Flashback Friday - War of the Ring - Love it or Hate It? Do you Still Play It?

I got asked yesterday on an internal work-based social media space what people's favourite board game of all time was. Although I didn't put War of the Ring first, I felt I had to make an honourable mention of it. It's probably the most thematic game I've ever played. I used to love playing it and even though i don't play it anymore, I absolutely have to say that I still love this game. It's the best DOAM game I've played. I love all the feelings it evokes. A mastahpeece.

So, to begin, I have this game on my shelf and I think it's ultra cool.

That said, I think people undersell the importance of card knowledge in this game. There are like a million cards and many of them have vital pop-up invasions of random spots that you wouldn't necessarily know are coming. In that way, the game has some Twilight Struggle elements. It's definitely a game that you need to play a number of times to internalize key card contents.

I have never played War of the Ring, at least not the edition under discussion here. I did play the original by SPI, and that was a messy and overly complicated game that has deservedly been forgotten. However, there was another SPI game from that time (Freedom in the Galaxy) with a very similar design that was brought back in modern times as Star Wars: Rebellion.

Anyway, while I haven't played War of the Ring 2nd edition, I watched a full game of it. It didn't impress me. The components were a failure from a practical standpoint. The minis were usually too big for the map spaces, and the small cards appeared to be using a 4 pt font that I couldn't read. The game tried so hard to follow the books that the game was essentially scripted, which left players with an inconsequential number of meaningful decisions to make. And it was a long game, which magnified all the other shortcomings.

Like Agricola and Through the Ages, it has a good beginner version which you absolutely HAVE to play first as both sides before trying the advanced/full version. Everyone that I know that started with the advanced version never played the game again. It's just too overwhelming. The beginner version is fun because it's actually possible for the freeps to get a military victory which is fun to pull off. It's a very different game. Then when you go full version, the cards become so much fun.

I think Gary is very right. Isengard is either a thing or it isn't, depending on the cards.

The heroes/fellowship become such beasts with the right cards too, most notably Gandalf. Getting him to become the White Wixard is a fun mini-goal to get that precious extra die.

I also love how players have to tip-toe to not 'awaken' certain factions too early.

And i totally loved how unbalanced the game was at first. Really hard to win as the free peoples. I like that built-in handicap.

War of the Ring is the kind of game I’m glad I committed to learning when I did. There’s no way in hell I’d ever commit to learning a game like it nowadays, and for as much of a mess (needlessly so, I might add), I can still enjoy it now because I know it so well. It was the first game that I really dug in and said I was going to learn how to play correctly, like how ASL or 2nd edition Arkham Horror fantatics do with those games.

All this being said, I haven’t played it in awhile, and I’m okay with that. I’m a rare case of someone who got the chance to play it all the time. It was the go to for Repo and I when we started hanging out together and I used to have a downstairs neighbor who was really into when I lived in my apartment. I need to give it a very long break. I’ll come back to it someday and I’m sure it will be just as exciting as I remember. It’s a great game.

In the meantime, Star Wars Rebellion (with the _excellent_ expansion) fits that niche of an IP I love with all the “what if” scenarios that can play out, without any of the convoluted, poorly written rules we’ve come to expect out of Nexus/Ares.

Shellhead wrote: I have never played War of the Ring, at least not the edition under discussion here. I did play the original by SPI, and that was a messy and overly complicated game that has deservedly been forgotten. However, there was another SPI game from that time (Freedom in the Galaxy) with a very similar design that was brought back in modern times as Star Wars: Rebellion.

Anyway, while I haven't played War of the Ring 2nd edition, I watched a full game of it. It didn't impress me. The components were a failure from a practical standpoint. The minis were usually too big for the map spaces, and the small cards appeared to be using a 4 pt font that I couldn't read. The game tried so hard to follow the books that the game was essentially scripted, which left players with an inconsequential number of meaningful decisions to make. And it was a long game, which magnified all the other shortcomings.

It sounds like you played the first edition, which had the smaller format cards.

The second edition has the tarot sized cards, as well as holding boxes for larger armies as well as defenders hiding out in besieged fortresses. This pretty eliminated the stacking/congestion issue. I've played OCS Enemy at the Gates; any whining about stacking pales in comparison to that game around Stalingrad.

