Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to
J. R. R. Tolkien, his
legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the
project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Note: Though it states in the
Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to
board games and
tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
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.
"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??)
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.
Grimhelm20:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Thror23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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
Separate article maybe. It is a fair expansion, maybe it warrants a header in here, with a link to the main article.
Thror23:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)reply
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
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):
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!
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'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.
"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 |
talk12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
Grimhelm13:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
Grimhelm19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
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. --
Grimhelm10:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
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):
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 |
talk23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
86.39.16.1222:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Elven Cloak
Can someone remind me of the minimum range of an Elven Cloak? Isn't it about 10"?
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply