3 x river trolls with complex moulds and excellent detail £28.50 - 3 x overly simplified and horribly sculpted hobbit trolls £50
Cities of Death building with 3 sprues and more plastic £20 - goblin town nicely sculpted 2 spruces but lighter gauge £35
You see where I'm going with this? GW has rinsed costs to the bone with this range and then overcharged for it. If people pay these prices then expect next years price rises to reflect this. Acceptance is permission in GWs eyes. They have chosen to run this experiment with the hobbit as trend buying will make this a success in corporate eyes and then they will believe there entire range should be this price as that is what they think the market will stand. Do not buy overpriced substandard miniatures, it only encourages them to carry out future crimes against the hobby.
I think they're appealing to the LOTR/Hobbit non-wargamer fans too, and especially near Christmas, people will be more than likely tempted to buy this for their loved ones. I know the last lot of LOTR did phenomenally well when it was released. People will buy this.
I know I am, I've already got my order in for a limited edition set and the scenery. I like LOTR, whether it gets opened depends on whether or not people at my local gaming store collect it too
Something interesting that I've heard quite a few times from people I've spoken with from GW suggests that the Lord of the Rings players would only come in to pick up new releases, instead playing at home.
Whether that is true or not, considering the general attitude that 40k/Fantasy players have towards them I would not be surprised if LOTR players had home clubs rather than playing in store.
Tezerel wrote: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Everyone is saying the price of the starter is obscene, and yet to me I think it is a great deal.
Dark Vengeance is 99 dollars for 48 minis, this limited edition Goblin Town is 125 for 56. Obviously I'm ignoring the differences in miniatures, but the goblin town set comes with 13 dwarf HEROES aka each one is a unique leader, gandalf, bilbo, radagast, and the goblin king. So lots of unique sculpts.
And on top of the massive number of heroes, it comes with terrain, which dark vengeance did NOT come with. So to me it seems like a pretty sweet deal. 56 minis plus rules, terrain, dice, extra crap all for 125- much better deal that GW usually offers.
Also like others have pointed out, the 3 trolls save you money when you look at the prices of trolls individually. The white council also could have easily just been 4 blister packs at $20 or more considering GW pricing.
Really most of these sets are usual GW pricing or less, it's just all bundled instead of broken up into small packets, which I guess everyone is used to.
What scenery? You don't get scenery included in this, you have to pay £35 EXTRA for the privilege of scenery, all you get in this is a chair for the goblin king to stand on
"Limited Edition contains 56 Citadel Miniatures including: Gandalf the Grey, Bilbo Baggins, Thorin Oakenshield, the limited edition Radagast the Brown, Oin the Dwarf, Gloin the Dwarf, Nori the Dwarf, Ori the Dwarf, Kili the Dwarf, Fili, the Dwarf, Dwalin the Dwarf, Bombur the Dwarf, Bofur the Dwarf, Bifur the Dwarf, The Goblin King, Grinnah the Goblin, The Goblin Scribe, Goblin Captain, 36 Goblin Warriors, and The Goblin King's platform. Also included is a 48 Page full colour 'Your Journey Begins Here' booklet, 1 Play Sheet, a 112 page full colour rules manual, 8 Dice, and 1 Ruler"
Not to be argumentative...but check out all the photos running across the bottom of the link.
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: They have chosen to run this experiment with the hobbit as trend buying will make this a success in corporate eyes and then they will believe there entire range should be this price as that is what they think the market will stand. Do not buy overpriced substandard miniatures, it only encourages them to carry out future crimes against the hobby.
Whether or not this is an "experiment", GW hasn't been running the upper end of the price range for some time now. Not with miniatures, not with terrain (Example)
Compared what others are putting out these day, GW's almost starting to look like a discounter
Tezerel wrote: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Everyone is saying the price of the starter is obscene, and yet to me I think it is a great deal.
Dark Vengeance is 99 dollars for 48 minis, this limited edition Goblin Town is 125 for 56. Obviously I'm ignoring the differences in miniatures, but the goblin town set comes with 13 dwarf HEROES aka each one is a unique leader, gandalf, bilbo, radagast, and the goblin king. So lots of unique sculpts.
And on top of the massive number of heroes, it comes with terrain, which dark vengeance did NOT come with. So to me it seems like a pretty sweet deal. 56 minis plus rules, terrain, dice, extra crap all for 125- much better deal that GW usually offers.
Also like others have pointed out, the 3 trolls save you money when you look at the prices of trolls individually. The white council also could have easily just been 4 blister packs at $20 or more considering GW pricing.
Really most of these sets are usual GW pricing or less, it's just all bundled instead of broken up into small packets, which I guess everyone is used to.
What scenery? You don't get scenery included in this, you have to pay £35 EXTRA for the privilege of scenery, all you get in this is a chair for the goblin king to stand on
"Limited Edition contains 56 Citadel Miniatures including: Gandalf the Grey, Bilbo Baggins, Thorin Oakenshield, the limited edition Radagast the Brown, Oin the Dwarf, Gloin the Dwarf, Nori the Dwarf, Ori the Dwarf, Kili the Dwarf, Fili, the Dwarf, Dwalin the Dwarf, Bombur the Dwarf, Bofur the Dwarf, Bifur the Dwarf, The Goblin King, Grinnah the Goblin, The Goblin Scribe, Goblin Captain, 36 Goblin Warriors, and The Goblin King's platform. Also included is a 48 Page full colour 'Your Journey Begins Here' booklet, 1 Play Sheet, a 112 page full colour rules manual, 8 Dice, and 1 Ruler"
Not to be argumentative...but check out all the photos running across the bottom of the link.
The piece here is not the goblin town add on, it is the platform with throne.
Unclebadtouch, river trolls are nice models but are not only not lord of the rings models, but are also smaller and come on smaller bases. Compared to the mordor and moria trolls from lotr, the new ones save you money.
So yeah, cool they are cheap. So are chaos cultists but pricing for finecast and metal has always been more, no surprise.
@zweis get off your high horse and stop trying to bring pointless hyperbole into every discussion. Hawk wargames have only just released those scenic items yet you make out like that is the norm for the industry. That is bull and you know it. I presented the most accurate like for like comparison, one that involves GWs own products. Your comments are meant to distract and fill yourself with some sense of smug fulfillment that you are smarter than others, you are not and you are irrelevant to this discussion. this is my one and not response to you in this thread.
@everyone else I suggest you block zweis as he will insist on trolling yet another discussion on these forums.
@tezerel are you suggesting that those Hobbit trolls are nearly 100% bigger? Because they are not yet they are nearly 100% more expensive with worse detail. They are changing a hobbit tax and don't you doubt it.
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: @tezerel are you suggesting that those Hobbit trolls are nearly 100% bigger? Because they are not yet they are nearly 100% more expensive with worse detail. They are changing a hobbit tax and don't you doubt it.
You know that the trolls are smaller?
And "worse detail" is not the case here. The fact that they do not have scales, fish to slap you with, etc does not make them any less detailed.
You're entitled to not like the models. But continually hating on them along with suggesting people just "block" a person who disagrees with you is a bit silly, don't you think?
@kan yes I am 100% certain that the hobbit trolls are not 100% bigger than the trolls in either volume or height, as the bases are known sizes you can work out the scaling photo and discern dimensions that way.
And yes that is exactly what more detailed means, also you will note on the hobbit trolls areas where texture has been blended away to allow components be larger yet still release from the mould so there can be less components, taking up less sprue space, meaning they can have less sprues and are diminishing detail to reduce costs.
As for @zweis feel free to search his forum posts and you will see his"contributions" in all their "glory"
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: @kan yes I am 100% certain that the hobbit trolls are not 100% bigger than the trolls in either volume or height, as the bases are known sizes you can work out the scaling photo and discern dimensions that way.
They're on 60mm round bases. The same size as a Dreadnought base.
The River Trolls are on 40mm square bases.
That doesn't make for a good scale comparison.
And yes that is exactly what more detailed means, also you will note on the hobbit trolls areas where texture has been blended away to allow components be larger yet still release from the mould so there can be less components, taking up less sprue space, meaning they can have less sprues and are diminishing detail to reduce costs.
That's speculation not supported by the photos of the sprues.
It's the independent retailers I feel sorry for that GW will try to force this stuff on. Can you order only Fantasy and 40K or do they start getting awkward if you don't stock all three systems?
Seems this will be a tough sell at these prices. GW will probably get away with it because people just buy their stuff no matter what. But it's going to be crap for retailers buying into this Hobbit stuff and having it sit on shelves if it doesn't go fast enough. The higher the RRP the higher the wholesale price which is a big sting to the independent store owner.
@kan knowing the dimensions of the bases makes scale comparison very easy if for instance in a photo a 40mm base is 30mm when know it is 75% of actual size. Then by measuring height, arm span etc I can then apply that factor and discern the dimensions of the model. Yes actual factual numbers. Deny it all you want but the hobbit trolls are not 100% bigger than the river trolls, guaranteed, not even close no contest. Your assertions are wrong, get out a ruler and test it for yourself before you incorrectly nay say me.
This box set contains three multi-part plastic River Trolls. This set includes a host of components that allow you to assemble the Trolls in a range of different ways, including: three different bodies, five different heads and five different pairs of arms. Models supplied with 40mm square bases.
The square v. round bases always make square based models seem much larger since they almost always use up the entire space(in terms of "volume") while the round based models tend to look like they do not fill the space even with a bulky model like a Dreadnought or Sentinel.
Whether or not this is an "experiment", GW hasn't been running the upper end of the price range for some time now. Not with miniatures, not with terrain (Example)
Compared what others are putting out these day, GW's almost starting to look like a discounter
Oh, Zwei. You do enjoy stirring the pot, don't you?
@kan the river trolls have 48 components and that doesn't involve a pointless fire piece of scenery.
You also seem to think I'm applying opinion as to the size of the miniatures, I am not as already stated you can take dimensions from the photos themselves as we know the size of the bases. Fact. Not opinion. It is fact that the hobbit trolls are not 100% bigger than river trolls.
So anyway. I might buy the starter box if/when I can find it on eBay for a cheap (ie US RRP) price. I like the look of the dwarves, and I'll just use LotR and even WFB/other fantasy figures for everything/anything else.
I think the trolls look like crap. Understandable if that's what they look like in the film, but for gaming, Existing LotR trolls in my collection or even suitably-modded fantasy trolls will work just fine. Same with orcs, warg riders, and so forth. Shame about the White Council, as they are very nice sculpts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: @kan the river trolls have 48 components and that doesn't involve a pointless fire piece of scenery.
You also seem to think I'm applying opinion as to the size of the miniatures, I am not as already stated you can take dimensions from the photos themselves as we know the size of the bases. Fact. Not opinion. It is fact that the hobbit trolls are not 100% bigger than river trolls.
One of you should photochop pics from the two troll types together and settle the argument once and for all.
Keep in mind that
1.) the general design is done by the film crew. They designed the Trolls, Goblin town and dwarfs. If you find the troll design inferior to GW's river trolls, it certainly is not the fault of GW. If the battle against goblins takes place on plain planks, GW can't make a terrain set of beautiful Elven design. The GW prices are of course GW's responsibility.
2.) the Hobbit movie is not a 1-1 copy of the book, but, being a different medium and being extended to 3 movies, some things can only be understood or valued if you have seen the movie. In other words, the movie is an entity by itself, following its own rules and taking liberties. So I am quite certain, that some people will change their opinion after seeing the movie.
Also, the Hobbit trolls are considerably larger than the river trolls, as can be seen here:
I wonder it they'd look better with the hair the stills of the film versions have, it might make them look less plasticky... perhaps some painted static grass would work?
