Warhammer 40K, Lord of the Rings, and other IPs in Magic.

[DirkGently]

I would, if I had the right deck.... Say one that doubled the effect of any activated ability of artifacts... But yeah, I really loathe Vivid lands to the extent that I would rather play a basic over it. But my point was that there are many better alternatives for off color mana than the vivid lands, some of which are common.

Well there's nothing wrong with basics. Even decks with an unlimited budget usually play at least a few basics. If you don't have a budget for good fixing, basics are always a decent fallback.

If you're playing 2c there are quite a few etbt duals (don't forget those jumpstart ones, there's 2 more), and also you don't usually need that much fixing for a budget 2c and can just roll with mostly basics anyway.

If you're playing 3c I'd probably just use a bunch of etbt duals over vivids. Having constant access to 2 colors is probably better than temporary access to 3.

In both cases, though, there are a lot of cheap decent uncommon and rare options. Sure, Sungrass Prairie is rare, but it's a rock solid land and it costs like 50 cents or whatever.

Once you get to 4c and 5c, if you're on a tight budget, I guess vivids are an ok option. At that point 2c lands aren't very reliable and most common/uncommon lands aren't as flexible as vivids, or they have bigger downsides. As long as you're willing to shell out a little more for some decent rares (and hey, command tower and path of ancestry are both dirt cheap these days) you can probably evolve past vivids easily, but for a really cheap deck...you could do worse.

Anyway, how about those 40K cards? I bet they do a space marine.

[Krishnath]

I would, if I had the right deck.... Say one that doubled the effect of any activated ability of artifacts... But yeah, I really loathe Vivid lands to the extent that I would rather play a basic over it. But my point was that there are many better alternatives for off color mana than the vivid lands, some of which are common.

Well there's nothing wrong with basics. Even decks with an unlimited budget usually play at least a few basics. If you don't have a budget for good fixing, basics are always a decent fallback.

If you're playing 2c there are quite a few etbt duals (don't forget those jumpstart ones, there's 2 more), and also you don't usually need that much fixing for a budget 2c and can just roll with mostly basics anyway.

If you're playing 3c I'd probably just use a bunch of etbt duals over vivids. Having constant access to 2 colors is probably better than temporary access to 3.

In both cases, though, there are a lot of cheap decent uncommon and rare options. Sure, Sungrass Prairie is rare, but it's a rock solid land and it costs like 50 cents or whatever.

Once you get to 4c and 5c, if you're on a tight budget, I guess vivids are an ok option. At that point 2c lands aren't very reliable and most common/uncommon lands aren't as flexible as vivids, or they have bigger downsides. As long as you're willing to shell out a little more for some decent rares (and hey, command tower and path of ancestry are both dirt cheap these days) you can probably evolve past vivids easily, but for a really cheap deck...you could do worse.

Anyway, how about those 40K cards? I bet they do a space marine.

Even in a tight budget 5C deck I wouldn't run vivid lands, because Gates are better and dirt cheap, as is Shimmering Grotto and Unknown Shores.

(As a side note, I have a friend that runs a four color Atraxa deck with no basics.... I've been threatening with putting Ruination in a deck for a while now to teach him why it's a bad idea.)

As for 40k, I would be honestly surprised if we didn't get Tyranids and/or Orks, both are famous far outside of the fandom.

[DirkGently]

Even in a tight budget 5C deck I wouldn't run vivid lands, because Gates are better and dirt cheap, as is Shimmering Grotto and Unknown Shores.

(As a side note, I have a friend that runs a four color Atraxa deck with no basics.... I've been threatening with putting Ruination in a deck for a while now to teach him why it's a bad idea.)

As for 40k, I would be honestly surprised if we didn't get Tyranids and/or Orks, both are famous far outside of the fandom.

I would generally play vivids over grotto and shores since they at least tap for a color by default, and don't set you back a mana when fixing. I can say for sure that, in limited play (which is different ofc, but has a lot more competitive research available) vivids are considered pretty strong whereas grotto and shores are usually not worth playing. Maybe in an unusual circumstance - where colorless mana was important, or at least more useful than normal, but you also wanted consistent access to any-color mana - I could see flipping my rule, but by default I'd almost always play vivids over those. And gates are just going to be way less reliable since, if you're desperate for a certain color, a gate only gives you a 40% chance in 5c. Playing all-gates in 5c is like playing all-basics in 2-3 color.

