Jump to content


Which Hobbit set are you most looking forward to?


91 replies to this topic

Poll: Which Hobbit set are you most looking forward to? (123 member(s) have cast votes)

Which Hobbit set are you most looking forward to?

  1. 79000 Riddles for the Ring (1 votes [1.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.12%

  2. 79001 Escape from Mirkwood Spiders (14 votes [15.73%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.73%

  3. 79002 Attack of the Wargs (21 votes [23.60%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.60%

  4. 79003 An Unexpected Gathering (33 votes [37.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.08%

  5. 79004 Barrel Escape (8 votes [8.99%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.99%

  6. 79010 The Goblin King Battle (12 votes [13.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.48%

What is the main reason you chose that set?

  1. The parts (8 votes [9.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.41%

  2. The minifigures (38 votes [44.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.71%

  3. The set itself (39 votes [45.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.88%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#51 Deathleech

Deathleech

    Posts: 1965
    Joined: 08-June 12
    Member: 29067

Posted 15 October 2012 - 02:33 AM

View PostFives, on 15 October 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

I know that a lot of people will disagree, but I chose the Mirkwood spiders set.

What?  That's the second most voted for set so far!


View PostSirBlake, on 15 October 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

Bag End is beautiful, and I'm sure I'll get it, but the rest are just disconnected elements. I really need a structure.

This seems to be a sentiment a lot of people are feeling.  I personally expected the sets to look exactly like they do, and stated so in my expectation thread.  It doesn't surprise me at all the Mirkwood Spider or Warg sets only have a couple rocks and trees.  If you read the book, most of the setting are huge, sprawling, outdoor environments.  Other than Bag End, Beorn's house, Goblin Town, the elf palace, Lake Town, and maybe Lonely Mountain, everything else takes place outdoors in a forest, valley, or cave.  Even then the last 4 locations I listed are pretty huge and each could easily be a $100+ dollar set and still not be "complete".

With that being said, what do people expect to see in The Hobbit sets?  How could Lego do a Mirkwood Spider, or Attack of the Wargs set so that they feel more complete without making a set that cost hundreds of dollars?

#52 Gryphon Ink

Gryphon Ink

  • Confused by the Madness!


    Posts: 886
    Joined: 19-November 10
    Member: 14286
    Country: USA

Posted 15 October 2012 - 04:52 AM

View PostDeathleech, on 14 October 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

What makes you say that?  Is it just because the set looks kinda small with only the one tree and the two rock formations?  If so I agree there, I think the second rock formation could of been ditched to add an extra limb or two to the tree.  Really though, the set doesn't seem like a bad deal.  It has 400 pieces and is $49.99, bringing the price per piece out to be just under 13 cents.  That's not bad at all for a license set that has several unique minifigures and 2 totally new, fairly large Warg molds.  Attack on Weathertop only has 30 more pieces, the same amount of minifigures and animals, and yet it was 10 more bucks.

Well, maybe I should have said it doesn't feel like a $50 set.  I am going to buy the set.  But here's the thing: Weathertop also doesn't look like a good value, which is why I still haven't bought it even though it was the first LOTR set that I wanted.  It's beautiful.  It just doesn't look like $60 worth of beautiful.  (Look at the Harry Potter Burrow set - THAT is $60 worth of beautiful.)  With the Warg set, my problem is something I've seen a few other people mention, and something that seems to be happening in a lot of sets lately: I'd rather have one big structure than a middling-size structure and several other unattached elements, especially when those other elements are generic rock piles.  I like to display my sets, and when you have those little disconnected pieces it doesn't make a very good display.  Like you said, I'd happily give up that second rock formation and add a branch to the tree.  Even joining the rocks to the base of the tree to make it one bigger structure would make it feel more like you're getting your money's worth.

I know this set is a fair value if you count the pieces and factor in the new Warg mold and the license.  It's just that psychologically, it doesn't quite seem to be worth the asking price.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#53 Gryphon Ink

Gryphon Ink

  • Confused by the Madness!