(a shame the film has the goblin king so large and 'blobby' too.... I can go with the new goblin, but the king, nope)
The art direction is 100% PJ/WETA/Newline. However the choice to take up the license was GWs, the choice to simplify models reducing quality to cut cost was GWs, the choice to set inflated prices was GWs. If people choose to buy at the prices then this increased pricing will become standard and that will be the consumers fault.
@kroot at most the hobbit trolls are no more than 40% taller with a similar volume to the river trolls, the price is nearly 100% greater. I'm not saying that these should have been the same price as the river trolls, I personally think £35 would have been appropriate. I also believe £25 for the scenery set would not have been unreasonable as I do believe the COD building are slightly underpriced however its obvious that GW has pushed the prices far beyond their worth.
GWs new motto "mantic quality at three times the price".
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: The art direction is 100% PJ/WETA/Newline. However the choice to take up the license was GWs, the choice to simplify models reducing quality to cut cost was GWs, the choice to set inflated prices was GWs. If people choose to buy at the prices then this increased pricing will become standard and that will be the consumers fault.
@kroot at most the hobbit trolls are no more than 40% taller with a similar volume to the river trolls, the price is nearly 100% greater. I'm not saying that these should have been the same price as the river trolls, I personally think £35 would have been appropriate. I also believe £25 for the scenery set would not have been unreasonable as I do believe the COD building are slightly underpriced however its obvious that GW has pushed the prices far beyond their worth.
GWs new motto "mantic quality at three times the price".
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: The art direction is 100% PJ/WETA/Newline. However the choice to take up the license was GWs, the choice to simplify models reducing quality to cut cost was GWs, the choice to set inflated prices was GWs. If people choose to buy at the prices then this increased pricing will become standard and that will be the consumers fault.
@kroot at most the hobbit trolls are no more than 40% taller with a similar volume to the river trolls, the price is nearly 100% greater. I'm not saying that these should have been the same price as the river trolls, I personally think £35 would have been appropriate. I also believe £25 for the scenery set would not have been unreasonable as I do believe the COD building are slightly underpriced however its obvious that GW has pushed the prices far beyond their worth.
GWs new motto "mantic quality at three times the price".
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: The art direction is 100% PJ/WETA/Newline. However the choice to take up the license was GWs, the choice to simplify models reducing quality to cut cost was GWs, the choice to set inflated prices was GWs. If people choose to buy at the prices then this increased pricing will become standard and that will be the consumers fault.
@kroot at most the hobbit trolls are no more than 40% taller with a similar volume to the river trolls, the price is nearly 100% greater. I'm not saying that these should have been the same price as the river trolls, I personally think £35 would have been appropriate. I also believe £25 for the scenery set would not have been unreasonable as I do believe the COD building are slightly underpriced however its obvious that GW has pushed the prices far beyond their worth.
GWs new motto "mantic quality at three times the price".
Oof. Personally I find the US pricing a bit...oof. But the only ones that made me roll my eyes were the characters. I mean, GW pricing has been a bit oof for a while now. But $20 for a character, or $40 for a mounted character, or $75 for four characters seems over the top.
But here's the thing, I know lots of people on the internet like to talk about how stupid GW is and how bad they are at business. But they are not. There's no other game company that's been around as long as they have, selling in the volume that they sell. All the companies people compare favorably to GW - Mantic, Privateer, Battlefront, etc - would be thrilled to have the longevity, sales and profit of GW.
So GW knows a bit about their business. And they know what sold with LoTR. And I bet they are pricing the White Council, etc with an eye towards collectors and not gamers. I bet a big chunk of those sets go to people who will never play a game of the Hobbit. Hell, a lot of them will never even be opened, they'll just sit in their shrink wrap, (not) rising in value. Because that's what collectors do. They collect. And they won't be put off by $20 extra here and there.
Just because I don't like GW's decisions doesn't mean those decisions are stupid.
hubcap wrote: Oof. Personally I find the US pricing a bit...oof. But the only ones that made me roll my eyes were the characters. I mean, GW pricing has been a bit oof for a while now. But $20 for a character, or $40 for a mounted character, or $75 for four characters seems over the top.
But here's the thing, I know lots of people on the internet like to talk about how stupid GW is and how bad they are at business. But they are not. There's no other game company that's been around as long as they have, selling in the volume that they sell. All the companies people compare favorably to GW - Mantic, Privateer, Battlefront, etc - would be thrilled to have the longevity, sales and profit of GW.
So GW knows a bit about their business. And they know what sold with LoTR. And I bet they are pricing the White Council, etc with an eye towards collectors and not gamers. I bet a big chunk of those sets go to people who will never play a game of the Hobbit. Hell, a lot of them will never even be opened, they'll just sit in their shrink wrap, (not) rising in value. Because that's what collectors do. They collect. And they won't be put off by $20 extra here and there.
Just because I don't like GW's decisions doesn't mean those decisions are stupid.
Can't disagree in principle.
However it is frustrating to see a company that's in a position to do so much for the hobby as a whole and generate so much goodwill and make so much money in the process constantly make sub-optimal decisions in favour of a short term, short sighted money grab.
Zweischneid wrote: Whether or not this is an "experiment", GW hasn't been running the upper end of the price range for some time now. Not with miniatures, not with terrain (Example)
Compared what others are putting out these day, GW's almost starting to look like a discounter
I love it. You've found one company that sells expensive terrain, and suddenly that's your go-to "proof" that these GW prices aren't insanely high. Look like a discounter?
Stupid GW. The amount of customers they must have lost with those prices must have been staggering. I am a casual lotr collector and may have thought about getting the starter set ( if I actually liked the goblins in the set which I don't) as it is, no chance!
I wonder it they'd look better with the hair the stills of the film versions have, it might make them look less plasticky... perhaps some painted static grass would work?
(a shame the film has the goblin king so large and 'blobby' too.... I can go with the new goblin, but the king, nope)
I did one of those BfSP trolls up with static grass for hair, painted it bright pink - it's a lovely effect and it works great. Can't seem to find the model now but the idea, in principle, works. Just spray black, drybrush a bit, profit!
I'll either get a picture up if I find it soon or make a new one if I don't (it was too awesome to not have around ) really, the idea is sound - go for it!
only problem I found was getting the edges of the hair to look 'natural'. that can be a wee bit tricky (though I found dabbing on glue, dipping in static grass and then 'smearing' the mixture out with your finger a little and dipping again works okay enough).
I love it. You've found one company that sells expensive terrain, and suddenly that's your go-to "proof" that these GW prices aren't insanely high. Look like a discounter?
How un-fething-believably self-deluded are you Zwei?
I've found other examples before. But you didn't like those either.
As you're dead-set on your crusade of "GW's prices are insanely high, cause they were lower 10 years ago" and aren't even looking for a reasoned discussion, it doesn't matter to you anyhow?
But if you keep looking only at the one single straw-comparison that flimsily supports your position and close your eyes to all the others.. well, than it sure isn't me who's into self-delusion.
I love it. You've found one company that sells expensive terrain, and suddenly that's your go-to "proof" that these GW prices aren't insanely high. Look like a discounter?
How un-fething-believably self-deluded are you Zwei?
I've found other examples before. But you didn't like those either.
As you're dead-set on your crusade of "GW's prices are insanely high, cause they were lower 10 years ago" and aren't even looking for a reasoned discussion, it doesn't matter to you anyhow?
But if you keep looking only at the one single straw-comparison that flimsily supports your position and close your eyes to all the others.. well, than it sure isn't me who's into self-delusion.
I gotta agree with HBMC here.
The DZC terrain is very expensive. Anyone can see that. However, it is quite well designed and detailed, there isn't a large amount of wargames terrain in that scale available, and it is relatively difficult to make comparably detailed terrain on one's own. Its not that much more expensive than similarly detailed train scenery.
The Hobbit terrain is not as expensive, but it is still expensive. The kicker is that the terrain given is essentially a bunch of flat boards, such that anyone with a few spare hours could make something comparable from balsa wood.
It's like saying 'A Mercedes isn't expensive, look at this Aston Martin!'.
GW's prices are insanely high, because a large number of other companies are offering similar products at much lower prices.
Not exactly HMBC but it is jading the excitement for some people perhaps. Though your point is correct, I completely agree.
Just on a weird positive spin for the council box set, there is guaranteed to be 600+ pts in that box for £45 despite it being invested in 4 miniatures. All hero armies can be a lot of fun to play, Elrond with his kick ass combat skills, the powerful offensive and hindering magic of Gandalf and Saruman and the healing powers of galadriel, it could be a powerful combination played right
This is scary cos I have talked myself into wanting the set, but I do like all the sculpts despite others opinions...
Here the latest video blog by Peter Jackson on making the Hobbit movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vqyzHwnEiY BTW according to PJ, the movie should be ready 2 days before the premiere, hopefully
Dwarves look cool, I'll pick them up either now or later when they have loads of other versions like the fellowship, Kili looks like he could make a good ranger captain if he was slightly bigger
Gandalf looks great, but I prefer the old Ragadast
Don't like the new goblins, they look like they have the plauge or something
New orcs, I'm not sure what to think
and the trolls I don't like
But holy feth the prices, and I hope they change it to Middle Earth SBGs or something similar once everything's out
Bloody hell, when I saw the prices of the Hobbit minis I had to do a double-take to make sure I hadn't accidentally set my country as Australia... I remember when GW was pricing their LOTR units at half this.
I know that much of the aesthetic was dictated by the movies, and the nature of the party is from the book, but none of the models really impress me. I think the new goblins are goofy compared to the Moria goblins of FotR, and I don't want to keep track of 13 different dwarves during a game.
Also, like the rest of the peanut gallery, I'm simply shocked by the prices. I bought a Fellowship and Two Towers box set because at $40, they came with some neat minis and the full rule book. OTOH, escape seems like more of a finished product (like mines of moria was) in a way that the early box sets weren't.
I've never figured out the market for LotR. I expected mass combat, and got scenario driven play. Of course, the early plastics were all for mass combat, and you needed more and more metal boxes to really play the scenarios. By the time of War of the Ring and Mines of Moria, I had lost interest. The common wisdom was either that LotR players were this massive underground culture, or that the models simply sold to collectors and painters. (I subscribe to the latter).
At these price points, GW seems to completely alienate any casual interest. You have to love the Hobbit, or the models, to cough up the dough for models for a new (or newly reinvented) system.
Brother-Captain Scotti wrote: Not exactly HMBC but it is jading the excitement for some people perhaps. Though your point is correct, I completely agree.
Just on a weird positive spin for the council box set, there is guaranteed to be 600+ pts in that box for £45 despite it being invested in 4 miniatures. All hero armies can be a lot of fun to play, Elrond with his kick ass combat skills, the powerful offensive and hindering magic of Gandalf and Saruman and the healing powers of galadriel, it could be a powerful combination played right
This is scary cos I have talked myself into wanting the set, but I do like all the sculpts despite others opinions...
I want the set, I'm just not willing to pay the asking price. Which means I won't be getting it unless I find it insanely cheap somehow...
Will the "normal" set be cheaper than the limited edition one?
Also I have watched all of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit vlogs (just last night!). The trolls do look better in the movies because of the sparse hair and all, and you mostly see them in the dark lit by a camplight.
Tezerel wrote: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Everyone is saying the price of the starter is obscene, and yet to me I think it is a great deal.
Dark Vengeance is 99 dollars for 48 minis, this limited edition Goblin Town is 125 for 56. Obviously I'm ignoring the differences in miniatures, but the goblin town set comes with 13 dwarf HEROES aka each one is a unique leader, gandalf, bilbo, radagast, and the goblin king. So lots of unique sculpts.
And on top of the massive number of heroes, it comes with terrain, which dark vengeance did NOT come with. So to me it seems like a pretty sweet deal. 56 minis plus rules, terrain, dice, extra crap all for 125- much better deal that GW usually offers.
