LEGO Hobbit 2014

[Blakstone]

Different fans have different focuses. I get that Bobbtom wants to army build not just the villains but also the heoric armies. That's cool. Taking a quick count of AFOL posts here he is not alone. But that does not make it universal.

The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit lines appear to be less successful than LEGO would want. But that does not mean that anyone's theories are automatically correct.

I probably only have 12 Gandalf's and 4 or 5 Gimli. There were three variants of Gandalf at least. So this talk about 500 Gandalfs baffle me. I assume it is an exaggeration.

LEGO is my primary hobby. I don't buy toys every day but when I do, it is LEGO. However, my nieces that I buy LEGO as gifts also enjoy other toys. I think it is rare for kids, the primary audience, to only want LEGO as toys and even rarer for them to collect an entire wave of any series.

That is why LEGO goes for different price points. They found that people spend at different levels for different occasions and want to balance their options.

Middle Earth was always going to be risky for LEGO. While popular with AFOLs that MOCed with them for a decade their target audience never saw the old films and the Hobbit films were not out yet. I doubt that a few more army builders would have changed the fate of this line.

I hated the Goblin King set in part because I hated that character in a movie I didn't even like. But I found most of the build uninspiring. The rope bridge was good though.

[MAB]

No, I haven't. They are totally different. Castle has no named characters, aside from the odd king or leader. SW is a much bigger IP for Lego, both in time and number of concurrent sets, in which they have done virtually all the characters fairly continuously, and have room for battle packs in the large range they do.

[Bobbtom]

Different fans have different focuses. I get that Bobbtom wants to army build not just the villains but also the heoric armies. That's cool. Taking a quick count of AFOL posts here he is not alone. But that does not make it universal.

The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit lines appear to be less successful than LEGO would want. But that does not mean that anyone's theories are automatically correct.

I probably only have 12 Gandalf's and 4 or 5 Gimli. There were three variants of Gandalf at least. So this talk about 500 Gandalfs baffle me. I assume it is an exaggeration.

LEGO is my primary hobby. I don't buy toys every day but when I do, it is LEGO. However, my nieces that I buy LEGO as gifts also enjoy other toys. I think it is rare for kids, the primary audience, to only want LEGO as toys and even rarer for them to collect an entire wave of any series.

That is why LEGO goes for different price points. They found that people spend at different levels for different occasions and want to balance their options.

Middle Earth was always going to be risky for LEGO. While popular with AFOLs that MOCed with them for a decade their target audience never saw the old films and the Hobbit films were not out yet. I doubt that a few more army builders would have changed the fate of this line.

I hated the Goblin King set in part because I hated that character in a movie I didn't even like. But I found most of the build uninspiring. The rope bridge was good though.

It would have been fine if Lego made a blend of both types of sets for variety and a diversity of sets. They kept the character focus til the end with BOFA even though this focus got them low sales. Even they wouldn't admit that some of the sets werely poorly designed for a $100 or $50 set. They've probably maintained internally that there is no interest in Middle Earth when there could have been if they appealed to castle buyers.

Case point: If a kid saw BOFA and remembered that Dain led a charge, how is Lego Dain supposed to lead a charge when he has no soldiers.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Bobbtom

[MAB]

Even they didn't admit they were poorly designed? Do you really think a company is going to put out a product saying that they don't believe it is worth the price as it is poorly designed?

It would have been fine if Lego made a blend of both types of sets for variety and a diversity of sets. They kept the character focus til the end with BOFA even though this focus got them low sales. Even they wouldn't admit that some of the sets werely poorly designed for a $100 or $50 set. They've probably maintained internally that there is no interest in Middle Earth when there could have been if they appealed to castle buyers.

Case point: If a kid saw BOFA and remembered that Dain led a charge, how is Lego Dain supposed to lead a charge when he has no soldiers.

They'd use their other Lego men.

[Blakstone]

The Goblin King was the only set I never bothered to finish building. When I build a set there coming a dawning realization as to the point of every brick. Ruins such as the Goblin King had too much where things felt too random. Dol Guldur sets had more of a pattern behind them. It represents the sets from the mobie, but it was still was bland.

The big surprise for me was Weathertop. It looks horrible but I really enjoyed the build after I built it. It still did not feel like Weathertop from the film, but it was a great structure.