    Posts: 886
    Joined: 19-November 10
    Member: 14286
    Country: USA

Posted 15 October 2012 - 05:16 AM

View PostDeathleech, on 15 October 2012 - 02:33 AM, said:

Other than Bag End, Beorn's house, Goblin Town, the elf palace, Lake Town, and maybe Lonely Mountain, everything else takes place outdoors in a forest, valley, or cave.  Even then the last 4 locations I listed are pretty huge and each could easily be a $100+ dollar set and still not be "complete".

For me at least, it's not really a question of being "complete".  Helm's Deep, for instance, is nowhere near complete.  But it feels perfect.  It gives you the main structure that you need and the look of a whole castle, and if you like to mod things you can add your own elements to make it more authentic, like the mod that appeared here yesterday.

Mines of Moria, on the other hand, doesn't have that "great set" feeling, because it has no structure.  It looks like one wall, plus one door, plus one tomb, plus one well.  They play together nicely, but they don't look like a set.

Bag End: not nearly complete, but it looks great and gives you the one room that Bag End really needs to have, the dining room.  If you remember the book, and I know you do because you demonstrate great familiarity with Middle-Earth, Bilbo's dining room is actually a long way from his front door.  But the Lego set doesn't need to have a long hallway in it.  It just needs a round door, round windows and a big room where a bunch of unruly dwarves, a wizard and a hobbit can sit down to eat and plot.

Mirkwood Spiders is somewhere in the middle, not a massive fail but also not amazing, because one copy isn't enough to make a significant location and there's no way I'm buying multiple copies of a smallish set that has four unique minifigs in it.  Maybe if it only had one spider and an extra tree, or maybe if it had one less minifig and been a $20 set, it would have worked better.  As it is, it's a set that I might buy just because I've gotta have Legolas and Tauriel.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#54 Ferrik

Ferrik

    Posts: 821
    Joined: 26-February 11
    Member: 16252
    Country: Australia

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:35 AM

View PostGryphon Ink, on 15 October 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

For me at least, it's not really a question of being "complete".  Helm's Deep, for instance, is nowhere near complete.  But it feels perfect.  It gives you the main structure that you need and the look of a whole castle, and if you like to mod things you can add your own elements to make it more authentic, like the mod that appeared here yesterday.

Yeah, I kind of get what you're trying to say. Sometimes having whole buildings does make a set feel more complete, I agree. :sweet: But some of the "incomplete" sets with a few different structures, do create a good scenery.
Mafia History

Played as
Posted Image
Betty in The Pearl Mafia.

My Academy-approved reviews: 9469 Gandalf Arrives, 8236 Bike Burner, 30027 Reindeer, 8737 Toa Hordika (Bionicle),8514 Power

#55 Hive

Hive

  • Friendsified!


    Posts: 1077
    Joined: 19-March 10
    Member: 9979
    Country: Denmark

Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:01 PM

Mirkwood, because of the exciting new colors and parts. Though Bag End looks good as well, and is the only set that feels "complete".

#56 Deathleech

Deathleech

    Posts: 1965
    Joined: 08-June 12
    Member: 29067

Posted 22 October 2012 - 02:59 AM

View PostGryphon Ink, on 15 October 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

For me at least, it's not really a question of being "complete".  Helm's Deep, for instance, is nowhere near complete.  But it feels perfect.  It gives you the main structure that you need and the look of a whole castle, and if you like to mod things you can add your own elements to make it more authentic, like the mod that appeared here yesterday.

Mines of Moria, on the other hand, doesn't have that "great set" feeling, because it has no structure.  It looks like one wall, plus one door, plus one tomb, plus one well.  They play together nicely, but they don't look like a set.