Also like others have pointed out, the 3 trolls save you money when you look at the prices of trolls individually. The white council also could have easily just been 4 blister packs at $20 or more considering GW pricing.
Really most of these sets are usual GW pricing or less, it's just all bundled instead of broken up into small packets, which I guess everyone is used to.
What scenery? You don't get scenery included in this, you have to pay £35 EXTRA for the privilege of scenery, all you get in this is a chair for the goblin king to stand on
"Limited Edition contains 56 Citadel Miniatures including: Gandalf the Grey, Bilbo Baggins, Thorin Oakenshield, the limited edition Radagast the Brown, Oin the Dwarf, Gloin the Dwarf, Nori the Dwarf, Ori the Dwarf, Kili the Dwarf, Fili, the Dwarf, Dwalin the Dwarf, Bombur the Dwarf, Bofur the Dwarf, Bifur the Dwarf, The Goblin King, Grinnah the Goblin, The Goblin Scribe, Goblin Captain, 36 Goblin Warriors, and The Goblin King's platform. Also included is a 48 Page full colour 'Your Journey Begins Here' booklet, 1 Play Sheet, a 112 page full colour rules manual, 8 Dice, and 1 Ruler"
Plus if you were to compare the size of the models in the two sets with each other...
Brother-Captain Scotti wrote: Not exactly HMBC but it is jading the excitement for some people perhaps. Though your point is correct, I completely agree.
Just on a weird positive spin for the council box set, there is guaranteed to be 600+ pts in that box for £45 despite it being invested in 4 miniatures. All hero armies can be a lot of fun to play, Elrond with his kick ass combat skills, the powerful offensive and hindering magic of Gandalf and Saruman and the healing powers of galadriel, it could be a powerful combination played right
This is scary cos I have talked myself into wanting the set, but I do like all the sculpts despite others opinions...
I want the set, I'm just not willing to pay the asking price. Which means I won't be getting it unless I find it insanely cheap somehow...
I have got admit, the only reason I am thinking of getting it is because I am in the UK, after Vent showing up the prices and the differences in exchange rates, I fully support you decision! It's a joke!
Davor wrote:I have to agree who ever said it, not to buy the rule book because this time next year there will be a new one.
I can pay $100 for a rule book that will last 4 or 5 years, but not one that will last only one year.
Aye, I realised what happened last time must happen again given that it is GW, also on top of the three that will accompany each movie release there will also be a comprehensive one for everything middle-earth in the end, that's a given. I would also be willing to bet that the rule books go up anywhere between £10-£20 in the time space for them all to be released meaning the cost could be well over £200 just to be able to keep playing it....... Looks like I'm hitting eBay for a mini one! Either that or I use the old white council rules, which I bet will be almost identical given that the stats from the GW website are the same the LOTRWC rules.
I live in New Zealand... Get bent GW... Get bent...
Funny thing is that Battlefront do a similar thing.. with AU at the bottom of the scale (worse than NZ in prices, actually!) I agree with you on GW though.
GW's prices are insanely high, because a large number of other companies are offering similar products at much lower prices.
Are there? Show me!
Try looking at any of the laser cut mdf companies like 4ground. They may not make exactly the same type of scenery right now but I have a feeling they soon will do...
And £35 for Goblin town doesn't seem as bad, it's still a resounding no from me though.
j/k right?
It doesn't seem as bad as the £40-45 I was expecting. But then if it'd come from a company like Renedra (who do plastic injection scenery) I'd expect the same set to cost £15-20. Even with the GW markup it's overpriced.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hubcap wrote: Oof. Personally I find the US pricing a bit...oof. But the only ones that made me roll my eyes were the characters. I mean, GW pricing has been a bit oof for a while now. But $20 for a character, or $40 for a mounted character, or $75 for four characters seems over the top.
But here's the thing, I know lots of people on the internet like to talk about how stupid GW is and how bad they are at business. But they are not. There's no other game company that's been around as long as they have, selling in the volume that they sell. All the companies people compare favorably to GW - Mantic, Privateer, Battlefront, etc - would be thrilled to have the longevity, sales and profit of GW..
All of those companies are growing at a rate far beyond GW (who seems to be shrinking/stagnating), in terms of range/value/market share. GW are still by far the biggest player, given then 20+ year head start, but in another ten I wouldn't be betting on GW to remain as dominant as it is now.
What's more amusing is that Mantic and Battlefront, at least (I don't know anything about Privateer) are run by ex-GW staffers, so could have all been within the GW empire if they hadn't rejected them (FOW was apparently suggested to GW and turned down).
Just on a weird positive spin for the council box set, there is guaranteed to be 600+ pts in that box for £45 despite it being invested in 4 miniatures. All hero armies can be a lot of fun to play, Elrond with his kick ass combat skills, the powerful offensive and hindering magic of Gandalf and Saruman and the healing powers of galadriel, it could be a powerful combination played right
I've never bought into the whole "Yes it's expensive as a figure but good value for the points" argument. Yes it's useful if you want to get a competitive army for the lowest cost, but it doesn't make sense to most people who figure A can cost more than figure B in size, detail, material and age, expect that figure A is a better in-game character. It feels like a rip-off.
And £35 for Goblin town doesn't seem as bad, it's still a resounding no from me though.
j/k right?
It doesn't seem as bad as the £40-45 I was expecting. But then if it'd come from a company like Renedra (who do plastic injection scenery) I'd expect the same set to cost £15-20. Even with the GW markup it's overpriced.
That's what I mean, I 'think' that Warlord games use Renedra's plastic terrain for BA and a village of four good sized ruined buildings in 28mm is the same price, it's an outrageous ask for goblin town but GW are testing the waters for sure with that one, I can't see them taking the sales figs seriously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hubcap wrote: Oof. Personally I find the US pricing a bit...oof. But the only ones that made me roll my eyes were the characters. I mean, GW pricing has been a bit oof for a while now. But $20 for a character, or $40 for a mounted character, or $75 for four characters seems over the top.
But here's the thing, I know lots of people on the internet like to talk about how stupid GW is and how bad they are at business. But they are not. There's no other game company that's been around as long as they have, selling in the volume that they sell. All the companies people compare favorably to GW - Mantic, Privateer, Battlefront, etc - would be thrilled to have the longevity, sales and profit of GW..
All of those companies are growing at a rate far beyond GW (who seems to be shrinking/stagnating), in terms of range/value/market share. GW are still by far the biggest player, given then 20+ year head start, but in another ten I wouldn't be betting on GW to remain as dominant as it is now.
What's more amusing is that Mantic and Battlefront, at least (I don't know anything about Privateer) are run by ex-GW staffers, so could have all been within the GW empire if they hadn't rejected them (FOW was apparently suggested to GW and turned down).
Again worth mentioning Warlord Games, while not any form of Sci-Fi or Fantasy, every penny spent on their historical stuff is a penny not spent on GW and it seems more often than not that people annoyed with GW's increasing hikes turn to historical. The point I have failed to mention in my waffle is that it is owned by Paul 'Fatbloke' Sawyer and the game rules generally created by Rick Priestly and Alessio Cavatore.
Just on a weird positive spin for the council box set, there is guaranteed to be 600+ pts in that box for £45 despite it being invested in 4 miniatures. All hero armies can be a lot of fun to play, Elrond with his kick ass combat skills, the powerful offensive and hindering magic of Gandalf and Saruman and the healing powers of galadriel, it could be a powerful combination played right
I've never bought into the whole "Yes it's expensive as a figure but good value for the points" argument. Yes it's useful if you want to get a competitive army for the lowest cost, but it doesn't make sense to most people who figure A can cost more than figure B in size, detail, material and age, expect that figure A is a better in-game character. It feels like a rip-off.
That point of view isn't for everyone, I digress. Just playing devils advocate Though I must admit I think it would be fun to play this 'force' in a game, to the shock and horror of all reading, I am going to buy this set!
Okay, looking at the GW website, the Goblin Town terrain set is more than TWICE as expensive as Ruins of Osgiliath. Judging from the photos it seems that they contain almost the same amount of plastic, maybe a little bit more on Goblin Town.
I really want to love these, but the prices are killing me.
Seriously, those dwarves...guys! Some of them look like a bunch of homeless people who found some improvised weapons in a back alley...meh. Not interested in the movie, the book (mediocre to me) or the game at all. Interested in how this turns out for the actual LOTR tabletop, ye know, the one where you have manly battles instead of this new stuff...
Seriously, those dwarves...guys! Some of them look like a bunch of homeless people who found some improvised weapons in a back alley...meh. Not interested in the movie, the book (mediocre to me) or the game at all. Interested in how this turns out for the actual LOTR tabletop, ye know, the one where you have manly battles instead of this new stuff...
Battle of Five Armies, much?
Also; I'm willing to place bets on there being spin-off titles involving the War of the Dwarves and Orcs, as well as Dol Guldur material. Manly battles occurred throughout the period of the Hobbit too, y'know...
Weirdly enough GW already covered the Necomancer/White Council stuff with their non-movie expansions. How are they going to do that now? What's going to happen to things like this guy? Or this guy?
Seriously, those dwarves...guys! Some of them look like a bunch of homeless people who found some improvised weapons in a back alley...meh. Not interested in the movie, the book (mediocre to me) or the game at all. Interested in how this turns out for the actual LOTR tabletop, ye know, the one where you have manly battles instead of this new stuff...
That would be the Dwarves who ,at the start of The Hobbit, are scattered and wandering and in the words of Thorin "sinking as low as blacksmith work or even coalmining". They have not been carrying The Lonely Mountain's armoury with them. Also consider the fact that in a visual medium the Dwarves need to look distinctive from each other hence the differing appearance. That said, some of the hair styles freak me out and I'm sure Tolkein didn't state that one Dwarf had part of an Orc axe embedded in his head!
About the secret underground culture thing about LotR players:
It was my first miniatures game. I would always play it with my friends at his or my house, we would never play it at a store. Yet we both ended up having huge armies!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Weirdly enough GW already covered the Necomancer/White Council stuff with their non-movie expansions. How are they going to do that now? What's going to happen to things like this guy? Or this guy?
Interesting! I wasn't even aware that they had designed and released a model for Sauron as the Necromancer. I'm going to assume that the officially designed New Line models will take order of precedence over these older ones.
Seriously, those dwarves...guys! Some of them look like a bunch of homeless people who found some improvised weapons in a back alley...meh. Not interested in the movie, the book (mediocre to me) or the game at all. Interested in how this turns out for the actual LOTR tabletop, ye know, the one where you have manly battles instead of this new stuff...
That would be the Dwarves who ,at the start of The Hobbit, are scattered and wandering and in the words of Thorin "sinking as low as blacksmith work or even coalmining". They have not been carrying The Lonely Mountain's armoury with them. Also consider the fact that in a visual medium the Dwarves need to look distinctive from each other hence the differing appearance. That said, some of the hair styles freak me out and I'm sure Tolkein didn't state that one Dwarf had part of an Orc axe embedded in his head!
Good man. It took me a while to warm up to the Dwarves but I must say, I now cannot wait to watch them on the silver screen. I think the problem would arise for the average cinema go'er with thirteen Dwarves, all bearing similar names in a language that is largely unspoken outside of Scandinavia and the Icelandic family sagas. Tolkien took to assigning the Dwarves different coloured cloaks and varying beard colours. Whilst it may work in the book where one may back-reference something quickly, I don't think that approach would work well for the cinema. I'm stoked to see that Bifur, Bofur and Bombur look decidedly different and rough compared to some of their more noble companions - afterall, the two brothers and cousin were not of Durin's lineage.
I think the minis look decent enough, but I have to concur that the price is a bit ridiculous.
