Well Which is better? I am into SBG and like the skirmish style but I did pick up the Wotr rule books and some movement trays although I havent tried it yet is it worth me getting into .. which game is better and why? discuss!

_________________
"Dont Tempt me Frodo!! .. Just Tea thank you"

When you ask a question like that, which one is "better", the first thing that comes to mind is trolling...

It's all about what you want out of a game. WotR has no appeal for me: I've played plenty of other tray-based or formation-based games and it's too abstract. I feel like I might as well be playing chess. While the terrain might capture my imagination, pushing trays around destroys it.

SBG appeals to me on an aesthetic level, a tactical level, and most importantly for me, on a storytelling level. Even a no-name goblin can take on a persona in SBG as he stoically holds back Aragorn for two turns. I find skirmish games in general lend themselves to much more enthusiastic gaming...I hear way more excitement around the table in skirmish games than I do for formation-based games (assuming a reasonably even contest).

So SBG is better for me. But I can't say it would be better for everybody.

I have to say I would agree with whafrog. SBG seems more personal, more tense and more exciting than WotR. I find that in WotR it all boils down to purely stats, rather than tactics.

There's also the material benefit of smaller model counts in SBG, which results in the wallet taking less of a beating for each army!

_________________
Better, though difficult, the right way to go, than wrong, though easy, where the end is woe. John Bunyan - Pilgrim's Progress

I dont know why you presumed trolling? .. that certainly wanst my intention .. I like your point about a deeper character feel in SBG where lone normal warriors can individually perform great acts randomly .. the rules for me also seem so strong and flawless (other than the tiring process of firing large amounts of bowmen with things in the way) that it has far less problems with rule confusion than a game like warhammer.

_________________
"Dont Tempt me Frodo!! .. Just Tea thank you"

I think it's because which is better depends on an opinion, not fact, so there is no "better" only a preferred for each person (I hope that makes sense)


I prefer SBG to WotR, there are less flaws in SBG, and in my opinion, the game is more balanced. It also feels more personal, and it's so much easier to include units you like, as there isn't a limit on allies (except the one hero per 12 warriors), whereas WotR means that you're mostly limited to your chosen army. The individuality of each model makes the game more realistic to me, as battle lines clash and are forced backwards or forwards in different places, meaning you can focus your troops on your opponents weak spot, or pull more troops into your weaker area.

_________________
C.A.P.T.A.I.N. = Crazy And Proud To Admit It Now
http://chrisgomhobbyblog.blogspot.com/

I just wanted to create a chat and get some feedback on peoples opinions on them both, I also enjoy the realistic feel of a messy but very individual battle scene where lone models can go where they like also it fits very well around the scenery .. where as I can imagine scenery pieces can get in the way for the tray moving style of wotr .. it simply enhances SBG and makes it more fun and interactice.

_________________
"Dont Tempt me Frodo!! .. Just Tea thank you"

After playing a fair few games of SBG i can say that it flows really smoothly and you rarely have to stop to check/confirm rules. I also like the feeling of small skirmishes being part of a larger battle, gets you alot closer to your models, or maybe im over attached lol.

Nailed it

@tlotrsbg: I was hoping not but you can go to almost any board with any subject, even Coke vs Pepsi, and "which is better" gets people's passions flowing. Rather than asking which is better, asking about the pros and cons of each is less confrontational.

I really didnt expect people to get confrontational about the subject but ill take your point thanks.

_________________
"Dont Tempt me Frodo!! .. Just Tea thank you"

If you want play big games or fast ones, go for WotR, if you want small games, with more small details, go for SBG.

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

After about 3,000 points SBG becomes far too slow. Even at 2,000 points it starts to get difficult. WOTR is good for games over that size as you can field huge numbers and have it finished much quicker. Any lower than that then it becomes a bit too simplified and SBG gives you all the fun details (that do get repetitive if you have huge games)

precisely

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

SBG boils down to "who has the most models" as much as WotR boils down to "who has the best stats", unless someone uses an overpowered list. And those existed in SBG version 1 as well.



On the contrary, I find that I spend most of my SBG games looking up the special rules for climbing a hedge (is it a jump or a climb?), the special rules for cavalry charging, combats against infantry lying down, etc. etc. WotR on the other side, I have played far less, but I have a far better grip of the rules.

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings

I've once played a game of 4000 points in SBG, and that wasn't too slow(maybe because we used homemade movement trays for our spearblocks, had a whole day, and all liked it.

_________________
Ours is the fury!

I'd say that's just you WotR makes no sense to me, but then, I hate tray games and don't *want* to pay attention. It's not really WotR's fault.

I agree with Telchar that WotR is easier to rember than SBG, though not to the sam extent, as SBG is still natural, but I was playing it for much longer, WotR did not require as much time to learn. Of course both systems take longer to master...

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

I'm completely on the SBG side of the fence. The amount of different styles of games and scenarios is much more than WotR, which I tried 3 times before declaring I would never play it again. SBG is so much more personal. Each individual foot soldier can move independently and have a real outcome of the game, rather than a faceless tray of bodies that get removed after rolling a JCB bucket full of dice.
WotR does have its place in the 2000 plus point battles, but as they are fairly rare around here there isn't much call for it.

_________________
You don't have to be great to start. But you do have to start to be great.

I like both. WOTR is great for big battles where tactical decisions in the positioning of formations comes into play. SBG is great for smaller skirmishes/senarios involving few models and invlolves micromanegment.

Fundamentaly, in my experiances, WOTR boils down to positioning of elite formations and heroes, whereas SBG boils down to maintaining your formation or breaking the enemy's formations depending on your army and objective. Obviously these are both huge simplifications.