Talk:Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game

Categories

All The Lord of the Rings SBG-related articles should be categorised with the following boxes (as a general rule):

• The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game
• Games Workshop
• Middle-earth games
• Wargames

• Infobox giving links to other articles

Images should be categorised with this template

LotR SBG hobbyists can use the following box on their userpage:

• Lord of the Rings SBG Hobbyist Userbox

Grimhelm 22:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings Article Material Move

• Moved from main The Lord of the Rings article. Uthanc 18:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar to "Warhammer Fantasy" players, Lord of the Rings players commonly collect and paint one army (or more) of their choice and find opponents (with similarly collected armies) to play against. Armies can be built up from the purchase of boxed sets (usually having 20 or 24 plastic miniatures in each) or "blister packs" (usually containing no more than three finely detailed metal miniatures) to build up a reasonable sized fighting force. Others simply collect the miniatures because they like the way they look. One popular way of collecting is through "Battle Games in Middle Earth" (sic) - a DeAgostini magazine which comes with a free miniature (some of which are exclusive to the publication) and painting guide. Recently, Games Workshop began to discontinue some of their metal miniatures, so that they could replace them with plastic miniatures. They justified this action by saying that the quality in plastic moulding has improved to a point where they are almost as detailed as metal, and that plastic is cheaper to produce.

This is already in the "Collecting" section of this article. Grimhelm 19:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this actually a common mistake?

"The game is sometimes mistakenly called "Warhammer Lord of the Rings" - in part because it is the third core game produced by Games Workshop, but possibly also because it combines fantasy-style battle traits from Warhammer Fantasy with the squad flexibility of Warhammer 40,000."

Really? I've never heard this expression before? How common is this phrase (if it is very rarely used then does it deserve a mention??)

Just wondering

Philipwhiuk 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It comes up occassionally on the Games Workshop forum by people who are new to the hobby, sometimes also called "LOTR Warhammer". However, since the game is not in any way related to the Warhammer Universe, people who mistakenly use it find out the correct version soon enough. It's not really a common mistake, and perhaps isn't notable enough for the article (maybe move it to "trivia"), but it does come up sometimes. Grimhelm 20:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is common enough to warrant mention, largely because it is the third core game - not many people want to say "Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game" every time they discuss the game. Thror 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

On Ebay LotR SBG is often called "LOTR Warhammer" and it comes under the catergory "Warhammr" so i believe it is a common mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.81.98 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I recently came across a page where John Howe mistakenly referred to the game as "the Warhammer Lord of the Rings line", and mentions the "Warhammer Balrog": [1] --Grimhelm (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Throughout my time as an SBG-er it has commonly been called LotR Warhammer by people who have asked about it - I would suggest that it is common among people who know of the hobby but have never taken an interest. --LordSarnoc (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

LOTR vs WHFB

Edited the "However, they cannot deny"... Goes against NPOV in my opinion. Replaced with "However, it is a fact..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thror (talk • contribs) 21 August

LOME

Should we add a section for Legions of Middle Earth? I'm willing to do it if yes.--Cobalt 14:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Separate article maybe. It is a fair expansion, maybe it warrants a header in here, with a link to the main article. Thror 23:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Although it is a large expansion, it does not warrant a new article. It can be discussed under Troop Types or Rulesets. Perhaps someone might add a picture of it? Grimhelm 17:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are some of these names part of the game?

• Kârna
• Badharkân
• Dalamyr
• Hidâr
• Nâfarat
• Dhâran-sar
• Abrakân
• Gadîrkarn

...from Tribelands of Haradwaith, which I put up for namespace deletion and info merging. Info about them can probably go here, if they belong here. If these aren't even official, away they go. Uthanc 00:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do seem to recall them. I believe they are GW inventions, and not canonical, and have made comments at the AfD. --Grimhelm 17:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

• On Hold

Summary

Reasoning for decision and recommendations:

• Section 2 of the GA guidelines: This article is reasonably referenced, however, I did spot some major holes. For example, statements like "Some are heavily criticized, such as the Isengard Troll, whilst others, such as Múrin and Drár have been popular additions" and "make up a quite effective skirmish force". are not attributed to any references, yet make assumptions that they are correct. Phrases like "The Campaign was successful, with 3007 registered participants" should be edited too, as who determines that 3007 participants was a good turnout? Some references are not necessarily reliable. For example, ref #21, "The Ports of Pelargir", is a fansite made by someone who heavily edits this article, and thus violates WP:OR. The references to "Mines of Moria" needs an author attributed if there is one.
• Section 4 of the GA guidelines: After having read the article, I am unsure if I have detected a bias towards the positives of this game. Although there is some criticism noted from the Warhammer camp, criticisms of the game itself from its own fanbase are not really mentioned in the article. This is possibly because there is not much, but more could possibly be noted.
• Section 6 of the GA guidelines: HornburgLOTRSBG.jpg and Legions of Middle Earth.gif need more detailed fair use rationales.

General impressions

• On the whole, I found the article highly informative. The article is well written; the prose flows well and I did not see any typos or grammatical errors. Although I know little about the topic in hand, I do feel that the article has covered most of the important points of the topic, with excellent detail about units that hasn't become list-like. Stability is fine - I don't see evidence of recent edit wars. I've decided to put this article on hold as I feel that the article is very close to GA status, however references do need fine tuned, and non-notable references, especially forum discussions should be replaced with more respectable literature if there is a suitable replacement. More use of references to back up statements such as those noted above must be dealt with as well before GA status can be awarded. I do believe that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best in your editing!