And I'm not one to moan about the prices, as I've said many times, if you aren't a fanatic about the hobby, its not really THAT expensive because they don't degrade or get subjected to actual cannon fire.. therefore I own only two armies, and I don't own every unit or every figure, so I've spent maybe £500 on minis in about 4-5 years, hardly dear when I spend £10,000 a year going boozing.
But I just think passing the £15 mark for individual character models is taking the slash. The prices for them seemed about right a few years back, with gak like chaplains and captains in 40k ranging from between 8-12 quid, I'm happy with that. But the trolls and white council specifically are more than I would be willing to pay.
Good models though, I think Bilbo is probably my favourite, I like the simpler stuff, and I think its a really great pose, he actually manages to look impressive and imposing even though he's a midget.
Archibald_TK over at Warseer wrote:Things were made a little clearer today. I assume modules are treated the same in every country, if not then keep in mind what I'm saying may not concern USA and the UK:
- Mine of Moria and the Moria paint set are out for good.
- Other boxes that were part of the first module (the most common boxes) are now shifted to the last module (4b). I don't know how many are shifted, it may be all of them, I also forgot to ask if some of those that were already in the last module were going out.
- Modules 4a stay untouched so still includes the rulebooks that were released earlier this year and some other boxes.
- LotR is still present in the first module, but the new boxes replace the old ones. Notably the Trolls, Warg Riders and the main box are in.
It's a smart move by GW, the boxes that retailers are forced to get are the most costly (outside of the terrain) that some retailers may have had skipped, the others (goblins, orcs) we will automatically take as they will be asked for more frequently. Instead of including in the module boxes that they know would sell anyway, they place those that could have ended up as an unpopular pick by the retailers. In addition the Main box is in the module (obviously) so people are forced to take two, but only the Limited Edition is available at the beginning, so you are forced to take two of the most costly ones. Finally all of the boxes that were part of the first module can be sent back to GW (unless you have subscribed to the fourth module in which case you have to keep those that shifted there), but it eats up your quota of returns normally so many retailers won't be in a position to do so.
I think the way they dealt with the release will leave some retailers unhappy, but overall will get GW a lot of money. Personally while I had no intention of sending back the majority of the old models I have in the shop, I assure you if I had the choice I would never had taken the Trolls and I would have ordered regular sets, not limited ones. Now I cross my fingers that the new LotR journey will become successful, while I won't lure myself into thinking that it will bring as much money as the previous trilogy I hope it will noticeably increase our sales of GW products.
So essentially the 3rd party retailers are being forced to take the most expensive and least likely to sell kits? Good for GW, but a bit crap elsewhere. Is that even fair?
I expect a huge sales spike as people buy the starter, but a few months / weeks after the movie has aired, the game will die. Pity for the actual LOTR tabletop, I always liked it and was even considering re-starting...meh. Too late now.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Weirdly enough GW already covered the Necomancer/White Council stuff with their non-movie expansions. How are they going to do that now? What's going to happen to things like this guy? Or this guy?
Well, I'd say you can (obviously) still use the old models when playing the game, but there will be new models for both based on however WETA decides they're going to look (already in progress with Radagast)...
Having read this thread and subjected the new models to an intense scrutiny, I find myself marvelling that I can by 10 nice uruk-hai for just £15 and 4 highly detail berzerkers for £16.
What? The white council is £45?!
Why, GW?
Why?
Maybe for Saruman and Gandalf, but Gladriel? They may be paying extra for using a horrible likeness of Kate Blanchette. If I were Kate Blanchette (also quite unlikely), I would be suing GW for that horrible figure...
H.B.M.C. wrote: I expect so too, but does that mean they just stop selling them?
I hope not, whilst I would like the new Radagast model, as I like it a fair amount and it looks fun to paint, I will be rather peeved if it takes precedence and means they stop selling the original Radagast model.
Especially since it's limited edition and won't be sold for very long.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Weirdly enough GW already covered the Necomancer/White Council stuff with their non-movie expansions. How are they going to do that now? What's going to happen to things like this guy? Or this guy?
Well, I'd say you can (obviously) still use the old models when playing the game, but there will be new models for both based on however WETA decides they're going to look (already in progress with Radagast)...
Pardon me if this is a repeated question, but the answer will make or break the game for me:
With the new Hobbit rule book, can you use ALL the old models? Are their Stats for all the older models?
Will the Hobbit skirmish game replace the rules for the original SBG??
If the Hobbit is taking it all to a new level, and including the past figures, I will love the opportunity to buy and play.
If they are simply disregarding everything else, or asking people to buy those expensive army books to play "the original SBG", I don't see
how this is going to work.
We actually started with War of the Rings, but do not play it often. I have a TON of painted miniatures, however. If i can use them all, with support int his new system I will be quite happy. If not, no way.
Lastly, will the rules manual in the Starter Goblin Town box actually contain everything from the rule book (just in a smaller format)?
@Shrapnelsmile - This editon is meant to use all the LotR figures as well as the new stuff. In the video Adam Troke says that you are meant to be able to pit the old figures against new challenges such as Nazgul vs Thorin and co. Or the Fellowship vs the Goblin King. I couldn't say wether you 'need' the army books as they've been out for a while and they aren't listed in the new releases section of this months White Dwarf. I think that the big box will have all the rules but that's an assumption based on the fact that the SBG has always been light on rules, which is not a bad thing. That said if you want the dwarf models before Christmas that big box looks like the only place you are going to be able to get them.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Weirdly enough GW already covered the Necomancer/White Council stuff with their non-movie expansions. How are they going to do that now? What's going to happen to things like this guy? Or this guy?
Well, I'd say you can (obviously) still use the old models when playing the game, but there will be new models for both based on however WETA decides they're going to look (already in progress with Radagast)...
Pardon me if this is a repeated question, but the answer will make or break the game for me:
With the new Hobbit rule book, can you use ALL the old models? Are their Stats for all the older models?
Will the Hobbit skirmish game replace the rules for the original SBG??
If the Hobbit is taking it all to a new level, and including the past figures, I will love the opportunity to buy and play.
If they are simply disregarding everything else, or asking people to buy those expensive army books to play "the original SBG", I don't see
how this is going to work.
We actually started with War of the Rings, but do not play it often. I have a TON of painted miniatures, however. If i can use them all, with support int his new system I will be quite happy. If not, no way.
Lastly, will the rules manual in the Starter Goblin Town box actually contain everything from the rule book (just in a smaller format)?
Thanks gents
There are certainly stats for older models in the book, but not sure how many.
GW makes a secret out of what exactly ARE the new rules. Rumour has it that they are only minor modifications.
Fact is that the 5 new faction stat books stay and stay legal.
For fear of being lynched.. Why fix something that isn't broken? The original Lord of the Rings rules are great, just look at Legends of the Old West, which uses the same thing.
BrookM wrote: For fear of being lynched.. Why fix something that isn't broken? The original Lord of the Rings rules are great, just look at Legends of the Old West, which uses the same thing.
beacuse of the money, and it keeps it relevant by having the newer movies as catchy, probably hoping to lure people who don't know much into buying an expensive starter set
Just saying that the new rulebook contains several spoilers of upcoming miniatures.
Hadn't time to look in detail, but I spotted an alternative Radagast and new dwarf warriors.
Darnok from Warseer wrote:
The first people have their rulebooks and starter sets, and it seems like the mini rulebook has no points costs in it at all, and only the profiles for the models in the boxed set. So if you want to play with anything else, or want to play something other than scenarios form the starter, you have to buy the big rulebook. Take the troll scenario as an example: you need the starter, the big rulebook, the trolls - 230€.
For that money I get the rules and something from three to five factions from other popular game systems. And the Hobbit is supposed to be a skirmish game... :wtf:
Bolognesus wrote: Well, here's to hoping for some updated goblin sculpts, then
I agree that they could do with an update, but they are still available at present, although the Wild Wargs were gone the last time I looked.
I just bought a box of wild wargs from green dragon games literally the week before the Hobbit ones were released, really gutted because I love the look of the fell wargs and can't wait to be able to afford a box (lol), although the wild ones are pretty awesome in themselves.
The Hobbit rulebook lost most unit entries of the old book, just has some new ones (except some bare statlines in the Appendix). So you need the faction books as well to play the game.
ooh thank god
not too keen on changes... change ruined 40k for me, and kicked fantasy in the balls
GW is 2/3 with me...
they have priced me out, lost me with the rules, I have sold so much of my models to buy magic cards... least no one can take my beloved unicorn-pegasus deck from me
I actually heard that "all hobbits" was a very effective army in LOTR... but this is heresay, I haven't played it myself (and won't, unless another company picked it up- I don't want to have a game for 3 years only...)
I'm tellin' ya - they remember the bursting bubble all to well at GWHQ, so want to make the bubble as big as it can be before it bursts. There's no other explanation for these exorbitant costs.
RiTides wrote: I actually heard that "all hobbits" was a very effective army in LOTR... but this is heresay, I haven't played it myself (and won't, unless another company picked it up- I don't want to have a game for 3 years only...)
when they all have a S1 shooting attack, are about 3pts each and even the non-fellowship hero's are about 10-30pts, that's alot of hobbits
however they only come in packs of 3 metal (have they been finecast yet?) hobbits, so it's very expinsive money-wise
It's something that is funny for one game, after which no-one would want to play you. I've only heard of it being done once, and that was by a staffer who bought all of it for ridiculous discount (back when you could get metal by weight, so you'd be paying about 10p for a hobbit). The opposing force dies to a barrage of stones, regardless of what they might be.
But yeah if you would have to be pretty mental to buy, paint and then use that force
using hobbits was always fun, people loved playing against them, because by the end of the game there would be so many dead hobbits but they'd be dead by just how many I'd throw at them
I'm painting up my Goblins as we speak, the models are absolutely top notch quality, especially Radagast! Massively impressed with them.
I'm a LOTR fan, I'm a wargamer, £75 isn't that much since you get more models in it than Dark Vengeance, works out as £1 extra per model, if I'm right.
faeit212 wrote:I get to see product launch briefs when they come out and one thing jumped out at me from the hobbit product brief, I've pasted it below;
"We will continue to support Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 customers by launching new products every month. The Lord of the Rings releases historically replaced Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 sales. This time, any Hobbit releases are on top of our existing Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 plans."
So, to all the people who say "they should concentrate on 40k and not waste any months on LotR" can go to sleep happy as there will be a 40k/WFB launch every month next year and the hobbit will just be extras on top.
faeit212 wrote:I get to see product launch briefs when they come out and one thing jumped out at me from the hobbit product brief, I've pasted it below;
"We will continue to support Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 customers by launching new products every month. The Lord of the Rings releases historically replaced Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 sales. This time, any Hobbit releases are on top of our existing Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 plans."
So, to all the people who say "they should concentrate on 40k and not waste any months on LotR" can go to sleep happy as there will be a 40k/WFB launch every month next year and the hobbit will just be extras on top.
We shall see if the masses are happy with these releases. If the 40k releases for a given month are nothing more than finecast versions of existing models, then I think the natives will not be happy.
GW has long said that they are only able to produce a certain number of new plastic sprues each year. Unless this number has increased, I think that 40k and Fantasy fans will be angry that some of new plastics will be devoted to the Hobbit.
Oh poor 40k players and fantasy players that there will be hobbit releases. If it were no for lotr in early 2000s there would be a different 40k now. Lotr was gw bread and butter for a while and even out sold sm at one time.
Without that lotr money there could have been a smaller gw without the great products we see now.