I do agree with others that today the game would probably have a somewhat harder time gaining traction amidst the onslaught of Cult of the New, but the IP is certainly compelling to fight the tide. Star Wars Rebellion seems to be holding up well in this regard and the strategy discussion in the BGG forum is not dissimilar to those that took place when WotR first came out.

Play time does come down somewhat dramatically once you get the hang of the game. I got in three games at WBC and none came in over three hours. For me that playing time is not out of line considering the game play. If you're read the books, nothing card event wise should come as a huge shock for the most part.

I think mechanically the Hunt mechanic for hiding the Fellowship is brilliant and prevents the perfect knowledge that hamstrung play in the SPI game where the end game was just a pile of Nazgul waiting on Mt Doom. In this game, you can often replicate the Fellowship staggering up the slopes of Mt Doom while some citadel is being attacked by the Witch King.

I always saw the clumsiness of the massive piles of dudes as an actual plus to the game. When Mordor FULLY musters and they start pouring out of the black gate towards Osgiliath and beyond... it is an amazing look to the map on how much doom is coming towards Gondor. Can they hold out long enough to give the fellowship a real shot at dunking the ring? I just love the visual of all those little figures massing in that area. It's terrifying.

And I like how everyone always knocks down the tall Nazgul figures by accident whenever they want to move anything at all on the board.

Msample wrote: I do agree with others that today the game would probably have a somewhat harder time gaining traction amidst the onslaught of Cult of the New, but the IP is certainly compelling to fight the tide. Star Wars Rebellion seems to be holding up well in this regard and the strategy discussion in the BGG forum is not dissimilar to those that took place when WotR first came out.

This brings up a really good point. One of my big fears with all the huge (I mean playtime and contentwise) games coming out these days is that you might get the game, play 3 times... and realize the game hasn't really been designed for the long haul and is pretty shallow. It's a distinct problem with seeing these kickstarters, who knows if they really designed the thing all the way out or they knew that people are only likely to play it at most 1-2 times and take all the minis out of the box and go "oooooh."

By contrast, War of the Ring came out at a time when there weren't many of these types of games and there had been a lot of other people grinding through a lot of games of it.

So I picked up my first edition in a trade with the Battles of the Third Age expansion. I’ve played most of one core game, but any thoughts on the new units and armies or Helm’s Deep and Minas Tirith scenarios?

I played first edition a lot. In fact, I had one of the first copies of the game in the US- my editor at Games International knew some people and pulled some strings.

I loved the game, and I think it is still one of the best big scale DOAM games. But I have utterly no desire to ever play it again. The themes I want from a LOTR game are in the Knizia one, not this one.

I remember thinking even at the time “wow, this is like a GMT war game but with LOTR artwork”...it is a very complicated game. Totally agree that it would have trouble finding traction today.

I think it’s one of the greatest games from the 2nd-wave of classic AT, but yeah, too long, quirky, and limited to get table time these days. Glad I played it though.

Now that asymmetry is the hot new thing, it's interesting to look back on a design that experimented with this but not purely in the way of mechanisms. There are certainly differences in this respect on both sides but I actually think the asymmetrical tempo on either side (and its thematic tie-in) is what makes this special for me. The Free Peoples are handling two fronts with the Fellowship striking out quickly, then gradually slowing to a crawl once they hit Mordor, while the rest of Middle Earth is slow to react and gradually becomes a juggernaut as each race "awakens" in reaction to the Shadow's aggression. On the other side, the Shadow is poised to flood the board and crush FP cities but has to deal with traversal issues, and his/her Hunt actions against the Fellowship begins to compress and accelerate once they hit the Mordor track (the opposite of the tempo that the FP player experiences). It's really pretty damned brilliant.

Also, in light of todays one-and-done climate, I think it's telling that the SUSD folks picked this one up and really enjoyed it, even going so far as to say that it outclasses SW: Rebellion.

If it weren't strictly two-player, I'd venture to say that anyone cutting their teeth on Root could look to this one as another step down the rabbit hole (or COIN but that seems like a pretty big jump).

