Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From an obviously biased perspective, GW shouldn't drop LotR. Having played all three systems, LotR has superior rules and models, and generally is more fun to play. Even if what Lead said is true - that it's only 10% of GW's sales figures - it still probably outsells the entire SG line, and with the possibility of the Hobbit coming along sales can spike again.

I do disagree about using tournament showings as an indicator of popularity. LotR started out, and in large part still remains, geared towards casual skirmish gaming rather then competitive tournament play. GW is doing its damnest to change that around, since having people buy huge armies makes them money, but there's not much impetus to go make a huge cheesy powergaming Dwarf army that wins 10/10. Oh sure you can make such an army, but from my (admittedly anecdotal) experience most LotR players would rather have fun. They also tend to buy only those models and rulebooks they need, then go off and play with their friends rather then show up at stores and tournaments (though, from what I've heard, the UK sees a lot more LotR players show up at such events then the US).

As for WD, I laugh when people say it gets too much coverage - I still have backissues where pages dedicated to LotR could be counted on one hand, and these were during times where the movies were still influential. Maybe when WD becomes more then an expensive advertisement and actually has content of note, then we can argue about who should get what amount of space.

Balrog of Morgoth wrote:Maybe when WD becomes more then an expensive advertisement and actually has content of note, then we can argue about who should get what amount of space.

Amen, I don't really care what GW does with LotR as long as they provide decent hobby content for the only game of theirs I play...40k. My problem is that I feel like it does clutter up the release schedule pretty badly, and the releases are usually pretty unininteresting in my opinion, and I love the Tolkien universe. If GW could release a magazine that actually had some content, it would pretty much make this issue a null point.

Can anyone here tell me why GW didn't make the LOTR scale compatible with WHFB and 40K? I mean, it seems like the "Hey, a whole new universe of bitz!" reaction from the other games' players would increase LOTR sales. And then once they're buying all those pretty minis, they think "Well, I should probably just try _one_ game before I convert them..." Next thing you know, they'd be selling plasma to get their LOTR fix.

It just seems like a no-brainer, in a company where crossover conversions between systems are common. I really don't get it. I would have loved to cut some Harad up for Tallarns, etc.

Or maybe that's it... the LOTR stuff is so much cheaper per fig, it might have undermined $45 sales for 10-fig boxes. Does anyone think there might be something to that?

I'm just confused here.

On the WD sidetrack, it sure would be nice if GW reversed their tight-fisted resistance to different grades of rules like we used to see in Chapter Approved. Allowing trial and unofficial rules made for more confusing tourney choices, but now that we're used to having to check a pre-tourney in/out list, it seems like an alright idea. And selling those Chapter Approved compilations at the end of the year must have recouped at least _some_ of the dev time they put into writing the articles. Heck, if they used (edited) fan-submitted work, they could get most of that done for free.

And let's not even mention the increase in buyer appeal that they would have gotten by publishing one 4-page Dark Heresy scenario per issue for a year or two, unitll it was able to pull a publication of it's own (or get strangled off by the bean counters).

I think you've missed a large number of discussions of the New Line license and how it specifically forbade mixing the two lines. It forbade GW employees even suggesting doing so, much less any official marketing to that effect. Today you still can't get your GT army featured in WD or the GW website if you mix bits.

There is one great reason that they did not make them the same scale.

Make the poor GW fan/addict buy two totally seperate armies if he likes Elves/Orcs/Humans/Dwarves and plays Fantasy Warhammer as well.

It is so obvious to me....am I the only one?

Balrog of Morgoth wrote:From an obviously biased perspective, GW shouldn't drop LotR. Having played all three systems, LotR has superior rules and models, and generally is more fun to play. Even if what Lead said is true - that it's only 10% of GW's sales figures - it still probably outsells the entire SG line, and with the possibility of the Hobbit coming along sales can spike again.

I do disagree about using tournament showings as an indicator of popularity. LotR started out, and in large part still remains, geared towards casual skirmish gaming rather then competitive tournament play. GW is doing its damnest to change that around, since having people buy huge armies makes them money, but there's not much impetus to go make a huge cheesy powergaming Dwarf army that wins 10/10. Oh sure you can make such an army, but from my (admittedly anecdotal) experience most LotR players would rather have fun. They also tend to buy only those models and rulebooks they need, then go off and play with their friends rather then show up at stores and tournaments (though, from what I've heard, the UK sees a lot more LotR players show up at such events then the US).

As for WD, I laugh when people say it gets too much coverage - I still have backissues where pages dedicated to LotR could be counted on one hand, and these were during times where the movies were still influential. Maybe when WD becomes more then an expensive advertisement and actually has content of note, then we can argue about who should get what amount of space.

That about sums up my feelings. I'm a 10+ year 40k, Fantasy (1 army), Mordheim, Gothic player, and I love the LOTR minis, the rules are so much more enjoyable (not to mention keep both players involved), and if played as scenarios, it rocks. I'm actually seriously considering playing in the Baltimore LOTR tourny, rather than 40k so I can 1) finish my games, 2) relax, 3) not have to worry about what edition of what errata I have to learn. Now I just have to find more players...

akira5665 wrote:There is one great reason that they did not make them the same scale.

Make the poor GW fan/addict buy two totally seperate armies if he likes Elves/Orcs/Humans/Dwarves and plays Fantasy Warhammer as well.

It is so obvious to me....am I the only one?

Well, it's obvious to me you somehow missed about 40 threads over the last 5 years about LOTR, and how New Line specifically called for a difference in scale between the two systems. NLC didn't want GW to be able to sell Warhammer to people wanting models for LOTR.

Mikhaila-Well, it's obvious to me you somehow missed about 40 threads over the last 5 years about LOTR, and how New Line specifically called for a difference in scale between the two systems. NLC didn't want GW to be able to sell Warhammer to people wanting models for LOTR.

True . I did miss it. I was too busy getting Girlfriend>Wife>kids>house>Car(Slk)>great Job$$$$ and having fun with friends.

Thanks for letting me know.

Of course I have threads regarding this. Thanks for the breakdown in the timeline/legalities though, I think it explained a lot to those that didn't.

If this feels a little acerbic, you set the tone with other replies/responses you have made to me Sir, on more than one occasion.

Mannahnin wrote:I think you've missed a large number of discussions of the New Line license and how it specifically forbade mixing the two lines. It forbade GW employees even suggesting doing so, much less any official marketing to that effect.

Well, that was the story they told the store staff anyhow. I have since heard confirmation from a couple of now-ex-Lenton staff that the story was all a load of hokum, and the truth aligns with the conspiracy theory to an extent. i.e. ot was GW's decision to produce slightly different scales so as to minimise cannibalisation of WFB sales by making it "illegal" to have one unit of (say) Orcs do double duty across the two games.

It makes perfect financial sense, although its pretty cold-hearted. But then that's GW for ya!

Mannahnin wrote:Today you still can't get your GT army featured in WD or the GW website if you mix bits.

Well this part holds true. New Line were always pretty strict about "co-mingling". i.e. WFB bitz on LotR models and vice versa as they saw it as threatening their IP - by mixing their "superior" designs with GW's "inferior" ones. Over the years GW managed to negotiate a more relaxed interpretation of the licence agreement, so that it was eventually possible to by LotR bitz (of which, thanks to the nerfing of bitx orders, only the Balrog wings remain) which had hitherto been outlawed by New Line.

At least that's the skinny from my sources "inside" (mainly former staff posting on Warseer....), anyhow. ;-)