I guess they realised that neglecting the greater majority of their customers (40K outsells Fantasy & LotR combined, and Fantasy outsells LotR) was a bad idea.
those 40k/whfb players shouldn't complain, they always get new miniatures, while we, the lotr players, get some re-releases in finecast every 4 months, its good to see we actually get some stunning new figs
Small video by rob_alderman over at Warseer featuring the previews of new miniatures hidden in the Hobbit rulebook:
http://youtu.be/agU_aURS6s4
There Elf Knights, Eagles, Gwaihir, Finecast Goblin King, Finecast Thorin's Company, Another Hunter Orc Leader with some spiky bone bits around him, The Grimhammer Dwarves, some leaders are mentioned too. Azog is riding a White Warg, so we will notice him quite readily! In the video, I thought the Hunter Orc might be Azog, but no, he's not!
^No luck with new elven chivalry eh? My gosh GW should keep a cunning plan to pull Hobbit horse alive uptill the next year, after all there is a plan apart from price rip off, eh ?
I dunno about the high price of the Trolls. They might be worth the price - I saw them in better setail on GW's page, and two of them have interchangeable silverware hands!!!
AegisGrimm wrote: I dunno about the high price of the Trolls. They might be worth the price - I saw them in better setail on GW's page, and two of them have interchangeable silverware hands!!!
I don't know. GW may be on to something here. That silverware is an essential element in a holiday dinner diorama, and we all make holiday dinner dioramas don't we. So between the halfling hot pot, the spare rib from the Kroot sprue, and the 8 sets of silverware from the trolls, each diorama will cost more than 650 dollars.
There Elf Knights, Eagles, Gwaihir, Finecast Goblin King, Finecast Thorin's Company, Another Hunter Orc Leader with some spiky bone bits around him, The Grimhammer Dwarves, some leaders are mentioned too. Azog is riding a White Warg, so we will notice him quite readily! In the video, I thought the Hunter Orc might be Azog, but no, he's not!
Oh god
I have wanted plastic high elf cavalry since I got into this hobby (back with the first issue of the magazine they put out). It is a shame I don't really expect to find people to play with because I just know I'll have to build a small force around them.
Wait... is there going to be another six million page Desolation of Smaug rulebook a year from now, and then another full-colour hardback for There And Back Again rulebook 6 months after that?
Personally I'd expect this to be the one rulebook, and then we'll get journey books similar to the existing Lord of the Rings range. Or maybe that's just me hoping I don't spend £50 on something that needs replacing in a year...
narked wrote: Personally I'd expect this to be the one rulebook, and then we'll get journey books similar to the existing Lord of the Rings range. Or maybe that's just me hoping I don't spend £50 on something that needs replacing in a year...
Definitely hoping, it ain't gonna happen mate, sorry....
narked wrote: Personally I'd expect this to be the one rulebook, and then we'll get journey books similar to the existing Lord of the Rings range. Or maybe that's just me hoping I don't spend £50 on something that needs replacing in a year...
untill they condense all of the jorney books into the One Rulebook "for convenience" and whack the price up £10-20 while they're at it...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Wait... is there going to be another six million page Desolation of Smaug rulebook a year from now, and then another full-colour hardback for There And Back Again rulebook 6 months after that?
I wonder if a lot of replanning and re-editing was required if most work was completed on the game BEFORE "The Hobbit" became a movie trilogy.
alphaecho wrote: I wonder if a lot of replanning and re-editing was required if most work was completed on the game BEFORE "The Hobbit" became a movie trilogy.
Good question.
That said, this just gives them more models to release (presumably) and the second and third books will probably be very similar.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Current Riders of Rohan - 6 per box for AUD$43
So I guess these new Elf Riders will be 6 per box for AUD$60, yes? EDIT: Scratch that, the Hunter Orcs on Wargs are already AUD$70. Jesus...
You mean, GW prices in Australia are high?
Never heard of that. Good to let us know ... in every thread on every day since 2 years
H.B.M.C. wrote: Current Riders of Rohan - 6 per box for AUD$43
So I guess these new Elf Riders will be 6 per box for AUD$60, yes? EDIT: Scratch that, the Hunter Orcs on Wargs are already AUD$70. Jesus...
You mean, GW prices in Australia are high?
Never heard of that. Good to let us know ... in every thread on every day since 2 years
I'll have to copypasta this post for use in future mantic threads...
Sigvatr wrote: Der god, Radagast. What the hell GW! Radagast's old model looked so awesome. The first thing that now comes to my mind when I see him is:
"CHAAAAAAAAGE YOU GOT CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE?"
Seriously, what's up with "The Hobbit" and all the hobo influence in regards to character design? :/
H.B.M.C. wrote: Current Riders of Rohan - 6 per box for AUD$43
So I guess these new Elf Riders will be 6 per box for AUD$60, yes? EDIT: Scratch that, the Hunter Orcs on Wargs are already AUD$70. Jesus...
You mean, GW prices in Australia are high?
Never heard of that. Good to let us know ... in every thread on every day since 2 years
Although I do get bored of hearing that too, this time he had a valid point
Knights of Minas tirith: £18
Riders of Rohan: £18
Haradrim Raiders: £18
Easterling Kataphrakts: £22.50
Gladhirim Knights: £22.50
Hunter Orcs on fell wargs: £25
Rivendell Knights, most likely £25
But the knights have all gone up in price over time. This is just gouging for the sake of gouging. I don't expect a thick sliced loaf of white bread to cost a third more than a medium sliced white loaf from the same company.
Knights of Minas tirith: £18
Riders of Rohan: £18
Haradrim Raiders: £18
Easterling Kataphrakts: £22.50
Gladhirim Knights: £22.50
Hunter Orcs on fell wargs: £25
Rivendell Knights, most likely £25
How many companies sell their products for the same price today that they did when the Knights of Minus Tirith were released?
Knight of Minas Tirith (now): $29.75
Hunter Orcs on Fell Wargs (now): $40.00
That's a $10 difference. I don't care how they were priced before, after or in the future: the new hobbit miniatures are considerably pricier than the LotR ones. Just compare the Ruins of Minas Tirith and the Goblin Town terrain set.
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: But the knights have all gone up in price over time. This is just gouging for the sake of gouging. I don't expect a thick sliced loaf of white bread I bought 10 years ago to cost a third more than a medium sliced white loaf from the same company today.
That would be a better way to look at it. And I suspect if you looked at bread prices you would find you are paying more today than you did 10 years ago...
heartserenade wrote: Did you just miss the part where I said that they're selling it for $29.75 [NOW (as in today, at present, in this very moment)?
Obviously I did. Go ahead and bold italicize and underline all your posts from now on. It may help.
Of course now the argument turns to old figures where the sculpting and tooling were bought at 2001 prices ARE going to sell at a different price than figures where the company paid for the sculpting and tooling at today's prices... Go look at a car lot. Check the price between a 2011 model they may have on the lot and a new 2013 they just got in...
Sorry, GW is NOT the only company or even the worst company when it comes to this stuff. And no one puts a gun to your head and forces you to buy any of it.
heartserenade wrote: Just compare the Ruins of Minas Tirith and the Goblin Town terrain set.
Just compare the Goblin Town Terrain set with DZC Terrain sets.
Just compare the DZC Terrain sets with Pegasus Hobby Terrain sets, or bananas for that matter. I don't get what you're saying here. My point is that two products which are relatively similar from the same company have vastly different prices.
CptJake wrote:Of course now the argument turns to old figures where the sculpting and tooling were bought at 2001 prices ARE going to sell at a different price than figures where the company paid for the sculpting and tooling at today's prices... Go look at a car lot. Check the price between a 2011 model they may have on the lot and a new 2013 they just got in...
Funny how that "inflated pricing of sculpting and tooling at today's prices" didn't apply to the recent GK Terminators vs. the old sculpts of the SM Terminators (both at $50).
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: But the knights have all gone up in price over time. This is just gouging for the sake of gouging. I don't expect a thick sliced loaf of white bread I bought 10 years ago to cost a third more than a medium sliced white loaf from the same company today.
That would be a better way to look at it. And I suspect if you looked at bread prices you would find you are paying more today than you did 10 years ago...
When the riders of rohan where originally released they where £12 for 6. The current price includes the year on year increases. Therefore the current price is indeed the correct one to compare to an it is a price gouge. If your going to try and be clever by editing quotes try and make sure your correct first. I'll give you a hint, your not ;-)
heartserenade wrote: Just compare the DZC Terrain sets with Pegasus Hobby Terrain sets, or bananas for that matter. I don't get what you're saying here. My point is that two products which are relatively similar from the same company have vastly different prices.
Pay him no heed. It's just Zwie's little straw filled red herring. He's found a company selling expensive 10mm terrain and he thinks it 'proves' something. We're not completely sure what it proves exactly, but it's easier to simply nod, smile and avoid eye contact until he goes away.
Just compare the DZC Terrain sets with Pegasus Hobby Terrain sets, or bananas for that matter. I don't get what you're saying here. My point is that two products which are relatively similar from the same company have vastly different prices.
No. Your point is that two products which are (a) relatively similar from (b) the same company released at (c) vastly different times (one new, one ancient back-log) have vastly different prices.
My point is that two products which are (a) relatively similar from (b) two different companies released at (c) the same time for the Christmas 2012 market have vastly different prices (though the other way around).
Don't see how my comparison is inferior to yours.
Infact, I would argue mine is the better comparison, similar to how you would compare.. say.. the DvD prices of two similar movies from two studios released at roughly the same time, but likely wont compare the DvD prices from two movies from the same studio, but releases years apart (one just new for the Christmas-hype, one in the bargain-bin for months).
The comparison of two products from the same company is what must always be flawed. At the worst, the same company might be selling some at a loss (clear stocks, drive other products) and others at a profit.
A credible comparison should never be between products from the same company, because the are not competing with one another. If one would (unintentionally) cannibalize the sale of the other, they'd change it. The only comparison that matters are the products that compete with one another.
heartserenade wrote: Just compare the DZC Terrain sets with Pegasus Hobby Terrain sets, or bananas for that matter. I don't get what you're saying here. My point is that two products which are relatively similar from the same company have vastly different prices.
Pay him no heed. It's just Zwie's little straw filled red herring. He's found a company selling expensive 10mm terrain and he thinks it 'proves' something. We're not completely sure what it proves exactly, but it's easier to simply nod, smile and avoid eye contact until he goes away.
Which is why this discussion is always pointless. There can never be any resolution or common ground, you're all just going to snipe each other until your arms fall off.
Kanluwen wrote: eBay's prices are not indicative of "real" prices.
While this is true, as there are schills who jack up prices, e-bay's prices reflect supply and demand much more than GWs do. There must be tons of plastic copies of the fellowship floating around, as they were included in the most recent lotr starter set. Given such a huge supply, the price should not be too high. I can't imagine paying more than 20 bucks for such a set. 10 including shipping sounds reasonable.
heartserenade wrote: Just compare the DZC Terrain sets with Pegasus Hobby Terrain sets, or bananas for that matter. I don't get what you're saying here. My point is that two products which are relatively similar from the same company have vastly different prices.
Pay him no heed. It's just Zwie's little straw filled red herring. He's found a company selling expensive 10mm terrain and he thinks it 'proves' something. We're not completely sure what it proves exactly, but it's easier to simply nod, smile and avoid eye contact until he goes away.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Current Riders of Rohan - 6 per box for AUD$43
So I guess these new Elf Riders will be 6 per box for AUD$60, yes? EDIT: Scratch that, the Hunter Orcs on Wargs are already AUD$70. Jesus...
You mean, GW prices in Australia are high?
Never heard of that. Good to let us know ... in every thread on every day since 2 years
Although I do get bored of hearing that too, this time he had a valid point
Knights of Minas tirith: £18
Riders of Rohan: £18
Haradrim Raiders: £18
Easterling Kataphrakts: £22.50
Gladhirim Knights: £22.50
Hunter Orcs on fell wargs: £25
Rivendell Knights, most likely £25
It was a valid point when GW’s new pricing levels for Hobbit miniatures were made public two weeks ago. At this point, it’s just the same spam we’ve been hearing from the same people for the past 2+ years.
