"Legends of the Old West and Lord of the Rings rules" Topic

I've posted this question before but never got a really solid answer.

Can anyone out there tell me how similar (or even if) the base rules are for Legends of the Old West and Lord of the Rings. I have heard they are rooted in the same system. I would like to know how close they are for the purpose of having some crossover games.

EXTREMELY close. Some phrasing is changed to stay in character, but they are fundamentally the same system.

That being said, the primary emphasis shifts from hand-to-hand in LotR to ranged combat in LotOW. Some new rules change things, a little bit. But if you've played one, you could comfortably slip into the universe of the other.

Excellent!!

I have already made additions to LOTR for the purpose of fighting certain late colonial/Victorian era armies against hords of dark forces, and have even had a couple of good test games but was thinking of picking ok LotOW to further aid in the crossover … even have one game against my buddies Elves … came down to his heroes (his only ones left) finishing off what remained of my British.

Frankly, as near as I can tell almost all of the GW games are run off the same engine.

The big differences are

- that not all cav get the double attack for charging inf
- that guns can run out of bullets
- that there are courage checks for taking missile fire/casualties

apart from that it is a Battle Company/Mordheim style set-up

I remember playing Elves versus Medieval English since SPI's engine was basically the same for their Bannockburn game as it was for "Sauron"

They are close enough that I wondered about all the melee stuff in the LOTOW rules ;)

In melee many guys are at a disadvantage as they don't have hand-weapons

"Frankly, as near as I can tell almost all of the GW games are run off the same engine."

I thought that the LoTR game engine was different from the Mordheim/Necromunda/WH systems and WH40K system. Genuine question; is LoTR the same or different?

LoTR is significantly different from their other core games. Just a few points:

- no armor saves (there are a few rules that kind of simulate it in special situations however)
- turns aren't IgoUgo, totally--you go back and forth on phases, not full turns. So I move, then you move. I shoot, then you shoot. Then we fight combat.
- all h2h is opposed die roll--whoever rolls higher wins; only on ties does your combat ability (how good in CC you are) come into play
- Might/Fate/Will allows you to use one-time points to perform special actions in the game, which is a unique mechanism to LotR (versus the other GW core games)
- typical game has 12-20 turns, whereas a typical Fantasy/40k game is 4-6 turns; this means the game has much more in the way of manueverability and on-field tactics, and less of a rock-paper-scissors aspect.

I love it--it's my favorite GW game by far, and, IMHO, far superior to either 40k or Fantasy. I almost even think it's better than Warmachine, b/c it doesn't have the "HeroMachine" aspect that warmachine has (though I love warmachine too).

"LoTR is significantly different from their other core games."

First off, a disclaimer. I play LotR, but never tried WH. So my opinions are based only on what I hear.

A key element to LotR is the initiative -- opponents dice off who goes first each turn. This can be PIVOTAL in game play -- you leave yourself open on one turn, you may or may not get to dress your lines before your opponent exploits it in the next turn.

What's odd about LoTOW is how it's better to rush into melee than attempt to shoot it out. Understanding that the rules derive from a set of ancients/feudal/medieval/fantasy rules makes sense then.

I've found that the only thing that prevents figures with guns not being swept away by figures with clubs is that you have to see a target to charge it. At least that way the figure with the gun gets a shot (or more), but with the inability to hit that is usual, he/she ends up in melee a lot more than one would suspect from the period.

Dan