Bag End: not nearly complete, but it looks great and gives you the one room that Bag End really needs to have, the dining room.  If you remember the book, and I know you do because you demonstrate great familiarity with Middle-Earth, Bilbo's dining room is actually a long way from his front door.  But the Lego set doesn't need to have a long hallway in it.  It just needs a round door, round windows and a big room where a bunch of unruly dwarves, a wizard and a hobbit can sit down to eat and plot.

Mirkwood Spiders is somewhere in the middle, not a massive fail but also not amazing, because one copy isn't enough to make a significant location and there's no way I'm buying multiple copies of a smallish set that has four unique minifigs in it.  Maybe if it only had one spider and an extra tree, or maybe if it had one less minifig and been a $20 set, it would have worked better.  As it is, it's a set that I might buy just because I've gotta have Legolas and Tauriel.

I think there are a lot of things to take into consideration.  Lets take look at the Harry Potter Burrow set that you mentioned in your previous post for an example.  It has 6 minifigures, a nice building, and is just below 11 cents per piece.  At first glance it seems like a MUCH better deal than Weathertop.  While it's definitely a great set, it doesn't have any big molds like Weathertop or the Warg sets do though.  With that in mind of course it makes sense the set is right around 11 cents per piece.  In comparison Weathertop seems rather high, even for a licensed set at 14 cents per piece, but when you take into account other factors it doesn't seem quite so bad.

Honestly even with all this taken into consideration I still felt like Weathertop really was a bit high though.  I feel like the Attack of the Warg set is a much better deal.  It has a tree almost the same size as the house in the HP Burrow set, only 1 less minifigure, 2 more big warg molds, and is 10 bucks cheaper.  Sure they could of done without the two rock formations, but I am sure some people like them and to some it gives the feel of a more lively forest or a better deal (a couple rocks and tree vs 1 huge tree).  I mean most little kids probably wouldn't even notice a few extra branches on the tree in place of the rocks.  And, if you would rather the rocks be connected to the tree that is a super easy fix you can do yourself.

As for the other sets you mention...  I agree Helm's Deep is a great set, but even still a lot of people who have criticized it because the scale is way off.  The walls are only as high as 2-3 minifigures, yet in the movie they are as tall as 20 or so Uruk-hai.  The front ramp is also dozens of feet tall in the movie yet in the Lego set a figure could jump up on it from the ground.  In comparison Mines of Moria is all pretty much done to minifigure scale, and what would Lego of gained from adding 1-2 more gray, plain walls to the set?  It would of jacked the price up 20 dollars easily, if not more, and added no play features to the set.  It would of just made the set look nice but added nothing to playability.  That's great to us AFOLS, but to kids I doubt how the set looks on display is their number one priority.  Unfortunately for us Lego is made for kids first and foremost.

It seems lately Lego is trying to find a perfect balance.  They try to make a large chunk of set that is recognizable, can have tons of play features, and all the while not be too expensive and still fill each price point in a wave.   Arkham Asylum and the Daily Bugle sets are perfect examples, they are only one wall of a huge building with a few rooms inside.  They aren't a full enclosed buildings and don't even have much for side walls as that could easily double or triple the price of the set.  The City sets aren't much different either with most only being a small half enclosed structure and vehicle.  And why do these sets need this other than to jack up the price and look a little nicer?  They add nothing to the play value.  I am sure everyone would love a fully enclosed building in each set like the Haunted House or Pet Shop, but at the same time they definitely don't want every set costing $150+.  And really that's the balance.

Personally I wish they would just do like Helm's Deep/Uruk-hai Army sets and make 2-3 sets that are all meant to connect to form one super set.  Make the sets so they can be just as good stand alone sets as they are when formed up with a few of the other sets they are meant to go with.  That way people can only buy 1 if they want, or they can buy all of them, with everything in between.  Of course even then I am sure people would complain Lego is forcing people into buying all the sets to complete anything, so it's not like they can win no matter what they do.