If anyone is willing to spend £30 on "13 components and a ring priority marker", whatever that may be, good luck to GW. I particularly like the fine elven art of aiming an arrow without looking - this takes some skill.
I have just flicked to the back of the March 2004 WD and the metal fellowship was £25 then. Both the figures I have quoted are sterling. I don't expect GW not to raise prices with inflation, but the metal figures were more finely detailed.
It will be interesting to see if it backfires. I was much more tempted by the LOTR releases, since they were actually a pretty great deal by GW standards. These are worse than their usual deals, so likely will only snag those who don't know better, imo, or will buy any Hobbit-related item no matter the cost.
I can sense another huge backfire I think. Those that play LotR know that they are being ripped off and new players will probably just choose something else over those models.
It's a shame really, some of the upcoming models look great. I have a fledgling elf force and could do with some cavalry for them but at that price, no chance!
Kroothawk wrote: The fellowship sells for about 2/3 of the Moria starter box, which is a bit daring.
As soon as I saw Mines of Moria disappear, I grabbed fellowship sprue off ebay. I got it for $18 shipped.
I think there are certain things that GW knows it will only sell as impulse purchases or to FLGSs that are stocking up. I call it the "Eldrad Rule."
GW has been making the same model of Eldrad for two decades. Anybody that buys used GW stuff regulalry, even if not specifically eldar, is going to end up with an Eldrad. Every store has a bunch in stock, and how many of that model does anybody even need?
At first glance, GW pricing the current Finecast Eldard at $20.75 seems hilariously optimistic, but I think they know they could price him at $8 and barely sell any. Demand might be low, but it is quite inelastic. At this point, if you want a new Eldrad, you really want him. So, for stuff like that, set the price high. It's gravy anyway.
So they are not too far off the inflation index. And I suspect if you looked at bread prices you would find you are paying more today than you did 10 years ago...
Used your index. When I first starting playing and playing LoTR in 2004/2005...Minus Trith Knights were $20 a box. They are $30 now. Your index says they should be $25.
Urak Hai were $20 a box (for 20 models). They are now $49.5 (currently sold in boxes of 10 at $24.75).
Urak crossbowmen (metal) were $9 for 3. Now they are $26.50 for 4 (the scupts are same but since they are Finecast now, somehow their value has increased two-fold).
Surprisingly, I remember paying $20 fro a Urak battering ram. Now it's $22.50.
I always wanted an Uruk army. Unfortunately just before I started off a collection of them, the troop boxes were halved in models which lead to the prices being doubled, and finecast was introduced to the world...
Needless to say I gave up on that idea pretty fast.
Commander Cain wrote: I always wanted an Uruk army. Unfortunately just before I started off a collection of them, the troop boxes were halved in models which lead to the prices being doubled, and finecast was introduced to the world...
Needless to say I gave up on that idea pretty fast.
You can still do pretty well getting plastic uruks cheap(ish) on Ebay, though admittedly sufficent crossbowmen will be harder to aquire. I'm planning to attempt some conversions using crossbows from my Perry mercenaries box and men with broken pikes.
Inflation is a bad measuring stick for consumers. Why not look at purchasing power parity on a scale of average (or even better, median) per-capita income? You'd see that in some cases, people are making less than 10 years before, especially once inflation & prices are normalized into the equation. I seriously find it tiresome to read through all these ignorant posts about pricing, anyways. You're still buying the "ludicrously-priced" miniatures.
Vote with your wallets and write your angry letters to GW, not to dakka. Even if it just gets trashed immediately and disregarded, if the same vocal group all sends emails, maybe they'll read one of them.
I, for one, am simply disappointed in the creative direction the Hobbit is going, and won't be showing my support for the entire franchise, including GW's share. My old LotR figures will be sitting lonely in the corner still collecting dust.
uberjoras wrote: I, for one, am simply disappointed in the creative direction the Hobbit is going, and won't be showing my support for the entire franchise, including GW's share. My old LotR figures will be sitting lonely in the corner still collecting dust.
??? What creative direction? GW dont get a creative input in style or anything. They write the rules and that's it. They may sculpt and cast the models but all of that is approved by the film company with very little room for creativity. I really dont understand people who think that GW does anything other than make nice models.
uberjoras wrote: I, for one, am simply disappointed in the creative direction the Hobbit is going...
??? What creative direction? GW dont get a creative input in style or anything.
He didn't say they did. Even if it's not GW's fault, the final product is still something Uberjoras doesn't want to buy.
Thank you. All the moaning about ugly models are right, but I never blamed GW- they did a fine job of translating ugly creatures. I just don't view trolls or goblins as remotely near what the Hobbit is depicting them.
Polonius wrote: Anybody that buys used GW stuff regulalry, even if not specifically eldar, is going to end up with an Eldrad.
Not always true. I got an Eldar army (3-4k worth of stuff) from a friend for free, and I didn't get an Eldrad. I got a Bonesinger, for crying out loud, but no Eldrad. So it can happen!
My point is that two products which are (a) relatively similar from (b) two different companies released at (c) the same time for the Christmas 2012 market have vastly different prices (though the other way around).
Don't see how my comparison is inferior to yours.
Not inferior, no. Irrelevant, yes. Because that's not what we're talking about. It's entirely off-tangent. It's like we're comparing rarities of certain cards in M:tG and you point out that there are rare cards in Yu-Gi-Oh. Who cares about Yu-Gi-Oh, that's not what we're discussing.
Commander Cain wrote: I always wanted an Uruk army. Unfortunately just before I started off a collection of them, the troop boxes were halved in models which lead to the prices being doubled, and finecast was introduced to the world...
Needless to say I gave up on that idea pretty fast.
Exact same thing happened to me. Shame their loss.
Rainbow Dash wrote: I just get my lotr second hand, it doesn't go for much and isn't hugely popular
That's what I did over the summer, though certain metal models that weren't in production for very long can go for a pretty penny. (Minas Tirith Gandalf on Shadowfax for example)
Sorry if it has already been noted (may have missed amongst all the news about prices and aesthetics), but looks like new FAQs are up for The Hobbit and LotR books
heartserenade wrote: The only 100% miniature in the Fellowship plastics is Gandalf. The hobbits and Gimli is okay-ish, Legolas, Boromir and Aragorn look downright weird.
On the other hand, I can buy the Finecast ones. I wish they're in metal.
Ebay, you can get loads of them on ebay. Yes you may need to strip them but its easy to do
Polonius wrote: Anybody that buys used GW stuff regulalry, even if not specifically eldar, is going to end up with an Eldrad.
Not always true. I got an Eldar army (3-4k worth of stuff) from a friend for free, and I didn't get an Eldrad. I got a Bonesinger, for crying out loud, but no Eldrad. So it can happen!
I got 4,000pts of 3rd edition Dark Eldar free from a friend of my buddy who was getting out of the hobby....and even than I got a friggin' Eldrad!
Polonius wrote: Anybody that buys used GW stuff regulalry, even if not specifically eldar, is going to end up with an Eldrad.
Not always true. I got an Eldar army (3-4k worth of stuff) from a friend for free, and I didn't get an Eldrad. I got a Bonesinger, for crying out loud, but no Eldrad. So it can happen!
Have seen the movie now. Really nice, same quality as the LOTR movies IMHO.
Now I wonder why one of the main Ork characters doesn't get a model in first or second wave, but others that are at best seen a few blinks and not even called by name in the movie get extra models in first and second wave.
Spoiler:
I am mainly talking about Azog. No model in sight. Is he even mentioned in the rulebook? Or Thorin's farther and Grandfather?
Yep, he's mentioned in the book! Along with Thorin's forbears. I need to go double check where tho...
Spoiler:
I think Thorin's father faced him? My theory is they're combining that character with one Thorin faces in the final battle, thus his still being alive.
I just got back from it, and loved it!! Avatars of War dwarfs can't come soon enough
Not sure why GW chose to paint these gobbos so pink- they're more subdued colors in the movie.
And Radagast was just awesome sauce . So little said is said about him in the book, so they could do anything, and they nailed him!
Okay, he was described as a lost case in the book LOTR, but portraying him in the movie as a mushroom and tobacco junkie was a bit hard And is that bird droppings in his hair? I think it is!
Anyway, the rabbit chariot had style
I'm amazed that I agree with Kroot on something...
Things i totally would have bought from the Hobbit game that aren't being made: - The Pale Orc - Wood Elf King on Elk - The Fellowship of the Key (Outside of the starter set) - Radagast on Bunny Sled - 'Mail Goblin'
Also would totally get Bilbo's Trolls if the models weren't so ugly.
Kanluwen wrote: How do we know these things aren't being made?
They aren't in the information that GW has graced us with, and the rulebook hasn't been leaked yet, thus they aren't being made. This can of course change, but who knows when?
Cyporiean wrote: I'm amazed that I agree with Kroot on something...
Things i totally would have bought from the Hobbit game that aren't being made:
- The Pale Orc
- Wood Elf King on Elk
- The Fellowship of the Key (Outside of the starter set)
- Radagast on Bunny Sled
- 'Mail Goblin'
Also would totally get Bilbo's Trolls if the models weren't so ugly.
The "Mail Goblin" is the Goblin scribe unless I'm confused. Azog the Pale Orc has a profile so he will get a model in time, Radagast has options for a chariot so he will get it in time, the Dwarves are coming out in finecast outside of the starter box, and Thranduil will get a model when he captures the dwarves in the second movie without a doubt. One thing that differentiates Lotr from the warhammer books is that there has never been a profile without a model being released within a couple years or so (barring horseback versions). So expect all of the major things to come out as well as the stuff in the book already.
You've probably got to be British and of "a certain age" to get the first one. Team him up with David Rappaport and they were unstoppable. I found Noseybonk quite disconcerting though.
Kroothawk wrote: Have seen the movie now. Really nice, same quality as the LOTR movies IMHO.
Now I wonder why one of the main Ork characters doesn't get a model in first or second wave, but others that are at best seen a few blinks and not even called by name in the movie get extra models in first and second wave.
Spoiler:
I am mainly talking about Azog. No model in sight. Is he even mentioned in the rulebook? Or Thorin's farther and Grandfather?
I was thinking that, I'm guessing the studio have artistic control over what images are released before the film? I'm guessing they'll both be out soon and the only reason they're not out now is that they didn't want a character being found out about until people had watched i?
I read the 'making of...' books when I went into a local Waterstones bookstore and there wasn't any visual reference to the character you mentioned in the spoilers. I think Bolg is only in the film for literally tenths of a second
Spoiler:
in the flashback scene to when Thorin first encountered Azog, there was an orc I noticed who looked like Bolg but he was dispatched pretty quickly
It looks like they simply turned Azog (the father, originally killed in the battle with the Dwarves by Thorin's father) & Bolg (his son who should be the main Orc character in the movies) into one character to be featured in the movies.
The Bolg miniature made by GW, and also action figures made by others etc, could be what he was intented to look like in the movies before they had a change of mind that came too late for all the merchandise makers. That exact image is even featured on movie posters that I've seen on the internet. Otherwise I can't explain why a character that doesn't even appear in the movie would have his face all over the place. And did Azog/Bolg ride the albino Warg in the book? Can't remember that to be honest. It's still all a bit strange, even though the look they went with is better than the bearded Orc, Imo.
I've also seen movie posters for "An unexpected journey" featuring Gandalf & Beorn (who isn't in the first movie), and the Dwarves going down the river in the barrels (which isn't in the movie either). All of this most likely the result of making it three instead of two movies.
It looks like they simply turned Azog (the father, originally killed in the battle with the Dwarves by Thorin's father) & Bolg (his son who should be the main Orc character in the movies) into one character to be featured in the movies.
