Its his ONLY counter-argument.

@Draugluin, I don't know how old you are but I've been informed you're relatively young. If you're younger than ~ 15, then that will likely explain why you can't grasp just how overpriced GW's products are these days.

I'm only 21, and have been playing since about the age of 12 yet I have seen huge differences in GW prices. In just 10 years, I have seen them more than double their prices. When I started, I recall getting 24 model infantry boxes for ~ £15 (£0.63 per model). This went up steadily year by year by fairly small amounts (£1-£2).

Then, less than a year ago GW halved the boxes in preperation for Warbands. On top of this, it upped the price to £13.50 (£1.13 per model) - which would make 24 models cost £26. This is already extremely high for plastic models. And yet, in the last couple of months it upped the prices again to £15 per 12 models (£1.25 per model). 24 models now cost £30.

According to ThisisMoney.co.uk, the UK has seen ~ 28% total inflation. GW has increased its prices by 100%. Clearly we aren't getting anything remotely representing reasonable prices.

Finally, I can't help but notice how your default response is always 'Don't buy them then'. Not getting them is not an option for us because we are so heavily invested in the game, and especially in the Lord of the Rings. As Old Man Willow said, the fact that GW has the LOTR Licence is the only real reason to stick them - no other companies produce miniatures based on the films and books. So the choice is not "Put up with the prices or don't buy them". Its "Put up with the prices or quit the Lord of the Rings". (This applies far more to Collectors like Old Man Willow, than to predominant Gamers like myself who can skirt round the issue by proxying using other companies miniatures (which rarely resemble the LOTR btw).


Now, Draugluin, if you are still unable to acknowledge our point of view and understand why we feel this way (even if you don't agree with us), then don't bother responding to me, because it would just become yet another circular argument.

You might have to wait a century or two if you wnat to see the Silmarillion as a film.

Christopher Tolkien is apparently the man to convince, and he's dead set against it. He is however, 87. A decade or so from now we'll learn what his children or other heirs think about it.

From what I've heard, the rest of the Tolkien Estate hierarchy are toeing the line. Simon, Christopher's son, wanted to help PJ with the movies or at least publicly support him in making the films. Apparently Simon and Christopher's relationship has been quite strained as a result...

Do NOT talk down to me, you're only 2 years older than me. I KNOW WHY PEOPLE ARE UPSET ABOUT THE PRICES, I'M UPSET ABOUT THEM TOO. I understand your point, but I don't think that YOU understand mine. I hate to see people complain about stuff to the wrong people, if you hate the prices so much, let GW know about it, not people on some forum. It's not my fault, or anyone else's for that matter that you're so heavily invested in the game. So stop saying that I don't understand your viewpoint, I DO, I even agree with it! I just want people to stop griping about it on here.

Then, less than a year ago GW halved the boxes in preperation for Warbands. On top of this, it upped the price to £13.50 (£1.13 per model) - which would make 24 models cost £26. This is already extremely high for plastic models. And yet, in the last couple of months it upped the prices again to £15 per 12 models (£1.25 per model). 24 models now cost £30.

Do you think this'll lead to a new intrest in SBG (as oppose to WOTR)? The adventure of the hobbit doesn't seem to have the same sort of mass armies that LOTR had, even despite PJ's additions and changes to the original story.
P.S What the heck (if it exists) is an 'Adventure' set?

dragulin said: they do say that Aravir is the current Dunedain chief when he lived hundreds of years before hand (so I'm guessing fake)...

Tolkien did reuse names (as do we in our own world), and GW has gone name-mining in the appendices before as well.

The Problem of the Two Glorfindels

With the possible exception of Tom Bombadil's identity (and - of course - the wingedness or otherwise of Balrogs), there is no more hotly debated topic than the ultimate fate of Glorfindel. Were Glorfindel of Gondolin and Glorfindel of Rivendell the same person?

The only real resource we have to answer this question is in The Peoples of Middle-earth (The History of Middle-earth Vol. 12): XIII Last Writings, Glorfindel. Christopher Tolkien dates the notes he gives here at 1972, the year before his father's death.

These notes clear up one question immediately: at the time of the writing of The Lord of the Rings, Glorfindel of Rivendell was not conceived as the same character as Glorfindel of Gondolin. Tolkien says, 'Its use [i.e. the name 'Glorfindel'] in The Lord of the Rings is one of the cases of the somewhat random use of the names found in the older legends ... which escaped reconsideration in the final published form...'.

Tolkien was far from happy with this state of affairs, however, and it seems that he intended to reconcile the problem by uniting the two strands of the story. In summary, the notes tell us that Glorfindel's spirit returned to the Halls of Waiting, but was after a time re-embodied by the Valar. He then returned to Middle-earth (either in the mid-Second Age, or as a companion of the Istari in the Third). For the full story of his return, refer to The Peoples of Middle-earth.

The question of Glorfindel's identity, then, brings us to a much wider, and highly relevant, question. Can we accept a writer's personal notes, whether written in preparation for a published work, or simply for personal satisfaction, as part of that writer's 'canon'?

The importance of this question is highlighted by the essay entitled The Problem of Ros in the same volume of The History of Middle-earth. This is an extensive disposition on the origins and meaning of the syllable ros in names such as Elros. The details need not concern us here: what is relevant is the fact that, after its composition, Tolkien noticed a detail in the published Lord of the Rings that essentially negated the discussion. He dismissed the body of The Problem of Ros with four words; 'most of this fails'.

But what if he had not noticed this inconvenient fact (that Cair Andros had already been interpreted, and disagreed with his conclusions)? What if he had noticed, but had failed to record the fact? Would The Problem of Ros now be considered part of the 'Tolkienian' canon in the way that many regard the notes on Glorfindel? Questions like this show that we cannot simply take such notes on immediate face value.

Despite this, the Glorfindel notes lead many to see his re-embodiment and return to Middle-earth as 'fact' (and not a few have e-mailed us to remind us of this!) The purpose of this rather lengthy aside, though, is to show that we cannot view these 'events' in such concrete terms. This is the reason that the 'two Glorfindels' have separate entries on this site. This is not because we do not believe that Tolkien saw them as different embodiments of the same character (as we have seen, there are strong indications that he did), but simply because there is no definitive, published, proof of this.