#57 Commander Laquiet

Commander Laquiet

    Posts: 256
    Joined: 25-November 08
    Member: 4498
    Country: The Moon

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:32 AM

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the disconnected argument. I certainly see where it is coming from, but I feel that the Hobbit sets appear so well built/designed that this balances out the other problems. I think that viewed purely as sets they are great little dioramas, and one of the things I actually like about the disconnectedness is that it really does encourage kids to build around and within their new set - something I think is good. I don't think this is the real intention, but I'd like to think that the effect of this possible problem is actually a good one.

As for the set I look forward to: weirdly by way of the discussion I am really loving the Barrel Escape. I sadly can't buy the whole theme so I am looking at the two or three sets I'll pick up and this one really sticks out: great minifigure selection with elves, dwarves and hobbits, some very nice parts and reasonable substantial set design. It looks cool, too! I love those dwarves...

And of course hopefully Bag End.
Posted Image

#58 Gryphon Ink

Gryphon Ink

  • Confused by the Madness!


    Posts: 886
    Joined: 19-November 10
    Member: 14286
    Country: USA

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:56 AM

View PostDeathleech, on 22 October 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

Personally I wish they would just do like Helm's Deep/Uruk-hai Army sets and make 2-3 sets that are all meant to connect to form one super set.  Make the sets so they can be just as good stand alone sets as they are when formed up with a few of the other sets they are meant to go with.  That way people can only buy 1 if they want, or they can buy all of them, with everything in between.  Of course even then I am sure people would complain Lego is forcing people into buying all the sets to complete anything, so it's not like they can win no matter what they do.

I think it's a given that we are going to complain no matter what we get.  You just can't satisfy everyone.  I like that "super set" concept, personally.  It works great in the Helm's Deep/UHA pairing.  I've been wanting that for a long time in various themes.  I was terribly disappointed that the Dragon Prison set didn't connect organically to the Dragon Fortress.

The one other thing that annoys me in the warg set is that the two orcs are the same as the ones in Orc Forge, except for their legs.  A little facial variation would have made this my number one Hobbit set, since while I'm not really an army builder I do want a decent collection of orcs for MOCing.  But for all my complaints, I still like the warg tree, and it's one of the two sets I'm definitely buying.  I might complain about details, but so far LOTR/Hobbit is one of my favorite Lego themes, and there isn't a single set yet that I think is no good.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#59 Carousel

Carousel

    Posts: 88
    Joined: 17-October 12
    Member: 32591
    Country: Australia

Posted 22 October 2012 - 05:56 AM

79003 An Unexpected Gathering is a real standout for me; whilst the majority of the Hobbit sets are a lot more appealing than the greys of the LotR line (which are still fantastic), I feel 79003 is the most enticing one. This is due to it's details, homeliness, great minifigures, fantastic piece colours and generally nice feeling. Although [presently] with the second lowest score, I think 79004 Barrel Escape is the second best - all those barrels, colours/pieces and it's wonderful atmosphere!

#60 Deathleech

Deathleech

    Posts: 1965
    Joined: 08-June 12
    Member: 29067

Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:27 PM

View PostGryphon Ink, on 22 October 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

The one other thing that annoys me in the warg set is that the two orcs are the same as the ones in Orc Forge, except for their legs.  A little facial variation would have made this my number one Hobbit set, since while I'm not really an army builder I do want a decent collection of orcs for MOCing.

Best case scenario would of been Lego making a new face print for the goblins in the Warg set, and then a separate print for the goblins in the Goblin King set.  I am sure with all the dwarves they were trying to keep costs down where they could though.  If they didn't use the Mordor Orc heads, I am guessing Lego would of just used the ones from the Goblin King set.  We would of gotten five goblins this wave that were all identical other than a couple different torso styles, and one with different length legs (who is actually a special character named Scribe, so he technically shouldn't be included like Yazneg).  They all would of had the same head and head cap though, and same legs with a loin cloth.

