them.   

[Nefaro]

I played Kemet for the first time about a month ago.  Didn't care for it.  It felt too much like just another Cyclades or Blood Rage with a slightly different skin.  Combat was underwhelming and the area control stuff just didn't feel that compelling to me.  It seemed like it was just a race to get monsters and then turtle until someone gets weakened and then siege them.

I had a similar impressions.

Played it twice thus far.  I'm beginning to think it shouldn't be classified as an Area Control game.  More like a mythic empire/army customizing contest.  ;D 

There's practically no multi-turn movement processes; not much army maneuver strategy at all.  You "tech" up and send your numbers-limited army straight to a battle somewhere on the board.  The largest part of the strategy being the abilities you've been purchasing.

On the other hand, I recall my last 3-player game playing out very quickly.  Although that's probably due to me comparing it to proper Area Control games which typically take numerous hours.  There's some quality in a game that can be finished so quickly. 

I still couldn't help thinking that Kemet would've been better if they had incorporated larger armies, and more map zones.  Making it play more like traditional area control games with large armies moving about over time.

[Bison]

I have Inis, but that game is really about the card drafting and politics.

[Arctic Blast]

Cyclades is quite good, but don't go in expecting a dudes on a map war-a-thon because that's not what it is. Players bid for various Greek gods, then get to do certain things depending on which god they win the favor of that round. Plus there are mythological creatures who pop up and can be purchased by whoever wants them on their turn. They tend to be one-offs, though a few have lasting effects, and totally alter the rules for however long they're in effect.

[Nefaro]

Has anyone played either of these two?  I've read that the Five Armies game is more tactical while the WotR game is more strategic.  Both have a good deal of luck or as I like to refer to it dice based variance.

I've not played Battle of the Five Armies but, from what I understand, it's more of a war-a-thon than War of the Ring.  Although they both qualify, WotR has the extra uneven facets SDR mentioned.  Extra things going on, and different styles to each side. 

They're both just 2-player games AFAIK.  Although WotR has a shoehorned 3- and 4-player option, it's a matter of dividing the sides.  Which can end up with some players doing more, at certain times, than others.  So probably not ideal with more than 2.

[Cyrano]

Own and have played both.

WotR is the deeper experience, but both are a good time.  I liked WotR enough, though, that I picked up an authentic 2nd ed. at Nexus Game Fair's silent auction yesterday rather than fiddling with the upgrade kit.  Dude even threw in the Treebeard figure of which I was unaware.

The 4p option is all right, but, as said, it's clearly designed for 2.