Wave 2 Hobbit had an army builder with Mirkwood Elf Army but the build still felt pointless and most AFOLs here felt the minifig selection was poor. Too bad there was no Toys R Us polybags for the Hobbit wave 3. I had a large collection of Mirkwood Elf Guards from wave 1 and Laketown Guard from wave 2. I wish we could have got Iron Hills Dwarf soliders for wave 3.

[Darth Punk]

I never said any of what you said about Tolkein and his characters. The book is different from the movie and what consumers versus readers of the books want is completely different. Calling my argument lazy? Your argument is putting words in my mouth.

The sets are based on the movies and its obvious what buyers want to buy and recreate from the movie. I'm taking what little evidence we have and making logical conclusions that make sense while others here maintain that the characters were so good and everyone only wants the sets for characters yet we have terrible sales for Middle Earth. This makes no sense and you know it.

You've just invalidated the entire star wars and Castle lines.

I'm not seeing any logic in there. You say it's obvious what buyers want but only offer terrible sales, please share sales figures, as proof. Could just be as simple as middle earth merchandise is just not popular. It's like saying you woke up and then the sun rose. Then concluding your waking up made the sun rise.

I'm also unclear on how readers are different than consumers. Do consumers not read?

[bachamn]

I never said any of what you said about Tolkein and his characters. The book is different from the movie and what consumers versus readers of the books want is completely different. Calling my argument lazy? Your argument is putting words in my mouth.

Attempting to force your weak opinion this way is what I'm calling lazy. If you feel so strongly about your opinion that you feel the desire to force it onto others online more than once in multiple places, take the time to re-state your argument. The "read my argument elsewhere because I don't have time to educate you fools" approach is lazy, at best. The hubris of that suggestion alone leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And I never put any words in your mouth, I pointed directly to the center of your "argument". You claim that making these sets character focused was the sole reason the sales faltered. You also claim that the movies weren't hero-centric like the books, simply because there were cinematic battle scenes. Both arguments are narrow, misguided, and (I feel) incorrect.

You say it's obvious what buyers want but only offer terrible sales, please share sales figures, as proof.

Yeah, I mean I wonder why LEGO even bothers paying for a presumably expensive marketing team when they could just tap the community for deep insights in the vein of, "kids don't care about main characters!"

Edited February 9, 2015 by bachamn

[Bobbtom]

Even they didn't admit they were poorly designed? Do you really think a company is going to put out a product saying that they don't believe it is worth the price as it is poorly designed?

They'd use their other Lego men.

No. This is not a argument point. It's common sense that no company is going to say that their product on the shelves is poorly designed. I did not say this. I said internally.

Use their own lego men? This makes absolutely no sense. By this logic, we don't need Stormtroopers or German soldiers in Indiana jones sets since we could just use our own "lego men". You think that lego would be successful if they made stormtroopers using doctor torsos and legs with firemen hats? No they wouldn't.

The Goblin King was the only set I never bothered to finish building. When I build a set there coming a dawning realization as to the point of every brick. Ruins such as the Goblin King had too much where things felt too random. Dol Guldur sets had more of a pattern behind them. It represents the sets from the mobie, but it was still was bland.

The big surprise for me was Weathertop. It looks horrible but I really enjoyed the build after I built it. It still did not feel like Weathertop from the film, but it was a great structure.

Wave 2 Hobbit had an army builder with Mirkwood Elf Army but the build still felt pointless and most AFOLs here felt the minifig selection was poor. Too bad there was no Toys R Us polybags for the Hobbit wave 3. I had a large collection of Mirkwood Elf Guards from wave 1 and Laketown Guard from wave 2. I wish we could have got Iron Hills Dwarf soliders for wave 3.

An iron hill polybag would have been great! I have no idea why they didn't release one. I have to agree with you on the weather top. For $60, its a terrible small set, but It was fun building it and the ring wraiths are great.

I'm not seeing any logic in there. You say it's obvious what buyers want but only offer terrible sales, please share sales figures, as proof. Could just be as simple as middle earth merchandise is just not popular. It's like saying you woke up and then the sun rose. Then concluding your waking up made the sun rise.

I'm also unclear on how readers are different than consumers. Do consumers not read?

