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.

James12345 wrote:A very complicated rights deal has caused this. I'm sure the creatives behind the game hate it as much as us, but probably the only way they can keep selling it.

James12345 wrote:I think the deal is to do with book stuff, seems like if it's mentioned in book, but not in movie it's gone. Does seem very random wouldn't be surprised if the Tolkien estate just told them which to drop

I would appreciate a more careful wording; the first message appeared to declare as fact what is seemingly not actually known to you.

Based on the list, I interpret it foremost as a reduction of range/profile bloat. The choice of which minis/profiles to remove is then partially based on their prominence in books and/or movies, and I agree that the emphasis seems to be on the movies there: besides corner cases like Mauhúr and some of the Ithilien Rangers (who I don't think are directly named in the movies; some seem to be extras assigned names in later media based on named characters from the books), no character or type of warrior clearly featured in the movies is removed. Besides that, the main pattern seems based on which factions have a plethora of named characters, and remove some of those then. Some GW inventions are thus culled (like named Orc characters, of which there already a dozen just based on the movies, who thus remain), others are allowed to stay (like named Easterlings, who would have no named characters left otherwise). It feels particularly complex for book characters, with some prominent characters like Erkenbrand removed, while Hobbits retain their long list of named characters besides the historical Bandobras, and Gondor lose some like Anborn and Mablung, but retain the equally book-exlusive Húrin the Tall and Ingold. Being exclusive to the books or indeed SBG seems neither to definitely result in removal nor retention - but come future updates, I would not feel safe about anything being kept if it is not (prominently) based on the movies. Well, I suppose any models made in plastic get to stay too (Damrod got lucky there), but those are mainly prominent troops and heroes anyway.

I hope the War of the Rohirrim will include some interesting and fitting new troop types for Harad (who are clealy there based on the trailer), as it feels a lot of their flavour and tactical variation is removed now, losing several types of warriors (and leaving the comparatively bland Serpent Guard/Riders, who are just a minor upgrade on regular warriors/riders).

Going back to the rights idea, it wouldn't surprise me if they've got a new stipulation in saying they can only have a certain amount of original creations/book characters to the movie characters.

I.e. GW can only have one of their own OC units for every two movie characters/units.

And to be honest, i don't actually mind the removal of a chunk of minor named characters. A good chunk of them were basically captain +1, which was resulting in basic captains use dropping off quite considerably. And it was starting to hit the point that all these characters were starting to get a special rule each to try and differentiate one from another.

I think the special rule problem was a real pain but that is solveable without getting rid of sculpts which is a pure negative for us customers.

I can understand GW feeling the range is too bloated and it went an incredibly long time without something like this happening which I appreciate. It's the end of an era.

But I don't see any reason for a customer to see this as anything but a negative.

It's a negative, but i can also see a positive in now we've got a chance to kick a load of finecast crap and open the way for new sculpts of decades old models into plastic or at least a much better quality of resin.

Does anyone know how many of those being removed were only available as finecast, rather than metal? Noting the move away from finecast and that some things for Old World were brought back in metal, it may be a case that (for instance the commander packs) they are going to bring them back in metal, and the ones done in finecast are just being consigned to the dust bin.

 Dawnbringer wrote:
Does anyone know how many of those being removed were only available as finecast, rather than metal? Noting the move away from finecast and that some things for Old World were brought back in metal, it may be a case that (for instance the commander packs) they are going to bring them back in metal, and the ones done in finecast are just being consigned to the dust bin.

Some, like the gundabad blackshields, have already returned in metal after a failcast period and are now axed.
Finecast should mostly be miniatures that were released in Finecast. They retransfered a lot of stuff to metal already. I think you're right in terms of the beast of gorgoroth for example. The first batches of that model were that terrible, they redid the whole thing. Still being failcast it probably didn't help much.