Please leave any notes below, or contact me on my talk page. Happy editing! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for reviewing! Thanks also to Themcman1 for starting to review, even though his was not completed. I fixed all the examples you highlighted under section 2, as well as expanding the image rationales per section 6. As for The Ports of Pelargir as a source, the instances where it is used are merely simple, non-controversial statements. It does, per WP:OR, "(1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims."

As for section 4, criticisms are noted from within the fanbase; indeed, you have even mentioned one of them in your review. The Isengard Troll (which is mentioned twice in the article) and the Swan Knights of Dol Amroth (mentioned under Online community) are the two prime examples of criticism from within the fanbase, and the article notes that as such.

I hope I have fully dealt with the issues brought up by your review. --Grimhelm 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had another look through the article this morning; what I had listed above were just a few examples. There remain many unreferenced statements throughout the text. I've listed a good few of them below, but remember that ideally, each statement that makes a claim should be referenced:

• "...whilst others, such as Múrin and Drár have been popular additions." - no statistics or references to bakc this up.
• "Games Workshop has the rights to produce a skirmish wargame based on the films, and also on The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit books, in the 25mm miniature scale." - says who?
• "They justified this action by saying that the quality in plastic moulding has improved to a point where they are almost as detailed as metal, and that plastic is cheaper to produce." - a reference to the justification would be needed here.
• "Terrain is a very important part of play."
• "However, due to the licensing agreements between New Line Cinema and Games Workshop, pieces of models for the Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game are not allowed to be combined with other model lines for official tournaments or conversion awards. The same is true for pieces from other manufacturers."
• "...recently released as an updated supplement." - try to avoid saying "recently" as well, or any other time dependant words. Ideally, have "released on (date) as an updated supplement", with a reference to the date.
• "As of August 2006, Games Workshop released the new expansion..." - reference needed for the date.
• "The standard game is played with two or more armies on a board generally 4 feet long and 4 feet wide (48 inches or 120 centimetres), usually deployed within 6 inches of opposite board edges."
• "While the game is designed usually for play by only two players"
• "There are two types of troops: Warriors and Heroes."
• "In earlier editions of the rules, Games Workshop kept the two kinds of Elves separate, and although the One Rulebook merges the two "races", they are most often kept separated into the two main themes [6]:" - Try and keep your references consistent; this reference does not match the rest of the references. There are several examples of this within the article.
• "not commonly seen in Third Age games." - sounds like WP:OR
• "Originally, the Wood Elves were limited to a small range of metal miniatures"
• "GW's interpretation of Cirion is the lieutenant of Amon Barad." - note: it won't necessarily be clear to everyone that GW means Games Workshop.

A few other things:

• "Perhaps most interestingly" try and avoid phrases like this. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia and should not have a discussional tone.
• "The miniatures of the two Warhammer games are in a "heroic" scale" - what is a heroic scale?

As I noted, this list isn't exhaustive; you'll need to look through for any unreferenced statements that I've not mentioned (although I do have most of them). Mouse Nightshirt | talk 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start on some of these, although I probably won't be able to work on the rest until after the weekend. --Grimhelm 13:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I have fixed all of these, except for the release date of LoME (shouldn't be too hard to find), GW discontinuing some metal miniatures, and a few of the inconsistent references. I think the rest is fine, though. --Grimhelm 19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Text removed until citation can be found:

They justified this action by saying that the quality in plastic moulding has improved to a point where they are almost as detailed as metal, and that plastic is cheaper to produce.

--Grimhelm 09:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

All done, except for the LoME release date. It is neither essential nor controversial, so if necessary it can be either left or removed to allow the article to pass the review. --Grimhelm 10:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --Grimhelm 10:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination re-review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

After re-reviewing, I've noticed a few article weaknesses, however, not enough to have the article failed. Although not strictly necessary, as you stated, the release dates would be better with a reference and ideally the lead should have more references with inline citations; however, this information is mostly referenced in the text. On the whole, however, this article has improved considerably and I now believe it meets GA standard. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for reviewing. :-) --Grimhelm 09:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

New KoMT

Request to either replace the image of the Knights of Minas Tirith boxed set with the new one, or add a mention that these are an older version, as GW will likely discontinue the metals now.86.39.16.12 22:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Elven Cloak

Can someone remind me of the minimum range of an Elven Cloak? Isn't it about 10"?

Angmar Allies

Angmar have got one ally- Barad-dur. I think this is in Leigions of Middle Earth. Kai Su?^{My Talk Page} 19:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Khamul lotrsbg.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Khamul lotrsbg.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Strategy Battle Game

This article needs to be updated with the release The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Strategy Battle Game of December 2012. Games Workshop has rebranded a lot of LoTR SBG products but I think it sufficient to expand the intro and Current licensing sections with a quick note. I am not an expert on the matter so I hope someone else can do this. :) Lonaowna (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Overly long and detailed

This article is preposterously long, and goes into way more detail than necessary. This article should not be a repository of all information within the game itself, simply an overview of the tabletop game itself and its development/expansion. (Most of the "troop types" list should probably be removed.) Furthermore, most of the citations seem to point either to the rule-books (first-party sources) or unreliable forum links. This article needs some major cleanup. --V2Blast (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

War of the Ring Tabletop

Would the War of the Ring miniature wargame deserve its own article? I think it can never be satisfactorily represented by this page because the rules of these two games have very little in common, despite the article telling so. Sinthoniel (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested page move

Have requested that this is moved to Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game as this is now what GW is calling the game (https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Middle-earth). 194.28.124.52 (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is incorrect: the canonical name as per Middle-earth™ | Games Workshop Webstore is: "Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game", which is also in accord with the Tolkien lexicons. The article should be renamed accordingly. --Hlingler (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tom Bombadil miniature.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)