Personally I am fine with Lego's choice of parts.  They reused some pieces to technically create "new" goblins/orcs and they reused the Mordor Orc head which had relatively little use in the first LotR wave (I imagine this could change with future waves though).  Personally I would of loved for them to use the Moria Orc in the Hobbit sets, but after seeing how different the goblins in the Hobbit look I guess it was a good idea not to.  Plus at this time we don't even know if the Warg riding goblins will be some kind of special ones or not, or if the Goblin Town ones are, so maybe the Moria Orc head and torso makes more sense on them?

#61 IAmWillGibson

IAmWillGibson

    Posts: 397
    Joined: 08-November 10
    Member: 14134
    Country: Canada

Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:35 PM

I'm definitely getting Mirkwood, Bag End, and the Warg set. The other ones... I dunno. I like the Goblin King, but I'm not gonna be able to afford it.

#62 Huntleyfx

Huntleyfx

    Posts: 606
    Joined: 31-January 09
    Member: 5179
    Country: USA

Posted 22 October 2012 - 05:54 PM

I mean, I am probably going to end up with all of them, largely as the Dwarfs are my favorite race in the books and films. That being said, the Warg Attack is probably going to be the first one I pick up, as it has both dwarfs, and Wargs.
"Everything is more impressive when done to the saber dance."- Overheard backstage.

#63 Moexy

Moexy

    Posts: 242
    Joined: 31-May 12
    Member: 28933
    Country: Belgium

Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:26 PM

My favourite is the Mirkwood spider set because off the elves, second is the Barrel excape (also the Elves :tongue: ) and as the third Warg Attack set, love everything in this set.
The only set that I don't actually like is the 'Riddles for the ring', and it seems I'm not alone. I'll probably get it though :laugh:

#64 Gryphon Ink

Gryphon Ink

  • Confused by the Madness!


    Posts: 886
    Joined: 19-November 10
    Member: 14286
    Country: USA

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:32 PM

I think everyone is missing the point of the Riddles for the Ring set.  It's not meant for the devoted AFOLs.  We are going to buy the big sets already, and we're buying all of the LOTR/Hobbit sets so we already have Gollum.  This is not our set.  Just like Gandalf Arrives didn't give us anything we badly needed.  These sets are meant for kids who have limited funds, and adult nerds who don't build a lot of Lego and just want a desk ornament, and people who usually buy other Lego themes, to give them one small piece of the Hobbit.

In my opinion, both Riddles and Gandalf Arrives are excellent sets for that price point.  I'm not talking about PPP ratios or unique pieces or spectacular minifigs, just the way they encapsulated their respective movies in a very small set.  Each one of them features two critical characters in a recognizable scene, with a little bit of brick building around them.  Gandalf Arrives is arguably the better set (unless you already have three dozen carts from Kingdoms and POTC and countless other themes, in which case it's nothing new except for a horse), but Riddles actually features a crucial scene, instead of the rather "unnecessary" scene of Gandalf's arrival.  You cannot do an entire Hobbit theme without showing the riddle scene.  It would be like running a Star Wars theme that never had an X-Wing fighter.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#65 Deathleech

Deathleech

    Posts: 1965
    Joined: 08-June 12
    Member: 29067

Posted 22 October 2012 - 11:33 PM

I just wish they would of done something more with Riddles for the Ring.  At least with the Gandalf Arrives set we were getting two unique figures at the time.  Gandalf was not available in any other set yet and Frodo in his green shirt was not to be released in the polybag for a couple more months.  I do agree that it could of probably been done without though, they could of just as easily included Gandalf in the Mines of Moria set and scrapped Gandalf Arrives.  Then again I think the Riddles for the ring set could of also been done without and like I said before, just included with the Goblin King Battle for 10 bucks more.

I know these low price sets seem to suck to us AFOLs and are made for small children with limited funds or people who just want to invest a small amount into a LotR/Hobbit set and pick it up on a whim.. but man.  I really wish I had some sale figures to see how well the Riddle for the Ring set would sell compared to an army builder.  It's so hard to imagine small children and people only slightly interested making a set sell more than ravenous AFOLs buying dozens upon dozens of army builders per person.