Quite many metals on that list (that were only ever released in metal). Some finecast that used to be metal, some finecast that were only ever finecast, and some Forge World resin minis too. Old World made me hope for more re-releases of metals that were made into finecast, but this shuts down that option for several kits I was interested in.

As I said earlier, I'm fine with them removing some of the more obscure ancillary characters from factions (lots of Mordor and Minas Tirith characters, for example), and I can live with them removing the named Ringwraiths just to streamline army building, but removing whole factions (Far Harad, Khand) just feels bad. Those factions are in the books, at least obscure references, and although GW took artistic license with their design (Tolkien himself didn't have much to say about Khand), they do exist in canon. Unlike some of the more bizarre stuff they left in, like Gulavhar.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
As I said earlier, I'm fine with them removing some of the more obscure ancillary characters from factions (lots of Mordor and Minas Tirith characters, for example), and I can live with them removing the named Ringwraiths just to streamline army building, but removing whole factions (Far Harad, Khand) just feels bad. Those factions are in the books, at least obscure references, and although GW took artistic license with their design (Tolkien himself didn't have much to say about Khand), they do exist in canon. Unlike some of the more bizarre stuff they left in, like Gulavhar.

What makes it especially sad is that there will be people out there whose very favourite faction was Far Harad or Khand, dedicated people who spent a small fortune collecting the fully-metal army. I assume Legacies/Legends type deals usually just keep things playable until a next update, and then they might just start being slowly removed?

What I would say is that there really isn't much variation in equipment / profiles with LotR. I mean, I could easily see a Khand horse based army being fielded as Rohan, but yes, chariots could be a problem. That said we don't know what is showing up in the future, in the way that a bunch of the Stormcast range got retired, just for new models to show up. Yes not always a 1 - 1, but when a model only has legends rules or no rules at all I think its much easier to proxy for something, as there is less confusion.

Unlike other GW games lotr builds on a very long legacy due to the rules being stable since 20 years. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would decline an opponent to use their khand models with either legacy rules or the rules everyone knows from prior editions (they're humans with F4 and a two handed weapon not really outlandish, Far Harad could be a more complex case, but even then, it's still lotr, rules).
What I don’t think is that any of this means models will be replaced by newer ones' but the models that appear in War of the Rohirrim. We'll end up with three versions of the movie girl but no King of Khand.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Unlike other GW games lotr builds on a very long legacy due to the rules being stable since 20 years. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would decline an opponent to use their khand models with either legacy rules or the rules everyone knows from prior editions (they're humans with F4 and a two handed weapon not really outlandish, Far Harad could be a more complex case, but even then, it's still lotr, rules).
What I don’t think is that any of this means models will be replaced by newer ones' but the models that appear in War of the Rohirrim. We'll end up with three versions of the movie girl but no King of Khand.

Agreed about legacy models.
The rules go back farther than some gamers have been alive.
I think it can be agreed upon for the occasions where a player wants to roll out their Chariot army

How many official GW tournaments are there though? I wouldn't be surprised I'd most just allow legacy lists in. The Mesbg crowd are the most lore driven players there are and shenanigans are pretty much self policed among us *cough*bombadil*cough*

Some new evil bits:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/n1jde2dn/shanktm-wrottm-and-the-snow-troll-scavengers-from-the-white-mountains/

Orcs are fun and characterful, not so sure about the horns on the troll. But they look like they would be easy enough to leave off and green stuff over if wanted.

Those are the first of the new minis I dislike and I have collected most lotr Orcs so far. The Troll could grow on me, but those orcs... both faces are pretty bad and both look comical with one being extremely skinny and the other being a naked fatty in Winter. Give me Razgush and Muzgur back that I missed to buy, they were much better than these two.

I don't agree with that. I like the faces, they've got a lot of character too them.

Does the snow troll just vanish if Galadriel kills it like in Rings of Power, I wonder?

Now this is more like it. The best troll so far and can't wait to see them in action on the big screen. And its good to see some orcs again, and with better sculpts.

