There are Some Who Call Me... Tim
This question keeps popping up in almost every thread on this board, so here's a new one with all the answers. The next time someone asks, "How does this compare to Blood Rage?" point them to this thread and save time.
I don't expect my answer here to be completely definitive, of course, and that's why everyone else can contribute! (as long as you have played both games and therefore know of what you speak)
Here's my analysis. I own both games. They're side by side on my shelf.
How are they alike?
1. They both have some cool miniatures.
Simple fact. They do.
2. They both involve area control as a primary mechanism.
Primary, but not only. In both games, you can win via taking areas, and in both games, you can win via other means.
3. They both include card drafting.
Blood Rage includes it as a primary mechanism. If you don't do well at it, you won't win the game. In Lords of Hellas, card drafting is a very minor and brief part of the game, but does get you some cool powers.
4. They both modify combat via cards.
The combat system is vaguely similar in this regard.
5. They both have similar recruitment limits.
In both games, it takes time to build up much of an army on the board.
How are they different?
1. Blood Rage uses victory points. Lords of Hellas doesn't.
Both still have multiple paths to victory, but BR measures it by points, whereas LoH has triggers that win the game outright.
2. The monsters act different.
Blood Rage's monsters are recruited and used by you. Lords of Hellas' monsters are wild and dangerous to everyone.
3. Lords of Hellas has heroes.
Blood Rage has leaders, I guess, but it's not the same thing. The heroes in Lords of Hellas add a whole different dynamic.
4. Lords of Hellas has a larger map.
It just does. Also, segments aren't getting destroyed.
5. Lords of Hellas has more variety.
You can see this as a good thing or a bad thing. Blood Rage is ultimately simpler in its ruleset, which makes it more straightforward. But Lord of Hellas has more options each turn.
These are my initial thoughts. If anyone else wants to chime in with further comparisons/contrasts, feel free.
The areas on the board matter much more in Hellas. Will play 5-6 with new mechanics with expansions. Hellas has a cool push your luck hunting monster thing that could be it's own game. It has worker placement (which will be much bigger with expansions). Speaking of those expansions, it will have a ton of set up choices, including 1vsAll.
Nice comparison. Can you also compare game speed, down time between turns, amount of actual player vs player conflict, and smoothness of the games with their mechanics and switching to do different things?
I love blood rage and think I want loh.
There are Some Who Call Me... Tim
Hmmm. That's a tough one. Right now, I'd have to say they progress about the same speed, with the usual caveats for people who are new. Blood Rage does, however, have the age transition, with the card drafting. That kind of brings the game to a screeching halt while everyone reads over the cards and carefully selects the one they want, etc. (Unless every player has all the cards memorized.)
Aside from the aforementioned card draft time in BR, neither game has much downtime between turns. Of course, any game can have some analysis paralysis if a player is thinking too hard. Combat between two players (or monster hunting in LoH, which also involves two players) may create some downtime for others, if they're not involved in the fight, but it's not much.
Amount of PvP Conflict
I'd say they're similar here, though perhaps BR has the edge, due to the smaller map.
I find both games equally smooth.