Played a game of chaos in the old world about a week ago with some mates who were down from UNI, the virgin playthrough if you will , and we had a great time.

Now were all fans of the LOTR and at the mo i have the opportunity to buy both, but, if i had to get one which should i go for.

Obviously those of you that have played more games, the two i have mentioned, or others will have some good opinions and stories that i would love to hear.

Any and all, thoughts and opinions, would be great appreciated

Kairous said:

While I can't speak for Middle-earth Quest, War of the Ring is a fantastic game. However, it is also best played with two people, so if you regularly have four (for something like Chaos in the Old World), you may wish to get Middle-earth Quest.

On the other hand, War of the Ring *is* awesome.

As it turned out our first game of chaos only had 3 people, one of the guys i had down couldn't make it, so we only used 3 of the 4 gods.

It all really depends on who is free from uni and when (as it stands only one guy can actually give me accurate dates as to when he is home), but i have heard that WofR is playable with 4 players?

Kairous said:

It's playable and some people like it. But it's just a clumsy and restricted variant of the 2 player game.

Probably wasn't a good idea on my part to ask for comparisons of a 3-4 player game and 1-2 player game, my apologises.

As a LOTR game in general, which is better?

And is the third expansion worth it, if i can get hold of it?

Yeah, WotR can be played with 4 players, but I've only ever found it to be weird, because there are moves that each side is going to make early, and often those moves involve one faction.

So, often at the beginning of the game, a Shadow player will want to muster Sauron to War right away, and start moving. But half his dice are being consumed by the Isengard/Easterling-Southron stuff. If you turn up only a few army movements, the troops in mordor will take a while to get moving.

This isn't such a big deal for the good guys because either player can move the fellowship, and a great deal of actions will be focused on that, rather than faction actions like mustering.

Kairous said:

While I can't say which one is better, if given a choice, I will always play War of the Ring over Middle-earth: Quest. In terms of theme, War of the Ring is Lord of the Rings. When I'm playing WotR, I feel like I am reliving the events right out of the books and movies. Sure, because of the game mechanics, there are some "what-if" situations. However, as event cards are played, armies grow and march, and strongholds are besieged, I can see the story unfold.

I'm not going to say I don't enjoy M-e:Q; in fact I think it's a lot of fun. There is theme, and there are references to events and characters from the book. It just doesn't feel the same. The player controlled heroes don't hold any emotion for me.

The expansion for WotR is a must, but I wouldn't recommend implementing it until you've played the base game alone at least a few times.

Tsugo said:

My view is pretty much the opposite, in MEQ I have freedom that WotR doesn't have (because it follows the book). In WotR, each game follows the same route or even rut if you will, Fellowship to Mordor ASAP either 10-move path through Moria or if revealed early, 11-move path through Old Forest Road, Shadow takes its VPs from a small selection of areas. Why? Because those are the optimal paths to victory, so sticking to them is almost a must if you want to win (which I do). So MEQ feels much less scripted, you can go where you want, Sauron is actually looking to take you off the optimal paths, forcing out for to the edges by having Plots in those locations, etc.

Tsugo said:

I still haven't added the expansion, 20 games in with WotR (bought the game in April 08; MEQ has 50 plays already since August 09). Been thinking about it of late, but since WotR isn't getting that many plays, not sure if it'll be worth it. Also, have read over on BGG that having the expansion adds length to the game, which isn't necessarily something I want. Currently WotR takes about 90 minutes at max, seems with expansion it stretches to 2+ hours each time (whereas with just base, 75 min or less can be achieved with no rushing at all if both players know what they are doing).

Which is precisely why I didn't say one was better than the other. Sure, there are optimal paths, but that doesn't necessarily mean the actions of your opponent or the actions the dice provide afre going to allow that path. I have confounded my opponent by moving the fellowship towards the the Gap of Rohan. I have sent my armies towards Rivendell and the Shire. Taking the same route (rut) against the same opponent can lead to loss.

Initially, the expansion will add some time to the game, but after a dozen or so plays, new strategies develop. My most recent game, expansion included, took about 45 minutes, and that included time to setup and put everything away.

At present, my chance to buy either one of these games has vanished, i couldn't make my mind up and now they are out of stock until said otherwise (hopefully).

Thanks for all the advice and info guys, keep it coming though, as i always like to see what more versed/experianced players make of things.

I might run the question by the guys i gamed with recently, as they might have a preference to which one they would rather play if they got the chance.

FWIW I would choose WotR over MEQ, though as said the two games are very different and both are good in their own right.

Though WotR is a 2 player game, we often play with 2 or more players a side (rather than the official multiplayer rules). There is normally plenty to do so having friends on board to discuss strategy etc works well.

BoTT is a good expansion, though over 50% of it is for 2 new minigames that are seperate from the main game.