I knew someone would ask this eventually. There are no sales figures. Lego doesn't release them. What I posted is based on the evidence from users that posted what they say and evidence from threads on this website. There is no other source of information. Just because there is no official data doesn't mean that everything we say is false. Everything that I've said and other users have posted are based on what we saw based on our own experience with lego lines. It's an educated conclusion that makes sense of all the information that others have posted saying that sales are bad for Middle Earth sets. If the line was successful, it would make sense to make more LOTR sets, but they didn't. Hence our conclusions. MIddle Earth sets could have bee popular if lego also made the sets appeal to castle builders. We could have gotten typical castle sets like caravan ambushes with an Isldur under attack scene or the scene from TTT where the Rohan caravan was attacked by wargs among other scenes.

Think about my analogy for a second before saying that it doesn't make sense. The books are old. More people have seen the movies than read the books. The movies were released recently. There you go. More people have seen the movies than the books because that's just the way entertainment concerning movies work. Hence why the sets are based on the movies, not the books. (Haldir, etc). Common sense.

Attempting to force your weak opinion this way is what I'm calling lazy. If you feel so strongly about your opinion that you feel the desire to force it onto others online more than once in multiple places, take the time to re-state your argument. The "read my argument elsewhere because I don't have time to educate you fools" approach is lazy, at best. The hubris of that suggestion alone leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And I never put any words in your mouth, I pointed directly to the center of your "argument". You claim that making these sets character focused was the sole reason the sales faltered. You also claim that the movies weren't hero-centric like the books, simply because there were cinematic battle scenes. Both arguments are narrow, misguided, and (I feel) incorrect.

Yeah, I mean I wonder why LEGO even bothers paying for a presumably expensive marketing team when they could just tap the community for deep insights in the vein of, "kids don't care about main characters!"

You're just attacking me instead of my arguments. Focus on the argument not on me. I'm not forcing anything on anyone. I'm not saying what you're saying. I'm responding with my opinion as to why some users are wrong. Your post here aims to discredit me by saying I'm "narrow, forcing, lazy". Stop it. Focus on the words not the user.

I am not going to spam these threads with the same post from another thread. If user makes a point that I didn't say something about yet, I will post something new.

You are putting words in my mouth. Here you go again. " You claim that making these sets character focused was the sole reason the sales faltered. You also claim that the movies weren't hero-centric like the books, simply because there were cinematic battle scenes. ". You said you read my previous post, which if you did, that is not what I said. I never said it was the sole reasons. I've mentioned several other. The main climatic point of the movies are the battle scenes, Hence why audiences like the movies, because it had cool battle scenes. No review and no person that watched the movie is going to say that the council of elrond scene was the best scene. I'm going to anticipate what others are going to say and address this point now. I'm not saying that the COE scene is unimportant. It is very important since it sets up key elements of the story. What I'm saying is that the sccene translates horrible into a mass market LOTR set.

You're probably going to point out my one sort of "forcing" my opinion on others with the post where I said. "denial". It's not forcing. I'm not saying the poster is basically stupid like you called me. I'm going a point as to why I have a different opinion and why they have theirs. There's a reason why some here are defending the lines saying how they were so good yet sales were terrible.

You think that because a marketing team is expensive that they will always be right? If that were the case, there would never be any movie sales flop or lego sales flops. That is incorrect. The marketing team was wrong, which is why we got the low sales.

If you continue to attack me instead of my posts, I will cease discussing this with you.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Bobbtom

[Darth Punk]

You do realize that over 100 million copies of the hobbit have been sold? One can only imagine how many times the ones in libraries around the world have been read. Or how many have been bought used or shared with friends. So to say that more people have watched the movies than people who,read the book I'm going to guess maybe not so much.

[BrickJagger]

I am not going to spam these threads with the same post from another thread. If user makes a point that I didn't say something about yet, I will post something new.

........................

If you continue to attack me instead of my posts, I will cease discussing this with you.

It's too late. The last four or five pages in this thread consist of gigantic arguments that establish absolutely NOTHING. Nothing is gained from this "debate" /flame war.

When this thread, intended to be about the Hobbit 2014 sets, dissolves into people calling each other "lazy" , "Lacking common sense", and "Having a weak opinion", I think this thread has outlived it's purpose. All this thread is is an argument, just like the "Future Lotr Sets?" one, and it's derived from both topics never have anything new to talk about, as both themes have ended. It doesn't really matter much why the themes ended, just know that they did.

