Translated by SkYlaX

Rumours have been flying thick and fast for a while as Gamesworkshop makes a big secret out of something obvious: As with Warhammer 40000 Lord of the Rings will receive a new set of rules which make it easier and more fluent to play with huge amounts of miniatures. The archetype for this is of course ?Apocalypse? but, as usual in the manufacturer?s marketing strategy, it mustn?t have the same name or even be called that way.

So the (more suitable) name for the rule book will be ?War of the Ring?. The motivation for that book is the intention to make some tail wind for a product in the last third of its product cycle and to animate regular customers to complete their collection. I personally like this idea because my collections are quite huge but I have lost the fun of playing big matches because of the length of a normal skirmish match.

That?s why I wrote this article to summarise mass battles rules for LotR that are already there and to present facts that are already available about WotR. Let us start with a glance into the rumour mill.

At the moment you can take a look at a short version of the rules:

Armies consist of several formations which themselves consist of one to nine companies.

A company consists of a company base with eight infantery models or two cavalry models.

Heroes can enhance companies or obviously give the formation more dice.

Monsters stand separatly on their normal monster bases. In February GamesworkShop will release plastic bases for WotR which can easily be replaced by selfmades. Infantry bases are 110x60mm, cavalry bases 90x50mm.

Every model has a resistance. E.g. a troll only suffers damage when they are more wounds than resistance points. To inflict two wounds on a resistance of three, you need six wounds.

The move sequence is the same as in the current rules. Like in several other games there are rules for formations which are in disarrangement. Furthermore, companies have a radius of sight which is the same as in Warhammer Ancient Battles and WHFB.

The shooting phase is similar to the current rules, so there is a hit table. But there is only one dice roll per shot which means an acceleration of the range combat. The hit table is the old one. Here resistances lead to a less lethal shooting phase. There are three kinds of ranges for bows and crossbows. All kinds of bow have a strength of two and the crossbows have strength four. I hope, that elven bows will also have only strength two. This would mean that bows only differ in their range. I would like that. Units can only shoot at models in their radius of sight.

New, and the same like in games like Field of Glory, is the charge phase. This is an additional movement for units in formations who did not fire. The range is partly determined by a dice roll. For cavalry, e.g., it is D6 + six inches charge range. If a one is rolled or the formation is out of range the charge movement does not take place. I assume, the coincidental movement replaces the estimation of distance like in Warhammer. To me, the estimation is a quite inappropriate rule because it is easy to ?cheat? when one knows the exact dimensions of the terrain and the gaming table.

In the combat phase monsters have the first hit, followed by cavalry and infantry. This rule was seen critical in the run-up. To me, this rule sounds adequate for Middle Earth and its incredibly dangerous beasts. Every unit attacks with the number of attacks in its profile. If the attack roll was a six, another attack is added. It seems to be the same with heroes. The party which dealt more wounds wins the combat, the other side has to roll on the panic table. This one is similar to the climbing table: 2-5 means the formation gets in confusion. Different weapon options add modifications to the striking table or to the fight value, e.g. lances add +1 on the strikin roll. The effects of the fight value in the new system are not known yet.

This information is from the ?The War of the Ring ? Quickstarter Rules? flyer which can be seen in GamesWorkshop stores.

The rules are going to be published in March/April 2009.

 After years of playing Lord of the Rings I tend to play small battles and scenarios at the moment. The LotR rules are so called skirmish rules. This means, they are for a low number of miniatures which have big differences in their profiles. Besides, LotR has a nearly endless numbers of special rules which are needed for the lots of monsters, creatures and characters in Tolkien?s Middle Earth.

Playing the game with huge numbers of miniatures and different profiles makes the game very complex and divided into small sections because there are lots of separate movements and combats to be done. The shooting phase is even worse as it can be nearly endless if there are in-the-way und deviation rolls.

Looking beyond one?s own nose shows us several new sets of rules dealing with battles in the antiquity or the middle ages which are based on units which are often separated in segments, e.g. Field of Glory or DBA. The units are moved in various formations which partly have very different movement ranges. This mechanism can also be found in WotR unlike as in Warhammer where only regiments are available.