I picked up the Anniversary edition awhile ago, not because I'm a collector but because I honestly think I'll still play this with my kids when they visit as adults, or maybe even with the grandkids. It's still thematically beautiful and a joy to play and I don't expect that to change.

Still own it (and the Battles of the Third Age expansion.) Still love it. Like many have already mentioned, it was one of the first AT-style board games that I really got into and which started me down the path back into serious boardgaming. I haven't played in years, but I could still see myself pulling it out for a game with my regular 2-player partner or with someone who really appreciates the theme. Like Frohike said, the design and asymmetry of the two sides is actually pretty amazing for the time in which it was released. I'll never part with it, even if it is a shelf toad.

"I never played it but I think it sucks."

Did somebody actually say that and not get laughed out of the room?

Listen you whiny bastards. This game is great. It was great. It is great. It will be great. Certainly the best Lord of the Rings game ever made.

Knizia? Gimme a damn break. Might as well say how Stratego really captures the themes of the Napoleonic Wars.

It's got a long play time? Oh lets jump up on a chair and lift our skirt hems as we shriek in terror. Ya know what has a long play time and is all the rage? Any one of a ton of crap in a box games rolling off the kickstarter treadmill. OMG...Gloomhaven is a freakin modern classic! People will still be talking about it next week!

Bah! I spiritually flip all your tables and storm out the door.

Just mentioned in the game thread I want to pull this out again soon, so yup! I still play it.

It’s probably worse in most ways than Twilight Struggle. It’s clunkier, less balanced, and there are more fiddle rules and moving pieces. It’s like comparing Claustrophobia to Mutant Chronicles.

At the end of the day, blasting a mutant apart with my Buhaus dudes gives me the same feeling of fullness this game does in comparison to the more elegant newer games; the swingy battles, tide turning card flips, chrome, and fiddle bits allow for almost unlimited potential. In one game, Isengard and the Ents may be key, in another, the focus is on a previously unimportant side of the board. Twilight Struggle has this, but a shriveled and ghastly Gollum like comparison; interesting in its own right, but a pale shadow of the giant metal-as-fuck wizard who is the real master of the ring.

This game is a damn masterpiece of Trash which combines unwieldy unlimited potential with an actually sensible system.

This was my first game when I started to take chances on larger more complex Ameritrash. I played several times, and I did enjoy it. But it was petty complicated for my Euro brain, and I was routinely boggled by its weirdly written rules. It eventually was moved on.

I played the revised version with a friend years later and really enjoyed it. I almost wish I still had it, but like many long two-player games, it would never get played.

I think what I really want in a Tolkien game is similar to Barnes, less focused on war and more on characters. That's not to say this isn't a good representation of the source material, but it's not a genre I like as much.

repoman wrote: "I never played it but I think it sucks."

Did somebody actually say that and not get laughed out of the room?

Listen you whiny bastards. This game is great. It was great. It is great. It will be great. Certainly the best Lord of the Rings game ever made.

Knizia? Gimme a damn break. Might as well say how Stratego really captures the themes of the Napoleonic Wars.

It's got a long play time? Oh lets jump up on a chair and lift our skirt hems as we shriek in terror. Ya know what has a long play time and is all the rage? Any one of a ton of crap in a box games rolling off the kickstarter treadmill. OMG...Gloomhaven is a freakin modern classic! People will still be talking about it next week!

Bah! I spiritually flip all your tables and storm out the door.

Thank Fraking god somebody has some gaming balls on this site. I was about ready to delete my account until I read Repoman’s post.

This is still probably my favorite board game. It's that big, fat, kinda beat up box that'll always be sitting on my shelf, and one day, my son is going to see it, ask "Dad, what's that?", and I'll bring it down and say "Son, let me show you something."

What I love about this thing is the way that the cards mean that your game might come out exactly like the book, or might be totally off the rails and hilarious. I had one game where Wormtongue came out very early, and suddenly the Freeps had to change their whole plan because Rohan needed special attention. I had an amazing game where I verbally goaded the shadow player to emptying out Isengard, while I sat there with a handful of Ent cards, who did exactly the thing they were supposed to do. Then I had the game where Aragorn beelined down to Minas Tirith, got crowned, and proceeded to spend the rest of the game sitting around the throne room drinking, telling everyone how the army had to stay RIGHT THERE because the orcs were coming ANY MINUTE, while the entire war happened up north, with Gimli and Pippin leading a heroic defense at the head of a dwarven army.

