Hello,  I want to buy a good Wargame.  Can you say me the difference between Runewars and War of the ring please ?

Thanks

War of the ring: pure two-player-game. Many dice rolls. Very good thematic theme. brillant mechanics. Non-symmetric; both sides play entirely different.

Runewars: Best played with four players. Differing races, but same starting chances. Many chance elements. Very good design.

They are both great games. I would decide on

a) What's your favourite theme?

b) How many players do you want the game to support?

I haven't played War of the Ring personally, but I rather suspect a healthy chunk of it's appeal is the setting.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the books and the movies, but having played the Middle-Earth RISK game I have to say there's not much in it for me except RISK.  They have some cute minis and all, but it's still just RISK with a time limit.  If you're a really big Tolkien fan, you might get more enjoyment out of games like that and WotR, but if your friends don't feel the same, it might not get pulled out as much as you like.

Runewars, as a relatively disconnected franchise (the only other ties are other boardgames by FFG) might hold a more general appeal, assuming it goes over well at all.  There's no accounting for taste, but it is a solid game.

The two-players only thing is also a turn off for me.  I prefer wargames with more players to dilute the aggression factor a bit.  Two-player is all "head-to-head" if you know what I mean.

Steve-O said:

Well, for what it's worth, although some people on the surface look at War of the Ring and think "Middle Earth Risk", it's really NOTHING like Risk; about the only thing they have in common is that you roll dice for combat.  (But even the way combat is handled is very, very different).

WotR is much more immersive than any Risk game, even the "Lord of the Rings" version.  It tends to feel more like you are playing the story (or, more accurately, "alternate universe" versions of the story, like in "What if this happened instead"?)  I like the setting, but am not a super fanboy by any stretch, yet I really enjoy the game a lot.

WOW..WoTR is nothing even close to risk and i actually still enjoy a mind numbing game of risk now and then.  Once you play it you will really understand the depth and strategy involved in playing WoTR.  That is not to say though that Runewars isn't a good game either.  The only real difference in the 2 games is the number of players it supports.

sigmazero13 said:

I consider myself a fan of the books, and an even bigger fan of the game. It's unfortunate that so many people make uneducated comparisons between WotR and LotR Risk. Although not the ultimate authority on boardgames, but at Board Game Geek, WotR's boardgame rank is 16 and it's wargame rank is 7, while LotR Risk's boardgame rank is 985 and its wargame rank is 530.  Other than the setting, the games couldn't be more different.

As I've claimed many times, if I could only own a single game, it would be War of the Ring. That being said, I'm certainly a happy owner of RuneWars as well. There is a time for all games. The fact that RunWars supports 4 people plays a significant factor in what game will make it to the table (I've yet to try WotR with 4 people and have no real interest in doing so).

Before making the purchase, you really do need to decide what has the most likelihood of getting played. I fortunately have a gaming partner who is as avid a WotR fan as I am, therefore, it is not uncommon for us to play at least once a week. If I didn't have a regular opponent, I can honestly say that it would be played significantly less. When it comes to larger number games, there is a lot of competition for table space.

For the record, I wasn't comparing Middle Earth RISK to WotR.  In point of fact I can't make such a comparison because, as I said before, I haven't played WotR.  I was just making a point about how the primary interest in ME RISK was, in my opinion, the Tolkien theme.

Likewise, people who are really into Tolkien are more likely to be interested in WotR than people who aren't.  It's probably a perfectly good game in its own right (I don't know because I haven't played it) but if the OP is looking for a game that will get significant table time, it's worth considering how many of his friends are loony for Middle Earth.  Something to consider, I'm just saying is all.

Steve-O said:

Unfortunately, whenever Risk is used in the same sentence as any other game, the assumption is that a comparison is being made.  Even doubly so with WotR, since it is a common misconception that WotR is nothing more than a complex version of Risk.

Having re-read your post, it is evident that you made no such comparison.  However, if three people read your post, and in it, saw a comparison, in all likelihood, so will others along with the topic creator.  This is just me, but personally, I would have preferred it if you simply acknowledged you've never played WotR, but then list the qualities of RW that would help the TC with his decision.

**Now stepping down from my soapbox**

To the OP, get both.

Never ever try WotR with three or four players. It's as boring and stupid as any game featuring two sides can get.

I disagree. While it is  the best with two players. 3 or 4 players is also fun. At least, it scales better than basic Tannhäuser and that one is listed as 2- 10 player game 

But if you mostly play with 4 players, I would also prefer Runewars. If 2 player is no problem, you should also consider Horus Heresy if you like the Background.

The setup time involved in WotR will prevent it from ever hitting out table again.

Runewars is about as much setup I ever want in a game, while I think CotOW is just perfect.

pendrag2k said:

5 minutes is too long of a set up time?  Sure, the first couple of times, it took a good 20 minutes to set up.  After about 3 or so plays against my regular opponent, we can now  go from box to game start in 5 minutes.  If I am setting it up alone, it might take 10.

Because of the map building stage, RuneWars takes longer to setup than WotR.

Steve-O said:

I thought that WotR supported 4 players (2 vs 2). Am I wrong?

Maerimydra said:

Technically, it can.  I've never personally tried it, because the 3/4 player version seems to be more of a hack to allow more players - it's really meant as a 2-player game.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone write that 3-4 players is worthwhile in War of the Ring.

sigmazero13 said:

Thanks! I was thinking about buying this game, but you convinced me otherwise, at least for now. I'll probably grab Rune Age instead, when it will come out. It's probably a better deal for my wallet anyway. :)

Maerimydra said:

LOL, well, my goal wasn't to cost a sale, but it's definitely a big investment to get, and it's better to get a game you can enjoy with your group than one that won't work well.

However, for what it's worth, War of the Ring is an EXCELLENT 2-player game!