The Bolg miniature made by GW, and also action figures made by others etc, could be what he was intented to look like in the movies before they had a change of mind that came too late for all the merchandise makers. That exact image is even featured on movie posters that I've seen on the internet. Otherwise I can't explain why a character that doesn't even appear in the movie would have his face all over the place. And did Azog/Bolg ride the albino Warg in the book? Can't remember that to be honest. It's still all a bit strange, even though the look they went with is better than the bearded Orc, Imo.
I've also seen movie posters for "An unexpected journey" featuring Gandalf & Beorn (who isn't in the first movie), and the Dwarves going down the river in the barrels (which isn't in the movie either). All of this most likely the result of making it three instead of two movies.
Spoiler:
I don't know if you've seen the film, but Bolg is in The Hobbit: Unexpected Journey. I've read about a few people online who have said they saw him in the place I mentioned above, in the flashback battle scene
Yes I have seen the movie, and I don't remember seeing Bolg anywhere.
Of course I could have missed him if he was only very shortly in one of the battle scenes at the start, but in that case he really didn't play any role of importance at all, so to have him on a movie poster and make him action figures etc instead of Azog who actually is the one featured thoroughly makes no sense. That is why I think Peter Jackson simply did a big switcheroo.
I just found this, which seems to confirm what I'm suspecting:
After seeing the movie I think the sculpts for the troll miniatures are a pretty bad miss. The sculpts are much too upright and their facial details are horrid. I thought the trolls in the film looked fairly good, based on seeing the minis before hand I was expecting much worse.
Yes I have seen the movie, and I don't remember seeing Bolg anywhere.
Of course I could have missed him if he was only very shortly in one of the battle scenes at the start, but in that case he really didn't play any role of importance at all, so to have him on a movie poster and make him action figures etc instead of Azog who actually is the one featured thoroughly makes no sense. That is why I think Peter Jackson simply did a big switcheroo.
I just found this, which seems to confirm what I'm suspecting:
That's the post I read, right at the bottom it says
Spoiler:
The biggest surprise is that Bolg (played by Conan Stevens) was not in this film, except for what I and several others think was a split second shot during this same battle sequence. You will have be watching very close to see it.
I saw Ian McKellen on a BBC show this morning and he didn't know it was a three part film until late on into filming, so as you thought Bolg was in it until the last minute?
Cyporiean wrote: I'm amazed that I agree with Kroot on something...
Things i totally would have bought from the Hobbit game that aren't being made:
- The Pale Orc
- Wood Elf King on Elk
- The Fellowship of the Key (Outside of the starter set)
- Radagast on Bunny Sled
- 'Mail Goblin'
Also would totally get Bilbo's Trolls if the models weren't so ugly.
The "Mail Goblin" is the Goblin scribe unless I'm confused. Azog the Pale Orc has a profile so he will get a model in time, Radagast has options for a chariot so he will get it in time, the Dwarves are coming out in finecast outside of the starter box, and Thranduil will get a model when he captures the dwarves in the second movie without a doubt. One thing that differentiates Lotr from the warhammer books is that there has never been a profile without a model being released within a couple years or so (barring horseback versions). So expect all of the major things to come out as well as the stuff in the book already.
So just hold on a bit
There were lots of profiles in LOTR that never had models. These included the blight hearted tree, beorings, elven catapult, etc. It looks like half a decade later we will get beorings, but the other stuff I do not know.
stubacca wrote: That's the post I read, right at the bottom it says
Spoiler:
The biggest surprise is that Bolg (played by Conan Stevens) was not in this film, except for what I and several others think was a split second shot during this same battle sequence. You will have be watching very close to see it.
I saw Ian McKellen on a BBC show this morning and he didn't know it was a three part film until late on into filming, so as you thought Bolg was in it until the last minute?
There were lots of profiles in LOTR that never had models. These included the blight hearted tree, beorings, elven catapult, etc. It looks like half a decade later we will get beorings, but the other stuff I do not know.
Admittedly I never purchased the "army books" but are you sure those weren't from the WotR book, in which case yes, that had things in it that didn't get models, but everything from the ORB did.
paulson games wrote: After seeing the movie I think the sculpts for the troll miniatures are a pretty bad miss. The sculpts are much too upright and their facial details are horrid. I thought the trolls in the film looked fairly good, based on seeing the minis before hand I was expecting much worse.
The 'eavy Metal team has a fetish for pale flesh, painting everything from Minotaur, Dark Eldar, furry Skaven, and now Goblins and Trolls in it. Makes the miniatures look bad all the time, but they don't learn from feedback. In the movie, all have a more greyish skin in warm tones because of torch/fire lighting.
It looks like they simply turned Azog (the father, originally killed in the battle with the Dwarves by Thorin's father) & Bolg (his son who should be the main Orc character in the movies) into one character to be featured in the movies.
The Bolg miniature made by GW, and also action figures made by others etc, could be what he was intented to look like in the movies before they had a change of mind that came too late for all the merchandise makers. That exact image is even featured on movie posters that I've seen on the internet. Otherwise I can't explain why a character that doesn't even appear in the movie would have his face all over the place. And did Azog/Bolg ride the albino Warg in the book? Can't remember that to be honest. It's still all a bit strange, even though the look they went with is better than the bearded Orc, Imo.
I've also seen movie posters for "An unexpected journey" featuring Gandalf & Beorn (who isn't in the first movie), and the Dwarves going down the river in the barrels (which isn't in the movie either). All of this most likely the result of making it three instead of two movies.
Spoiler:
Saw the movie and saw Bolg... it's been a while since I read the hobbit, but it looks like they may have just switched the character names. Not sure why, since they usually try to keep that pretty consistent... but yea, he's there long enough to get killed by Thorin's dad or grandad.
Unless his shot was exceptionally quick, Bolg was not present in this film. I have a suspicion that he may have appeared for a second or two during the Battle of Azanulbizar scene. The Pale Orc is most definitely Azog; the Orc whom ought have been slain at Azanulbizar. It makes no sense to have an antagonist loose in the film that bears little upon the Company. Now if we had Bolg hunting down Thorin in revenge (and also for the later meeting with Dain II and Beorn), it would have sat much easier.
I have a lingering feeling that P.J was rushed too heavily for this first film. There's a lot of cutting that doesn't make sense to me.
Eiríkr wrote:I have a lingering feeling that P.J was rushed too heavily for this first film. There's a lot of cutting that doesn't make sense to me.
Well, your lingering feeling sounds correct. PJ said that he hoped to finish the movie two days before the premiere. The movie blog confirmed tight time restraints. BTW is the real life shooting for all three parts arleady done? IMDB already lists them in the post-production phase.
Eiríkr wrote:I have a lingering feeling that P.J was rushed too heavily for this first film. There's a lot of cutting that doesn't make sense to me.
Well, your lingering feeling sounds correct. PJ said that he hoped to finish the movie two days before the premiere. The movie blog confirmed tight time restraints. BTW is the real life shooting for all three parts arleady done? IMDB already lists them in the post-production phase.
His statement was that he hoped to finish part two days before the premiere of "An Unexpected Journey".
When PJ was on The Colbert Report a few weeks back, he was putting the finishing touches on part two.
It looks like they simply turned Azog (the father, originally killed in the battle with the Dwarves by Thorin's father) & Bolg (his son who should be the main Orc character in the movies) into one character to be featured in the movies.
The Bolg miniature made by GW, and also action figures made by others etc, could be what he was intented to look like in the movies before they had a change of mind that came too late for all the merchandise makers. That exact image is even featured on movie posters that I've seen on the internet. Otherwise I can't explain why a character that doesn't even appear in the movie would have his face all over the place. And did Azog/Bolg ride the albino Warg in the book? Can't remember that to be honest. It's still all a bit strange, even though the look they went with is better than the bearded Orc, Imo.
I've also seen movie posters for "An unexpected journey" featuring Gandalf & Beorn (who isn't in the first movie), and the Dwarves going down the river in the barrels (which isn't in the movie either). All of this most likely the result of making it three instead of two movies.
Spoiler:
Saw the movie and saw Bolg... it's been a while since I read the hobbit, but it looks like they may have just switched the character names. Not sure why, since they usually try to keep that pretty consistent... but yea, he's there long enough to get killed by Thorin's dad or grandad.
I've seen the movie twice now, and
Spoiler:
there was an orc that could be him that was cut down by (I think) the younger Dwalin in the flashback scene. You would only spot this either by accident or if you are specifically looking for it (which I was doing, and even then it was hard to spot as it was no more than 2 or 3 seconds).
Until Peter Jackson comes up with an official statement I'll stay convinced that at first Bolg was supposed to be the main Orc bad guy, or at least was supposed to play a much larger role which explains the action figures and prominent spot on some of the early movie posters, but PJ decided to bring Azog back instead. It makes sense too since PJ is rumoured to have made so many changes, and three movies means one extra hour per movie to fill. Maybe/probably Bolg will be seen in the second and/or third movie as a lieutenant or part of a bodyguard of some sorts and his family relation to Azog is left out. After all it seems there was an actor hired to play him, so might as well use him in some capacity. We'll see.
Eiríkr wrote:I have a lingering feeling that P.J was rushed too heavily for this first film. There's a lot of cutting that doesn't make sense to me.
Well, your lingering feeling sounds correct. PJ said that he hoped to finish the movie two days before the premiere. The movie blog confirmed tight time restraints. BTW is the real life shooting for all three parts arleady done? IMDB already lists them in the post-production phase.
No, it isn't finished. The BBC link a bit further up that I posted is direct from the Wizards mouth. Filming hasn't finished
Can someone post a pic of Bolg... either the figure or movie snapshot or anything, so I know what to look for next time I see it? (probably this weekend)
RiTides wrote: Can someone post a pic of Bolg... either the figure or movie snapshot or anything, so I know what to look for next time I see it? (probably this weekend)
heartserenade wrote: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=6400058 The trolls looks infinitely better with a different paintjob.
They do actually look really good though to be fair the models are actually very good. Its just GW and eavy metal paint team seem to be losing there touch when it comes to painting. Still better than me but it does seem that the painting at GW has slipped some when it comes to The Hobbit for instance.
Luckily though some folks are very good and like Tolkiens world and are doing these models justice.
As for the new plastic wargs those are extremely good, box of them and a box of fenrisian wolves good times
Can someone post a pic of Bolg... either the figure or movie snapshot or anything, so I know what to look for next time I see it? (probably this weekend)
Might have to see this thing 3 times
look on the GW website, the model is on there. As for a screen shot from the film? You'll probably have to wait until the DVD is released, seriously it's a case of blinking and missing it, we're talking tenths of a second he's on for haha
look on the GW website, the model is on there. As for a screen shot from the film? You'll probably have to wait until the DVD is released, seriously it's a case of blinking and missing it, we're talking tenths of a second he's on for haha
You may want to look up at a few posts before yours....
Having watched the film this afternoon he does indeed have a fleeting appearance it also reinforced how poor the sculpts for this game are compared to what they should have looked like.
This leaked pic (upper right) from the upcoming WD confirms two new boxes with Giant Eagles for the Hobbit game, one with a single and one with several eagles:
Eiríkr wrote:I have a lingering feeling that P.J was rushed too heavily for this first film. There's a lot of cutting that doesn't make sense to me.
Well, your lingering feeling sounds correct. PJ said that he hoped to finish the movie two days before the premiere. The movie blog confirmed tight time restraints. BTW is the real life shooting for all three parts arleady done? IMDB already lists them in the post-production phase.
No, it isn't finished. The BBC link a bit further up that I posted is direct from the Wizards mouth. Filming hasn't finished
For now it has. Principal photography ended in July for all three movies; they will do pick-ups for each as needed through-out post-production, but as far as the present is concerned filming is done.
if the price is half decent, I'd play an all eagle army (they talk in the book, as do the wolves, another-cheaper army option I wanna do "I am the son of a goblin!)
how Twilight-y would they be I wonder
Riddles in the Dark contains Gollum, Bilbo and a small terrain piece on 25mm base.