Yes, the areas around the major cities are too small to hold the armies that'll be there, and yes the first edition cards aren't big enough to hold all the words (I did upgrade to the tarot cards), but for all that, War of the Ring is a box full of amazing potential stories, and my worn, janky, crammed full of notes and player aids copy is also full of a bunch of memories, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands.

I'll still happily play this and it's not leaving my collection anytime soon.

I'm also a little shocked people are complaining about a 3 hour game. This is an epic game based on an epic story. It deserves and is worth that time.

Yeah, length isn't something that sticks out about this game as notable, to me.

Same here, I despise long games and War of the Ring has never felt long to me , ever.

Return of the King feels long though

First, Shellie why did you not mention you had no tickets. I was looked it up online when you mentioned you were going and saw you had to reserve tickets to see it and since I didn't know when you were going I didn't bother anymore - I could have booked tickets for everyone and come and met up ...then you would have been the second one in your family I met up with in Oxford because ......

I played KingPut in a game of WotR in the bar of his Oxford hotel half a dozen or so years ago in the first Intercontinental FatDome.

How's that for hooking up WotR, Oxford and the Put clan in one post


Anyway I had first edition when it came out and liked playing it but probably the crowded board, the not great rulebook, and small cards and possibly lack of interested opponents (oh, and some shit going on in my life) meant it didn't connect that well and I sold it on.
I then bought 2E when it came out after hearing about the improvements and getting a second wind for it again and have never regretted it. It doesn't get out that often as most of my gaming days there are more than two and when I do have two I have a good selection of games to rotate through, but when it is out it is appreciated - length is not an issue as the game usually gets so intense time goes un-noticed and the asymmetrical design of the game with a feeling of hopelessness for one and the stress of ocnquering Middle Earth quick enough is necessary and done well.
This is a game that will be one of the last I sell when the time comes to move on a bit from this hobby.

I will love this game, probably forever. Even if I became a monk, my little tiny dwelling would have a copy of this game under the bed.

I have not played it in a few years now, mostly because the opportunity has not arisen.

But, I respect the game design and thematic elements so very much. And I will gladly play it again when that chance arises. Because it's that damned good.

even before coming to this site, I remember Ken B talking about War of the Ring and Queen's Gambit all the time

Black Barney wrote: even before coming to this site, I remember Ken B talking about War of the Ring and Queen's Gambit all the time

Yah man I found those games when I was still on Decktech back in the day. They're still in my collection and they ain't goin' NOWEHERE baby.

They feel like kissing cousins, to be fair, and are some of the best treatments of their respective IPs ever.

Speaking of kissing cousins, neither you nor Booth posted to my 10k post milestone thread, which has brought me great shame and ennui

Black Barney wrote: Speaking of kissing cousins, neither you nor Booth posted to my 10k post milestone thread, which has brought me great shame and ennui

Fixed.


To be fair I saw some gibberish about "BB10k" and I figured it was some Warhammer shit, so I stayed clear. Sorry about that broseph

Black Barney wrote: even before coming to this site, I remember Ken B talking about War of the Ring and Queen's Gambit all the time

And even more coincidentally SW: The Queens Gambit was the other game I played with KingPut in Oxford for our Fatdome intercontinental clash.

I still refuse to post in that thread.

Love it. Sold it because we have 0.0000% chance of playing it.

Does not compute.

I still love the game, but only play it once, maybe twice a year if lucky. My youngest daughter is into nearly all things LOTR (esp. the movies, ugh), and she picked it up pretty well (she's 16 now but first played this at...13 or 14).

I don't think it's flawless. I'm less and less a fan of Hunt shenanigans, akin to Anakin's track in Queen's Gambit, where sometimes you really wonder why you bothered with the rest of the game. I increasingly dread the rules refresh, and there are some clunky things (Level vs Leadership and separating companions always trips me).

But overall, it's still playable, and is the definitive "high-level" LOTR game for me. My daughters and I also love Knizia's LOTR and have played it much more (so simple and yes, thematic).

To me, a couple times a year on a big game completely justifies its existence in the collection.