#66 SheepEater

SheepEater

    Posts: 1052
    Joined: 10-May 12
    Member: 28524
    Country: Canada

Posted 22 October 2012 - 11:58 PM

View PostDeathleech, on 22 October 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:


I know these low price sets seem to suck to us AFOLs and are made for small children with limited funds or people who just want to invest a small amount into a LotR/Hobbit set and pick it up on a whim.. but man.  I really wish I had some sale figures to see how well the Riddle for the Ring set would sell compared to an army builder.  It's so hard to imagine small children and people only slightly interested making a set sell more than ravenous AFOLs buying dozens upon dozens of army builders per person.

I am wondering this constantly as well.

Sure, there are fewer of us ravenous AFOLs than kids... but by how many exactly?

#67 Haltiamieli

Haltiamieli

    Posts: 841
    Joined: 10-November 10
    Member: 14151
    Country: Finland

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:21 AM

View PostDeathleech, on 22 October 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

I know these low price sets seem to suck to us AFOLs and are made for small children with limited funds or people who just want to invest a small amount into a LotR/Hobbit set and pick it up on a whim.. but man.  I really wish I had some sale figures to see how well the Riddle for the Ring set would sell compared to an army builder.  It's so hard to imagine small children and people only slightly interested making a set sell more than ravenous AFOLs buying dozens upon dozens of army builders per person.
The sales of Gandalf Arrives or Riddles for the Ring themselves may not be anything to write home about compared to some sort of army builder set that would be scavenged by the hordes of AFOLs (though AFOLs are still a marginal group in numbers and we might often overestimate our buying power). But in the long run Gandalf Arrives or Riddles for the Ring may return the investment just as well if not better. Catering to the AFOLs is preaching to the converted. Our money is already largely in their pockets. The smallest sets however are (among other things) the decoy, the gateway drug. You buy that one small innocent and cheap set, and before you know it you want the second cheapest set, and the third cheapest... Soon you are eyeing the Helm's Deep - - and wait what's that, Lego Modular Buildings? That Town Hall sure looks awesome... Cha-ching. Of course most people won't get that far, certainly not the kids at least, but still they are the future.
Halti son of Halti, a warrior of the Clan of the Great Elk and a loyal member of the Mitgardia Guild.
Supporting in Cuusoo: trebuchet, big trees, medieval theatre wagon, blacksmith's house...

#68 Deathleech

Deathleech

    Posts: 1965
    Joined: 08-June 12
    Member: 29067

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:11 AM

I suppose, but even if I weren't an AFOL I dunno if I would pick up the Riddles for the Ring set over an awesome looking army builder.  I mean Bilbo Baggings and Gollum with a rock and small boat are nice and iconic, but would I really buy them over a Warg (wolf), eagle, goblin and elf?  Tough call there... plus the battle pack could serve as an army builder or be used for other MOCs and custom works just as easily.

#69 Gryphon Ink

Gryphon Ink

  • Confused by the Madness!


    Posts: 886
    Joined: 19-November 10
    Member: 14286
    Country: USA

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:16 AM

View PostDeathleech, on 22 October 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

It's so hard to imagine small children and people only slightly interested making a set sell more than ravenous AFOLs buying dozens upon dozens of army builders per person.

(Puts on best James Earl Jones voice) Don't underestimate the buying power of a billion children and their parents, who need small birthday presents for classmates several times a year.

I don't mean to keep droning on about this, but why do you think TLG make polybags and entry-level sets for every theme, but only a few themes get battle packs each year, and only Star Wars gets battle packs on a regular basis?  Target and Wal-Mart stick polybags in their checkout aisles.  Parents buy them to quell their whiny offspring.  (I'm allowed to say this because I'm a parent and I've done it!)  Stop 'n Shop sell the small sets in their toy aisle, conveniently located across from the party supply shelves.  TRU sell the little Friends sets by the dozen.