I am honestly sick of seeing someone post something new in one of these threads only to find out it is adding to this never-ending riot. The one 2 posts above me is a wonderful example. Do you really expect anyone to read that? Any casual reader here (Like me) will find this "conversation" of yours very hard to understand or keep up with.

There is nothing more to be said here, as I think I already explained this thread in the paragraphs above.

Please post something worthwhile, guys. It's a news thread, not a debate club. I'm trying to make this thread readable and stable again.

Edited February 10, 2015 by BrickJagger

[Dr.Cogg]

What I was saying earlier, was there are so many reasons, this line didn't do as well as TLG would have hope, here are my reasons:

#1 Peter Jackson, him changing the hobbit over and over again, I'm sure effected the set designs.

#2 Main Character to Soldier Ratio: I would argue you need a good amount of both to have made these sets more successful , because LotR and the Hobbit have a lot of scenes with battles and the main characters, but what I was talking about earlier was that TLG used the main characters to many times, like for example Bard, in the lake town battle and in the Battle of Five armies, TLG has done it before where you have to buy every set to get the whole group, so why couldn't thy do it with these sets.

#3 Set Choses: Like I had said, why TLG chose the Counsel of Elrond and the pirate ship, over the Balrog and Minis Tirith, we will never know. That being said, it does not mean I did not like those sets, I'm just saying that if I had made 3 ways of sets planned out and I had to cut it down to 2 I would try to put out the scenes that were in the regular version of the movie, rather than the Extended editon scenes.

#4 Minifigures: Almost all the minifigures were well designed, but some of the placement, versions and choses were not the greatest, here are some examples:

Battle of five Armies: The set had, blue Bard, King Thoran, Legolas, Dain, 2 hunter orcs, an Eagle and roaring Azog, But what it should have been was: Armored Bolg, Armored Thranduil, 2 Armored Orc, Armored Fili and Kili, an Eagle, New Variant Legolas and Bilbo.

Mirkwood Elf army, TLG could have changed some of the regular elves into Armored Elves.

3 sets that could have included Sauron, Dol Guldur ambush, Dol Guldur Battle and Witch King battle.

Battle at the Black Gate could have included the Armored Witch King and a gondor soldier.

Lake town battle could have been the set with Smaug and they could have replaced the orcs with Lake Town Soldiers and the Lonely Mountain could have been the Entrance and the Throne, and include King Thoran, Balin, 2 Armored Orc, Dain ,an Iron Hill Dwarf, Armored Azog and an Armored Elf.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Dr.Cogg

[Bobbtom]

What I was saying earlier, was there are so many reasons, this line didn't do as well as TLG would have hope, here are my reasons:

#1 Peter Jackson, him changing the hobbit over and over again, I'm sure effected the set designs.

#2 Main Character to Soldier Ratio: I would argue you need a good amount of both to have made these sets more successful , because LotR and the Hobbit have a lot of scenes with battles and the main characters, but what I was talking about earlier was that TLG used the main characters to many times, like for example Bard, in the lake town battle and in the Battle of Five armies, TLG has done it before where you have to buy every set to get the whole group, so why couldn't thy do it with these sets.

#3 Set Choses: Like I had said, why TLG chose the Counsel of Elrond and the pirate ship, over the Balrog and Minis Tirith, we will never know. That being said, it does not mean I did not like those set, I'm just saying that if I had made 3 ways of sets planned out and I had to cut it down to 2 I would try to put out the scenes that were in the regular version of the movie, rather than the Extended editon scenes.

#4 Minifigures: Almost all the minifigures were well designed, but some of the placement, versions and choses were not the greatest, here are some examples:

Battle of five Armies: The set had, blue Bard, King Thoran, Legolas, Dain, 2 hunter orcs, an Eagle and roaring Azog, But what it should have been was: Armored Bolg, Armored Thranduil, 2 Armored Orc, Armored Fili and Kili, an Eagle, New Variant Legolas and Bilbo.

Mirkwood Elf army, TLG could have changed some of the regular elves into Armored Elves.

3 sets that could have included Sauron, Dol Guldur ambush, Dol Guldur Battle and Witch King battle.

Battle at the Black Gate could have included the Armored Witch King and a gondor soldier.

Lake town battle could have been the set with Smaug and they could have replaced the orcs with Lake Town Soldiers and the Lonely Mountain could have been the Entrance and the Throne, and include King Thoran, Balin, 2 Armored Orc, Dain ,an Iron Hill Dwarf, Armored Azog and an Armored Elf.

I completely agree with you on these points. The ratio of main characters and soldiers is not good for this theme.

[Ardelon]

@ Bobbtom

None of the AFOL-observed evidence actually points to the sales of the line being "terrible". For all we know, it sold as well as expected, and is ending as and when expected. (Though I do think the change from 2 to 3 movies messed up the plans to some extent.)

Now whether the sales were strong enough to support a Minas Tirith, probably not, but we cant know that based on inconclusive AFOL experiences. The pattern of previous Cuusoo/Ideas sets is probably a stronger clue, as discussed these past few pages.

@ Dr. Cogg

There was a Sauron in DGB. Probably not the one Sauron you wanted, but still Sauron. Otherwise, I agree with your reasons.

[Bobbtom]

@ Bobbtom

None of the AFOL-observed evidence actually points to the sales of the line being "terrible". For all we know, it sold as well as expected, and is ending as and when expected. (Though I do think the change from 2 to 3 movies messed up the plans to some extent.)

Now whether the sales were strong enough to support a Minas Tirith, probably not, but we cant know that based on inconclusive AFOL experiences. The pattern of previous Cuusoo/Ideas sets is probably a stronger clue, as discussed these past few pages.

@ Dr. Cogg

There was a Sauron in DGB. Probably not the one Sauron you wanted, but still Sauron. Otherwise, I agree with your reasons.

Are you sure you've read all the posts? Other such as myself noticed that sets like Goblin King battle have been sitting on shelves for age. In fact, I found that this past winter my local Toys R Us surprisingly still has mines of moria in stock along with a huge section of Goblin King battles.

When the hobbit lines were at target, sets like Riddles for the ring didn't move at all from shelves until they were at least 25% off.

[MAB]

When the hobbit lines were at target, sets like Riddles for the ring didn't move at all from shelves until they were at least 25% off.

That is true of many lego lines these days. I never buy a non-exclusive set unless I get at least 33% off.

It is true of Goblin King, it is true of Riddles, it is also true of army building sets from SW, and Uruk-Hai Army. The best deal I got on any LOTR/Hobbit set was on Uruk-Hai Army. I got it for £12 (RRP £30), 60% off. This was not just a small one-off deal - it was national and I bought 24 sets at that price. Stocks were in their hundreds at minimum. This LOTR battle pack had simply not sold (Mines and Weathertop sold well at 33% off). The best deal I ever got on SW sets was also on the Battle Packs - the Endor rebel and Imperial trooper one, £2 (rrp £12), again large stocks were available. It was also regularly found for £5 so again more than 50% off, as are most SW battle packs.

Thsi was the point being made earlier - with LOTR / Hobbit, it is not just specific character sets that did not seem to sell well, it was all sets, battle packs included. One of the best non-exclusive sets was Unexpected Gathering, and that was regularly 50% off. I believe the same is true for SW and castle - battle packs sell no better than regular sets. Most kids do not have 100s of the same battle pack. Adults do, and that is why they expect there to be battle packs for every theme.

#4 Minifigures: Almost all the minifigures were well designed, but some of the placement, versions and choses were not the greatest, here are some examples.

...

Battle at the Black Gate could have included the Armored Witch King and a gondor soldier.

You are complaining about placement, so why would you put the Witch King in the Battle of the Black Gate?

Edited February 10, 2015 by MAB

[bungeshea]

That is true of many lego lines these days. I never buy a non-exclusive set unless I get at least 33% off.

It is true of Goblin King, it is true of Riddles, it is also true of army building sets from SW, and Uruk-Hai Army. The best deal I got on any LOTR/Hobbit set was on Uruk-Hai Army. I got it for £12 (RRP £30), 60% off. This was not just a small one-off deal - it was national and I bought 24 sets at that price. Stocks were in their hundreds at minimum. This LOTR battle pack had simply not sold (Mines and Weathertop sold well at 33% off). The best deal I ever got on SW sets was also on the Battle Packs - the Endor rebel and Imperial trooper one, £2 (rrp £12), again large stocks were available. It was also regularly found for £5 so again more than 50% off, as are most SW battle packs

Wow, that's pretty fantastic. In Australia, LEGO is never on clearance. There are a few discounts as part of 20% off sales and such, but very rarely there is a flat discount for more than that.