I own both the 1st and 2nd Edition, which is not something I would ever dream of doing, ordinarily--but I talked myself into wanting the dramatically improved (art and function) map, the better Nazgul minis, the bigger cards, etc before it suddenly went out of print forever.

It's still a game I play and will readily do so any time, any place. WOTR is firmly ensconced on my Mount Rushmore and I have a hard time imagining what set of circumstances would dislodge it.

I actually bought it once as a wedding gift for a gaming couple. True story.

...they played it once

JoelCFC25 wrote: I own both the 1st and 2nd Edition, which is not something I would ever dream of doing, ordinarily--but I talked myself into wanting the dramatically improved (art and function) map, the better Nazgul minis, the bigger cards, etc before it suddenly went out of print forever.

It's still a game I play and will readily do so any time, any place. WOTR is firmly ensconced on my Mount Rushmore and I have a hard time imagining what set of circumstances would dislodge it.

I have both 1st and 2nd edition as well. The luxury of having both is that you can take the necessary minis from 1st edition, couple it with Battles of the Third Age 1st edition, and have two fully playable games there without worrying about disrupting your main copy or having to move miniatures back and forth. Pretty sweet.

Ken B has 2 copies of War of the Ring.
Joel has 2 copies of War of the Ring.
Barney has 0 copies of War of the Ring.


...i'm not Socialist but...

Love it. Played the hell out of 1st edition w/ BotTA, and was fortunate to preorder a Collector's edition, which is what I play with now whenever hosting a game. CE is by far the crowning gem in my game library, in substance and regard -- for a Tolkein enthusiast and gamer, this is it. Few other games in my collection are as narratively rich, yet offer a fictional sandbox via wargame with as many what-if options.

This is a game with the kind of sheer gravity that has actually pulled several of my friends into gaming altogether!

I agree with the comments about Kickstarters - the more I play, the more I realize that despite the chrome they appear weakly playtested or designed with replay/mastery in mind. With WotR, it has worn well after scores of games, and seems to keep rewarding repeat play -- I'm glad I have the opportunity to play a least a few times a year. It's become something of a sacred gaming ritual among distant friends, whenever we manage get together.

In terms of the heavier-weight "new classics" this is numero uno in my book.

I have the Anniversary (after having sold the standard 2e), and I wish I'd played it more. Maybe I'll put that on the vacation list for when I'm off from work in a couple of weeks (I hope). I taught it to my wife, but she was ill at the time, so it didn't mesh very well. Honestly, I knew the AE would be more to consider than to play, but the painted figures and differentiated bases do help actually facilitate gameplay, which is partly how I justified it. I do feel like I have to relearn a bulky set of rules each time, though, as others have said, which is one thing that makes it more like an annual thing instead of a more frequent thing (though obviously there's a bit of chicken-and-egg going on).

So, someone educate me (Bonus round: Who remembers what cartoon film had the line: "I'm'a get me some edjimication!"?)

What differences are there between the original game (which I have) and the Revised and/or Collector's editions? Is the latter all cosmetic? Does the revised edition change the way the game plays? I've played an assload (HT: Master Shake) of War of the Ring, but despite owning the expansion, have never played with it. I've also never played revised, so I don't know what it's actual impact was. Thanks for any feedback.

Original game heavily favours the Shadow player, which i LOVE. The fellowship shouldn't have a coin-flip shot at dunking the ring and winning. it's a MONUMENTAL feat for the free people to win here. So when they do manage to win, it FEELS big. yeah, I guess that sucks for people that want a fair match, but I actually prefer this. It's a great handicap so that the lessor player can play as the Shadow player and have a better shot at winning.

But moreover, it just makes it even MORE thematic when freeps win.

I've always liked imbalances in games, I don't know why.

That was always my impression. If the Shadow player played it like a straight up wargame and the Free People player played it like an adventure game, it was almost always a win for the Shadow. The FP just couldn't compete with the horde in multiple locations. I never lost as Shadow and only won a couple times as the FP.

Yeah as the freeps you gotta play the delay and distraction game as much as possible to buy Frodo some time. You get aggressive and you’re finished unless the shadow player is a real dummy

You can play the beginner version like a straight up wargame though, it’s fun