They pay attention to branches of service, training and armor and all these attributes are relevant during a match. Furthermore, the charge is a new and very interesting element in systems like FoG which is an advantage for generals with a good timing. I like the newly added charge as I prefer dynamic matches. But to me the charge ranges seem relatively generous. But without knowing the normal ranges one cannot make a final conclusion.

All these elements from good and popular systems are not included in skirmish games as they deal with single models. The Sweetwater Forum contained a very interesting thread dealing with differentiations, but unfortunately it has gone to Nirvana. Nobel created the term ?Bottom up game?, a name that surely describes Lord of the Rings very well. The skills of a model are described which creates a game. Have a look at gaming principes in the Sweetwater Forum.

As the Lord of the Rings war game has no formations the differences and characterics of the figures become blurred. Most gamers try to create a mix of different models which is as hard as possible, to get advantages and to eclipse disadvantages.

This often leads to a big bulk with only low movement and some very exciting passages when heroes are acting. Cavalry and light infantry are in my opinion the losers of the current LotR system as flexibility is relatively low and not so important as I would like it. Successful should win battles by having their troops in the right place at the right time and not by parameters like price performance ratio.

So an alternative gaming method would be a chance to spice the game up. Splitting the army in single parts which can be broken and destroyed on their own creates exciting situations during a match. Example: Can you win the battle although having lost your cavalry? Making masses of light infantry interesting for gamers and giving them the chance for hard hits would be an important aspect of the new game design. Making cavalry interesting because of its power and not only because of its flexibility would also be desirable.

Interestingly, the strengthening of the system is a big obstacle for the realisation of a new set of rules. If you want to have several heroes, monsters, branches of weapons and peoples in a system, it will be problematic to create a big conflict simulation with formations. At this point GW can, as usually, be expected to have a design which comes from the figure.

For example DBA is so popular as the units are quite abstract and the attributes of the branches of weapons are the same in different peoples, only the composition of the army varies. If GW followed this idea, detail figures like Pippin or Gollum would fall by the way side. Besides, one had to create a completely new game. Surely a daunting idea.

Also Field of Glory uses, unlike Warhammer, a relatively abstract idea which arranges the different branches of services in categories like unarmored, lightly armored or heavily armored. The pattern is cruder than in WHFB or Lord of the Rings.

This abstraction normally makes a fluent and nice game possible as there are no rolls on hit or wound tables.

So keeping the profiles of the Lord of the Rings war game brings difficulties to create a modern and fluent game. Difficult, but not impossible!

For me it would be important to have a good gaming balance between the different peoples. Currently, there are some fractions that nearly do not have a chance in game. This means that there must be done something to make players and not peoples win games. I hope that GW will not make the make the newest supplement a bit better than the last as it is said to be in Warhammer supplements. The Mordor and Mirkwood supplement present such negative examples in the LotR war game.

The design of the miniature is not laid out for regiments or companies. So there are often only four poses of spearmen. Metal miniatures have even less poses. So the whole range of miniatures is not designed for mass battles. But there are rumours about the Army of the Dead, armored Wood Elves and Ents as plastic kits that shall be published with WotR. It is also likely that GW fills the gaps of LoME, e.g. the Easterlings.

I personally hope that the new set of rules gives us the option for fast, huge matches which are not as fuddy-duddy as a 700 point match. If GW creates a good game, many collectors will take the chance to play with an old army again or to have a new gaming feeling with old miniatures.

A higher importance of gaming speed, motivation of troops, ranges of units, monsters and cavalry is in my eyes a good thing. Another good thing would be to prevent the enemy archers from shooting heroes. And if the curse of the elven bows would be reduced and the game would be a bit more bloody and therefore faster, a true LotR collector and gamer would be pleased.

Seeing Mat Ward as one of the authors makes me feel uncomfortable. He produced amok running Uruk-hai captains with strength 5 and some other profile wrongdoings. But he is also one of the few designers which read in revelant forums. If he does good work, I will forgive him strength 5.

Thanks to Azgul, who helped me a lot with this article.

Trailer on Youtube