Lord of the rings?

Hi guys! Me and one of my gaming friends are about to start a Lord of the rings army. After a lot of years with fantasy, we want to try something new. So I just wanted to hear if any of you guys has any experience with LOTR? Which armies are nice, best way to start out, etc. ?

Cheers, and happy new year!

I play Isengard - they're fantastic, cheap, and easy to paint.

Saurman leading Uruk-Hai is awesome, with a few Trolls in there too.

Cool, I was thinking Isengard myself. How about their berserkers, crosbow uruks and warg riders, are they any god?

Pretty much all units in LotR are solid, due to a fixed system for pricing models. The only thing I'd stay away from with Isengard are the Wild Men, they're pretty bad. Everything else you mentioned is perfectly good.

I play Dwarves and Isengard. Both are awsome.

The game system itself is quite balanced, the SBG not War of the Ring. War of the Ring is kinda lame for all the extra effort it takes.

I wouldn't use the newer restrictions where you can only have 12 warriors for every Hero. It creates too many heroes to keep track of. Its really best with 1-3 heroes and 30-50 warrior models on the table.

I wouldn't use the newer restrictions where you can only have 12 warriors for every Hero. It creates too many heroes to keep track of. Its really best with 1-3 heroes and 30-50 warrior models on the table.

I know what you mean, it makes list-building an absolute pain with Moria. Warbands force me to sacrifice a lot of the numerical advantage I'd like to have.

The game system itself is quite balanced, the SBG not War of the Ring. War of the Ring is kinda lame for all the extra effort it takes.

Could you please explain what SBG is? It sounds nice that every unit is a viable choice, unlike in fantasi. Thank you for the replies guys. Cheers

'SBG' is 'Strategy Battle Game', ie, the skirmish game. WOTR, or War of the Ring, is the one with the huge armies and movement trays. I've heard the latter is an excellent game, if unbalanced. SBG is fantastic for scenario gameplay and skirmishes (700pts or less) but beyond that it's probably worth upscaling to WOTR as SBG is a bit clunky with large armies.

Ah, I see. Cool, I guess we'll be starting out with SBG. Since we will not have that many points at the start. Thanks 

We started up WOTR a few years ago as something that was different to Fantasy and 40k. I have to say that the rules are very tight for a GW product and it's a fun game. There are some nuts units though that can unbalance things, some of the Nazgul can be insanely powerful for what you pay for them and a couple of rules can be abused. But overall it was a lot of fun to play.

Aragorn is probably underpriced too. Of course one hit from a Dragon's fire will take him(and anyone else) out.

The biggest deal with the Nazgul is they can be really cheap or really expensive depending on how many points you are willing to spend.

In War of the Ring all Nazgul are 125pts, but it's their abilities that can push them over the top. I started off with Fallen Realms as I love the look of the Easterlings. However, when you put the thematically correct Khamul with them, his 5++ save that allows you to redirect the hit to an enemy unit in 6" proved rather brutal and I think ultimately led to people not wanting to play it because these kind of things COULD happen even if we didn't use them all the time.

Ahhh right. You were talking WotR, I was talking SBG.