[MAB]

Wow, that's pretty fantastic. In Australia, LEGO is never on clearance. There are a few discounts as part of 20% off sales and such, but very rarely there is a flat discount for more than that.

The Hobbit wave 2 was massively discounted on release here. One supermarket was selling Dol Guldur Battle at £25 two weeks after release (rrp £70). It was then regularly that price as other supermarkets price matched.

I don't know if it was linked to either poor overall supermarket sales, so they were discounting some premium products as loss leaders to get people through the door, or poor sales of previous LOTR / Hobbit LEGO sets, so they were essentially shifting them as soon as stocks came in. They haven't done the same with wave 3, so it may have just been due to aggressive marketing with loss leaders.

[SMC]

MAB you said Uruk-Hai Army didn't sell well but you brought 24 of them so maybe it was a good set to get multiples of?

Look the line didn't do all that well, was it Lego fault in part yes they could have done a better job with the sets but and its a big but Lego have made plenty of super heroes sets where the build is not great or the figures are repeats or you don't a an army to flight the main guy like in the film or they look expensive for what you get and they still sell.

[bachamn]

words. lots of words.

Wow, you even tried presuming how others would respond to your last post and wrote retorts in advance. You must be very fun at parties. Ultimately your opinion on the matter is as worthless to LEGO as mine or any others you read in here.

Honestly I think I've outlived my necessity for this forum, so my calling you out as obnoxious is probably the catalyst to make sure I don't bother coming here anymore. LotR was the only reason I came here and now that it's ended these threads are only full of people like you (and noticeable others) who insist on whining over the details ad nauseam. Members like Faefrost who actually seem to have a decent grasp on what's going on try to explain with what seems to me like very sound logic, but it typically falls on deaf ears. There is so much circular discussion going on in here that it's doomed to entropy; paying attention to these threads has been mostly a waste of time for a while now. If the Minas Tirith somehow makes it through Ideas I'm sure I'll hear about it.

Enjoy your toys everyone, and lighten up.

Edited February 10, 2015 by bachamn

[MAB]

MAB you said Uruk-Hai Army didn't sell well but you brought 24 of them so maybe it was a good set to get multiples of?

Look the line didn't do all that well, was it Lego fault in part yes they could have done a better job with the sets but and its a big but Lego have made plenty of super heroes sets where the build is not great or the figures are repeats or you don't a an army to flight the main guy like in the film or they look expensive for what you get and they still sell.

I assume they didn't sell well, since they were heavily discounted towards the end. I bought them originally as parts packs, intending to use them mainly for the LBG parts and horses knowing I could probably shift the minifigs to get back my original costs. Soon after EOL, it turned out that people did want them hence the large price increases. I sold 10 of them for I think £25 each to one guy, which almost cleared my costs. Another 8 got opened for the parts with some minifigs sold off, and I still have six sealed boxes that I'll do something with at some stage.

[SMC]

^ Its a odd set like that at £30 its not a good set on its own at half price its the best set ever and you need at least 10 of them.

[Hypernova888]

...

Yikes.

[MAB]

^ Its a odd set like that at £30 its not a good set on its own at half price its the best set ever and you need at least 10 of them.

People are strange. I think the 10 I sold were for investments and he missed the final sales on them. He wanted perfect boxes - so I assume for resale. That was when low price on bricklink would have been about £28, as he got a 10% discount on that.

[Dr.Cogg]

MAB, What I was saying about the Black Gate, was that TLG should have put the Armored Witch King in that set,( because that was the only set you could put him in, aside from a brand new set for the Witch King), instead of the Mouth of Sauron, because the Mouth is from the LotR EE and I can't speak for everyone, but I'm pretty sure most people would have liked the Armored Witch King over the Mouth of Sauron and Ardelon, I know that black thing in Dol Guldur Battle is suppost to be Sauron, but most people want the Armored one.

I know I do.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Dr.Cogg

[MAB]

So not done Black Gate at all, and done a different scene? Because if the Witch King turned up at Black Gate, there would be complaints.