Dangerous Beans over at The Last Alliance http://www.thelastalliance.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5985 found these two unreleased models displayed at Warhammer World, that he thinks are Aragorn in Rohan armour mounted and unmounted ("Aragorn riding to war alongside Thengel"):
And here some interesting background story explaining the weird release of Bolg, Yazneg and not Azog, all due to last minute changes not communicated to GW and other toy manufacturers. Posted by tenacious_dee over at Westgamer http://www.westgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=22956 . Put into spoiler tags because it contains 2nd and 3rd movie spoilers:
Spoiler:
How GW got screwed on The Hobbit
So, I had a quick glance at the new Hobbit rulebook yesterday and I wasn't entirely surprised to see that GW had run into the same problem as other manufacturers of Hobbit merchandise. You see, in order for product tie-ins to be completed and ready for the release of a film, they need to be planned and produced fairly early in production. They rely on the script and concept art as a guide to how the finished film will look. Unfortunately, this can mean they were misled in the event that a film goes through last minute changes and deviates from the initial script and designs. The Hobbit went through more than its fair share of last minute changes.
Here are some examples of redundant merchandise:
Here we have action figures of Legolas and Tauriel and a Lego set of the scene in which they rescue the dwarves from the Mirkwood spiders. This scene was originally meant to occur in An Unexpected Journey. However, when the decision was made to split the Hobbit into three films this scene was bumped to movie 2. Now, neither Legolas or Tauriel appear in the first film. I guess nobody bothered to tell the toy manufacturers.
Here's another scene that got bumped to the second movie. However, the little blurb "Trilogy Preview Set" makes it seem like the just altered their packaging slightly when they realised this scene was from the wrong film.
Here's the real kicker. First, a minor detail. You see how they have blue flaming pine cones as well as red ones (as it was in the book). Well in the film they just have normal red flames, a change that I'm fine with as it keeps the magic subtle. They real problem with this set is the figurine of the villain, Azog, the orc riding the white warg. Azog is the primary villain for the first film and went through a number of changes and redesigns over the course of the film. At one point they changed the villain to Bolg and then back to Azog again. The lego figurine in this set is based on Azog as he appeared during filming, a sort of orc bikie with big spikes on his shoulders and a leather jacket made from dwarf faces. It was a pretty awesome design. Unfortunately, for some incomprehendable reason, they decided in post to replace bikie Azog with what I like to call "engineer Azog", a bad cgi giant albino orc with an unusual appendage. Which leaves me to wonder if they will make a last minute change to this lego set and include the "real" version of Azog.
Which brings us to the different versions of Azog and Bolg. Here is Azog the bikie:
Obviously the toy company has a huge pile of these redundant Azog figures so they've renamed them Yazneg and are selling them as Toys R Us exclusives in the UK. Anyone over there would be wise to pick up a few as they could become collectors items once the truth comes out.
And this happy chap is Bolg:
I especially love the little details, like how he is wearing a stolen dwarf beard. In the book Azog is mentioned in the backstory as having killed Thorin's grandfather and then being killed by Dain, his son Bolg turns up at the battle of five armies and kills Thorin. Originally the films were going to flip this, with Bolg killing Thorin's grandfather and Azog being his son. Clearly, the toy manufacturers are still under the impression the Bolg is the central villain.
Which brings us to GW:
Notice how they've released a model of Bolg but not Azog? And how the backstory in the rulebook says Azog was killed by Dain and that Bolg rules the orcs? Looks like nobody told GW about the last minute changes to the film. The best part is, they even scuptled a miniature of bikie Azog. There is a single picture of him in the rulebook, though I doubt he will ever get released. This goes a long way to explaining why there are no scenarios for the Hobbit game aside from various battles in goblintown. They didn't know what other scenes would even be in the film.
Bolg was supposed to be in the first film at Dol Guldur along with Thraine and Gandalf, it was supposed to be a flashback on how Gandalf recieved the Key to the mountain, it will be featured in the 2nd film.
Yeah. Watch the early trailers for The Hobbit and you'll see scenes that aren't in the first film - Gandalf at Dol Guldur and Bilbo looking at the shards of Narsil.
The former will appear in the next film, but given I doubt they go back to Rivendell, that latter scene may end up in an extended edition release.
So one month after release, the limited edition starter box is still available everywhere. Seems GW now finally gets the bill for skyrocketing prices and no marketing.
Yeah, I was surprised to see it on the shelf of the local GW (which I went in to for the first time in over a year, since my normal store is an independent now).
That Radagast model is sweet! But looks to be available for a reasonable price on ebay, if I decide I must have it... as I wouldn't want all the other minis.
If DV was good value for money, then Escape from Goblin Town should also be considered good value for money.
Think about it:
-Scenery
-56 miniatures, including plastic versions of two of the three named Wizards
-The new rulebook, the first new one released for LOTR in 7 years
In DV you got:
-48 miniatures
-The new rulebook for a game where the last one came out 4 years ago
It's 75 pounds for the Escape from Goblin Town LE set and 61.50 pounds for the standard DV set.
If you think about licensing costs as well, Escape from Goblin Town is good value as well. And if you look at the Lego set, it costs 79.99 pounds. Now THAT'S ridiculous, especially when you consider that Lego is geared towards young children.
Why do you expect the rulebook to have profiles? You don't get profiles in DV.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The reason why the set may not be selling so much is because the game is less popular, and the movies are less popular.
150 is still very steep for LoTR, considering now the rule book doesn't have any profiles for models and now I have to buy the 40 dollar codex things, it might be tolerable if Lotr's minis weren't a much lesser quality of sculpt then the other two
I am not paying that much for that crap
it was fine when it was 22 dollars for 24 models, but 35 for 12
I mean the goblins are 18 for 40 but...can you even make an army of them?
lotr used to be the easy one to get into, now its just as annoying and time consuming as the rest (and expensive)
but as the Ferengi say; only fools pay retail
(the internet is my shopping mall and one man's disinterest is my gain)
That Radagast model is sweet! But looks to be available for a reasonable price on ebay, if I decide I must have it... as I wouldn't want all the other minis.
Really? I can only see it for $20-40+ which is pretty gougey IMO.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: If DV was good value for money, then Escape from Goblin Town should also be considered good value for money.
Think about it:
-Scenery
-56 miniatures, including plastic versions of two of the three named Wizards
-The new rulebook, the first new one released for LOTR in 7 years
In DV you got:
-48 miniatures
-The new rulebook for a game where the last one came out 4 years ago
It's 75 pounds for the Escape from Goblin Town LE set and 61.50 pounds for the standard DV set.
If you think about licensing costs as well, Escape from Goblin Town is good value as well. And if you look at the Lego set, it costs 79.99 pounds. Now THAT'S ridiculous, especially when you consider that Lego is geared towards young children.
Why do you expect the rulebook to have profiles? You don't get profiles in DV.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The reason why the set may not be selling so much is because the game is less popular, and the movies are less popular.
...Yeah, sure. Except those DV models have a *little more variation, detail and bulk to them - saying the EfGT set comes close to DV is rubbish - unless you actually value that ridonculous piece of price-gouging terrain worth 20+ quid - and even then it's a stretch.
...and I actually like many of the EfGT models quite a bit - more to my taste than a lot of DV...
I can do you one better, in that case: most of the set is single-part. the terrain will need glue of course, and the goblin king and some of the heroes come in a few parts as well but any 10 year old can build this in half an afternoon One thing you can say for it is that for it's lack of any poseability, the set is extremely beginner-friendly/low maintenance.
Not complaining, just answering a question And really, for single-pose stuff those goblins are pretty awesome. I just plain refuse to pay that kind of money for small PS single pose minis
Yeah, I noticed a local Hobby Town had The Hobbit starter set for $85 instead of $125, the limited edition, too. I was tempted to get it just because it was discounted so much, but as much as I liked the movie I'm not all that interested in getting the models.
That Radagast model is sweet! But looks to be available for a reasonable price on ebay, if I decide I must have it... as I wouldn't want all the other minis.
Really? I can only see it for $20-40+ which is pretty gougey IMO.
I see a bunch of completed ones in the neighborhood of $20 after shipping:
I find $20 shipped for a limited edition figure to be pretty reasonable. Like I said, if that's the only model I want, it's highly preferable to having to buy the whole box set and try to sell off the rest...
Edit: I didn't realize the LE set was $125 . Knowing that, I'd be even happier to pay $20 for the one LE model from it! I think GW must have thought there would be more demand than there has been...
So in practice, the limited edition starter box (with the 50% price increase to the old starter) is the new unlimited starter box, as noone can get the real unlimited box for quite some time.
And all this for a LE wacko wizard with bird droppings in his hair, not really the hero every teen dreams about.
@ExNoctemNacimur: Just counting the number of miniatures in a starter box means comparing Goblin miniatures with Terminator miniatures. Not even GW thinks that they are worth the same. And the Hobbit rulebook will probably last 1 year until the next starter box December 2013.
Kroothawk wrote: So in practice, the limited edition starter box (with the 50% price increase to the old starter) is the new unlimited starter box, as noone can get the real unlimited box for quite some time.
And all this for a LE wacko wizard with bird droppings in his hair, not really the hero every teen dreams about.
To be fair, the starter box has more good guys than the 9 members of the Fellowship in the last set: Thorin's company, Bilbo, Gandalf and if the LE set, Radagast. And more bad guys tha the 24 Moria goblins and troll: 36 Goblins, Goblin king and three other goblin characters. So you do get 50% more figures (34 in old set and 56 in new) for that 50% price increase. If you shop around you can get it cheaper (I got mine for about $85 from the WarStore during thier Black Friday sale). So yep, it is more expensive, but has more figures too.
deathstreak2000 wrote: I really hope they don't change the game too much, LoTR SBG is probably my favourite system and I'd hate to see it go!
I just hope they fix the fight system. I'm sick and tired of auto-losing just because my opponent can roll 6's and has a point higher fight value!
What's the fething problem with a proper WS bases system? Right now the SBG is far too skewed towards Good, and Evil players are forced to either play Uruk-Hai or else you have to shoehorn as many big characters and gribblies as possible into your warbands.
go play hobbits where everything is stronger then you
deathstreak2000 wrote: I really hope they don't change the game too much, LoTR SBG is probably my favourite system and I'd hate to see it go!
I just hope they fix the fight system. I'm sick and tired of auto-losing just because my opponent can roll 6's and has a point higher fight value!
What's the fething problem with a proper WS bases system? Right now the SBG is far too skewed towards Good, and Evil players are forced to either play Uruk-Hai or else you have to shoehorn as many big characters and gribblies as possible into your warbands.
Well . . . no.
The fight system ends up being quite balanced with the difficulty to wound other warriors. And there's always Fate. I play Mordor, Harad (generally without the Mumakil), Easterlings and Khand and I've been perfectly fine. I also play Arnor, and I've been fine with them as well.
I've already ordered some Wargs I've somehow, throughout Christmas, managed to end up with the whole Hobbit range (apart from the rulebook and the trolls)
I'm gonna use the orcs with my uruk hai (if it works that way, i'm stupidly new at playing)
Well the eagles look great! I don`t see the point of buying Gwaihir seeing as you could just repose one of the plastic eagles and get that exact same model and have a "spare" eagle remaining for almost the same price!
and the scenery sprue (also available separately as you state).
) really, the idea is sound - go for it!
Looks like I'm hitting eBay for a mini one! Either that or I use the old white council rules, which I bet will be almost identical given that the stats from the 
-- lets us know a wee bit more.
thread on every 