That is a very cool Troll.

Sgt. Cortez, where are you seeing naked Orcs? At worst they're topless.

These are the first of the new models I like. I won't get excited until I see how they first into the new edition though.

Can't say I'm overly enamored with the orcs. They're rather dull as far as sculpts go and (Why are they near naked? It's the Long Winter, where's the furs and thick cloaks?) and the paintjobs on both are completely uninspired. That colour palette might work in the anime, but it isn't doing anything for the models. There's no focal point for the eyes, there's no visual interest of any sort, just a sea of brown and dull metals.
My opinion of them may change with a better paint job, but for now, meh.

The troll though, I quite like. The horns can go as they don't suit the model at all and I think maybe adding some more fur round the head/shoulders to give it a shaggy yeti like appearance would help sell the snow troll aspect a bit more. The belts irk me a little bit, but I can get over that easy enough. I wonder if it's on a 40 or a 60mm base?

I don't mind the fat orc but I don't like the skinny one.

The troll is a bit disappointing - I think the horns don't really match any description of Trolls I've read in Tolkien and I don't know what the spines on the forearms are supposed to represent. Otherwise, it's a well sculpted model with a good pose, I think it actually looks great as a non-Middle Earth model.

The spines are probably meant to be overgrown scales or something like that.

I like the Snow Troll though I admit that I don't know how authentic that is to the LOTR lore both visually and just generally. It reminds me of a mix between Krampus and the Peter Jackson trilogy trolls.

Tonnes of leaks from the box around the internet right now, including photos of the rule book.

Looks fairly light on rules changes, to the point where if it wasn't for piggy backing the new film release for marketing I'd wonder why this wouldn't be just a FAQ.

My only quibble with what we know now is why the split Int and Courage states are on a 'plus' roll, like for shooting, but with two dice and the caveat they can't drop below 3, The aim was to simplify but it just adds an extra layer. That's a minor point though.

I'm sure Warcom will educate us over a month's worth of articles.

 .Mikes. wrote:
Tonnes of leaks from the box around the internet right now, including photos of the rule book.

Looks fairly light on rules changes, to the point where if it wasn't for piggy backing the new film release for marketing I'd wonder why this wouldn't be just a FAQ.

My only quibble with what we know now is why the split Int and Courage states are on a 'plus' roll, like for shooting, but with two dice and the caveat they can't drop below 3, The aim was to simplify but it just adds an extra layer. That's a minor point though.

Care to point us towards a few?

 .Mikes. wrote:

Looks fairly light on rules changes, to the point where if it wasn't for piggy backing the new film release for marketing I'd wonder why this wouldn't be just a FAQ.

My only quibble with what we know now is why the split Int and Courage states are on a 'plus' roll, like for shooting, but with two dice and the caveat they can't drop below 3, The aim was to simplify but it just adds an extra layer. That's a minor point though.

Isn't the dropping of special strikes and such relatively major? At least in terms of a rules set that on the whole probably hasn't seen changes of that magnitude more than twice before (their introduction, and the intro of cavalry way back in 2002). I know army comp rules have come and gone, but I view that more as a tournament pack than the core rules changing.

As for the second point, I'd assume by using two dice you can get more of a variation of values (both in results and in what they can make the stats themselves).

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 .Mikes. wrote:
Tonnes of leaks from the box around the internet right now, including photos of the rule book.

Looks fairly light on rules changes, to the point where if it wasn't for piggy backing the new film release for marketing I'd wonder why this wouldn't be just a FAQ.

My only quibble with what we know now is why the split Int and Courage states are on a 'plus' roll, like for shooting, but with two dice and the caveat they can't drop below 3, The aim was to simplify but it just adds an extra layer. That's a minor point though.

Care to point us towards a few?

Google.com.au

Not massively. Strikes were only occasionally used and even then it was usually only one or maybe two that saw any real use.