I don't play WotR, I haven't played a game or even seen it being played. The only experience I have of the game is what I hear fromforums like this - and most of the feedback I seem to get is that its a poorly thought through system with lots of flaws and more concerend with selliong lots of models than being an enjoyable table-top game.

So is this really the case? I'm imediately biased because WotR has pushed SBG further into the background and seems to enbody everything about the current GW situation tha I dislike - but I'm unwilling to pass judgement in my uneducated state. Therefore I turn to you guys, at least some of whom clearly have better experience of the game than I, for your expert opinion on the subject. Does WotR fail utterly, or does it actually 'fill the void' of high points games that SBG wasn't designed to endure? Is it a corrupt system full of flaws and liable to abuse from powergamers or can the expected kinks be overlooked to reveal what is actually an enjoyable, fast paced, high action table-top game?

It's alright, but I prefer the SBG. WotR was only half completed if you ask me, and I think they should have held it back for a bit and worked on it more. The basic game isn't that bad and it could have been a good acompanyment to the SBG, but all the little flaws just add up and detract from it's good points. To be honest, I think they'd have been better off modifying the WH rules set as that is a solid set of rules (or at least it was before they started producing Power Armies) with decades of trial and error put into it, and a few tweeks are all that'd be needed to make it different enough from WH to stand out, while still being a good system.

One of the poorest parst for me is the wierd hero focus. From the army lists it's clear that the game has been designed to focus on the big names herowise (the only unnamed heroes are captains and shaman), but they're poorly implemented as they don't really add much to the units they're placed with. Personally, I'd have liked to have seen the heroes being able to take an active roll in combats and the like, aswell as there being generic epic heroes that could be used to lead the force (e.g. if I wanted an army lead by King X of Gondor, I'd have liked to have had a generic King profile with which to field him rather than having to proxy with Aragorn, Elendil, Boromir, etc's rules).

I haven't played it but it is something I'd like to at some stage if I had the models. It seems like a fun game, though as Dinadan says, I'm hesitant about the hero uses. Combat for normal units sounded great but then when heroes didn't add anything much individually it seemed a little strange. But it's just a different focus really. SBG has powerful heroes that lists are based around and a large inequality between them and the troops they lead. WotR is much more balanced, where the game focuses on the army as a whole and the heroes are 'upgrades'. I've heard it described as an RPG v a wargame (SBG v WotR).
I think it's great that we've been given a way to play the large battles that just got really tedious with SBG. What I don't like is how it has seemingly replaced the SBG. IMO they should complement each other and work alongside each other in campaigns and so forth. WotR should've really been an expansion to the SBG like Apocalypse was to 40k.

I do look forward to playing it some time in the future though. I think the main thing is not to worry about the rules too much. Play it for fun and work through any problems you encounter. It's not like LotR has the same support as 40k or Fantasy in tournament environments anyway...

The shift of focus from heroes to the army as a whole isn't a bad thing, but the way the lists are written, it's clear that they are still supposed to be a focus point even though they all have redundant rules. (Every Epic Hero has a list of special rules, none of which are used due to heroes not contributing to units directly and because of a rule that says they never pass on those rules to their units even though all such rules require the model wiuth them to take an active part in the game).

i still prefure SBG but WOTR is quite good but buggy up the arse! the onl "Epic Strike" dillema comes up every 5 seconds. but if GW ever fix the rules then it would be better than Fantasy by far. I play Misty Mountians for WOTR mainly so having lots of Goblins it really difficult (At least they are more fun to paint than Orcs) but you can get aways from this with lots of monsters (I love my dragon )

Do some of you feel better now that the FAQ is out? We are still painting our armies, we have not played yet, but looking foward to it.

To be honest, I only gave the FAQ a quick browse so can't really comment on it, plus I haven't played a game of WotR in ages. I wouldn't mind trying it again at some point, but people in my area aren't that interested in it and I think it's a game that's best 'learnt' by playing against a pre-existing player.