The bigger sets are almost always vastly superior, but it's really, really easy to sell the smaller sets that only cost $10 to a casual shopper who needs a small present for his kids so they won't be upset when he drags them into Target to buy bedding and office supplies.  And those guys are not going to buy the battle packs with random generic creatures, they're going to buy a small set with an iconic character in it.  They don't want Death Eater #3 and Nameless Hufflepuff Student - they want Harry Potter and Dobby - or Gollum and Bilbo.

Anyway, I think I've derailed the thread enough, so let me just say that personally, I wish they HAD given us the battle packs you want - but market forces apparently keep voting for sets like Riddles for the Ring instead.  Here's hoping LOTR is the most successful Lego theme ever, and in '13 or '14 we will get those battle packs.  Make mine Rohirrim!
Posted Image
Posted Image

#70 Fives

Fives

  • Makes structured rants


    Posts: 2514
    Joined: 31-December 10
    Member: 15059
    Country: Canada

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:58 AM

We will indisputably get The Hobbit BPs. The reason we aren't seeing any this wave is because the first film, which this wave is mostly based on, features no major armies. All the conflicts are just the dwarves vs. smaller groups of orcs and wargs, not thousands of them. By the time of the third film we should see at least one BP, if not a set like Uruk-Hai Army, to satiate the craving us AFOLs have for vast armies.
"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them!"

Posted Image

#71 Haltiamieli

Haltiamieli

    Posts: 841
    Joined: 10-November 10
    Member: 14151
    Country: Finland

Posted 23 October 2012 - 08:30 AM

View PostGryphon Ink, on 23 October 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

Anyway, I think I've derailed the thread enough, so let me just say that personally, I wish they HAD given us the battle packs you want - but market forces apparently keep voting for sets like Riddles for the Ring instead.  Here's hoping LOTR is the most successful Lego theme ever, and in '13 or '14 we will get those battle packs.  Make mine Rohirrim!
Yeah. While I may argue why I think Lego chose to do Riddles for the Ring instead of an army builder, there's no denying that personally I too would like to have army builder sets. Certainly in this case as I agree that Riddles for the Ring is rather lacklustre set with its big rock and uberlame boat (on the other off-topic-y hand I think Gandalf Arrives is one of the best sets of the first wave, if every set is judged in their own price ranges and taking the subject matter in account). I hope that Fives is right in that we will get our army builders eventually. I can see no sane reason why we shouldn't, except the whole theme bombing completely- - But wait, that isn't sane either.
Halti son of Halti, a warrior of the Clan of the Great Elk and a loyal member of the Mitgardia Guild.
Supporting in Cuusoo: trebuchet, big trees, medieval theatre wagon, blacksmith's house...

#72 Duce

Duce

    Posts: 106
    Joined: 31-July 12
    Member: 29969
    Country: N.Ireland

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:08 AM

Definately the Goblin king set for me, can't wait to get a few for expanding it and also for the minifigs :)

#73 Deathleech

Deathleech

    Posts: 1965
    Joined: 08-June 12
    Member: 29067

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:12 PM

View PostFives, on 23 October 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

We will indisputably get The Hobbit BPs. The reason we aren't seeing any this wave is because the first film, which this wave is mostly based on, features no major armies. All the conflicts are just the dwarves vs. smaller groups of orcs and wargs, not thousands of them. By the time of the third film we should see at least one BP, if not a set like Uruk-Hai Army, to satiate the craving us AFOLs have for vast armies.

I know there aren't thousands, but it does mentions hundreds of Wargs and Goblins when the dwarves get stuck in the trees.  That's a pretty sizable force.  It does seem most likely we would get battle packs for the third film when the Battle of the Five Armies takes place, but still I would think they would release some battle packs before that.  The battle has huge companies of dwarves, humans, elves, goblins, wargs, and eagles so it's going to be impossible to cover battle packs for each faction while still offering normal sets that wave.  They would need 4-5 battle packs alone to cover each faction.  Lego should get a jump on it now and offer the warg/eagle battle pack since we have a scene featuring large numbers of each in the first film, and then later offer a couple battle packs with strictly soldiers that have a lot more goblins, humans, elves, and dwarves in them.  Personally I don't think The Hobbit lends itself anywhere near as well to battle packs as the LotR does though.


View PostGryphon Ink, on 23 October 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I don't mean to keep droning on about this, but why do you think TLG make polybags and entry-level sets for every theme, but only a few themes get battle packs each year, and only Star Wars gets battle packs on a regular basis?  Target and Wal-Mart stick polybags in their checkout aisles.  Parents buy them to quell their whiny offspring.  (I'm allowed to say this because I'm a parent and I've done it!)  Stop 'n Shop sell the small sets in their toy aisle, conveniently located across from the party supply shelves.  TRU sell the little Friends sets by the dozen.

I do get what you are saying and I totally understand, I have had this conversation with other people before.  I just think certain themes really lend themselves well to battle packs.  Obviously a theme like City, or even moresoe Friends doesn't lend itself to army builders in the slightest.  What are you going to have, an army of Jennifers and Mias?  And for City, you usually get a decent size force of police officers or firefighters just from buying all the other sets so there isn't a huge demand for "battle packs" there either (though I do know they offer them once in awhile).  On the other hand look at Star Wars.  The theme screams for battle packs.  So much so (If I am not mistaken), one wave this year alone had four army builders.  That's nuts and obviously shows that battle packs can outsell a more iconic set if placed in the right theme and done right.  I think LotR is such a theme.

I mean we already know LotR isn't as heavily targeted to children.  There is no recent cartoon or tie in yet and there has been nothing other than a few video games released here and there for the past ten years to hype up the new Lego theme.  Sure we are getting a Lego video game, but it's coming out almost 5 months after the first LotR wave was released.  Not only that, the line is based off of movies that are somewhat violent for kids and rated PG-13.  For most Lego toys, 13 is the cut off age they list on the box (I know it doesn't mean much, but it's interesting to note).

With all that in mind, why not try to make a battle pack?  Like I said before, I think the LotR franchise is tailor made for something like that.  You have so many huge armies doing battle throughout the films and books it's not even funny.  There are so many factions and soldiers in each, the line is just meant for battle packs.  You have Orcs, goblins, trolls, Rohirrim, Gondorians, Haradrim, Easternlings, undead Oathbreakers, elves, rangers... the list goes on and on.

Edited by Deathleech, 25 October 2012 - 05:03 PM.


#74 CA Magon

CA Magon

    Posts: 32
    Joined: 15-October 12
    Member: 32558
    Country: France

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:23 PM

View PostShaydDeGrai, on 30 July 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

I want Smaug on his treasure hoard, and not a "Vikings" series little dragon.  I want a big, fully articulated, could-swallow-a-hobbit-whole-in-one-gulp, sort of dragon, with a decent sized den and slews of gold parts (bars, coins, chalices, swords, etc).  I don't expect to see one from TLG any time soon, but if you're asking what I'd _want_ and look forward to enough to queue up to get one on day one, there it is.

Can't wait for Smaug too...

#75 Ardelon

Ardelon

    Posts: 797
    Joined: 05-September 11
    Member: 20239
    Country: Slovakia

Posted 07 November 2012 - 04:53 AM

I vote for the Bag End set. It was tied in my mind with the Goblin Town set, but in the end, Bag End has lots of civilian accessories, lots and lots of green pieces and cooler figs, as well as a solid-looking build (the one thing missing is a mushroom). Compared to that, the other sets seem poorer on the parts and figs front (although I think the Gollum set is really nice for a set its size, though not very attention-grabing). I might change my mind once I see the movie and reviews of the sets.



Reply to this topic



  


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users