I don't think you'd prove anything to your friend except that sometimes magic screws you over and there's nothing you can do about it. Running a 50% basic manabase would be suicidal in 4c, and it would still get obliterated by ruination. It gets a little better if you play fetches and find basics when you can afford to, or suspect nonbasic hate is incoming, but ruination is still going to be a massive disaster almost always. You either counter it, or you just hope it doesn't get run against you.

If you want to "teach him a lesson" I'd either run Blood moon or From the Ashes. At least those CAN be ameliorated with a reasonable number of basics. Ruination is just...bleh.

[Krishnath]

Even in a tight budget 5C deck I wouldn't run vivid lands, because Gates are better and dirt cheap, as is Shimmering Grotto and Unknown Shores.

(As a side note, I have a friend that runs a four color Atraxa deck with no basics.... I've been threatening with putting Ruination in a deck for a while now to teach him why it's a bad idea.)

As for 40k, I would be honestly surprised if we didn't get Tyranids and/or Orks, both are famous far outside of the fandom.

I would generally play vivids over grotto and shores since they at least tap for a color by default, and don't set you back a mana when fixing. I can say for sure that, in limited play (which is different ofc, but has a lot more competitive research available) vivids are considered pretty strong whereas grotto and shores are usually not worth playing. Maybe in an unusual circumstance - where colorless mana was important, or at least more useful than normal, but you also wanted consistent access to any-color mana - I could see flipping my rule, but by default I'd almost always play vivids over those. And gates are just going to be way less reliable since, if you're desperate for a certain color, a gate only gives you a 40% chance in 5c. Playing all-gates in 5c is like playing all-basics in 2-3 color.

I don't think you'd prove anything to your friend except that sometimes magic screws you over and there's nothing you can do about it. Running a 50% basic manabase would be suicidal in 4c, and it would still get obliterated by ruination. It gets a little better if you play fetches and find basics when you can afford to, or suspect nonbasic hate is incoming, but ruination is still going to be a massive disaster almost always. You either counter it, or you just hope it doesn't get run against you.

If you want to "teach him a lesson" I'd either run Blood moon or From the Ashes. At least those CAN be ameliorated with a reasonable number of basics. Ruination is just...bleh.

The fact that grotto and shores come into play untapped and can produce off color more than twice makes them more playable than vivids in constructed formats in my opinion. But to each their own.

My Ur-Dragon deck actually runs all the Alara and Tarkir triple lands, as well as ten duals of various types (a mix of shocks, cycle lands, and the rootbound cragesque lands), five or so 5c lands, a cascading cataracts, and a large number of basics, for a total of 40 odd lands not counting various fetches. It is incredibly effective, even when I used gates for mana fixing. I rarely have trouble dropping a dragon as early as turn 3, and it quickly snowballs from there. So a solid 5c mana base that doesn't screw you over is not only possible, but can be very efficient. I also run a 5c Sisay deck, but while it lacks the triple lands, it does run a mix of gates and refuges in addition to rare duals of various types and a number of basics. But the MH Sisay has a much better mana curve than a dragon deck.

That said, we really should get back on topic. Lol.

[DirkGently]

My Ur-Dragon deck actually runs all the Alara and Tarkir triple lands, as well as ten duals of various types (a mix of shocks, cycle lands, and the rootbound cragesque lands), five or so 5c lands, a cascading cataracts, and a large number of basics, for a total of 40 odd lands not counting various fetches. It is incredibly effective, even when I used gates for mana fixing. I rarely have trouble dropping a dragon as early as turn 3, and it quickly snowballs from there. So a solid 5c mana base that doesn't screw you over is not only possible, but can be very efficient. I also run a 5c Sisay deck, but while it lacks the triple lands, it does run a mix of gates and refuges in addition to rare duals of various types and a number of basics. But the MH Sisay has a much better mana curve than a dragon deck.

I'm counting 10 triples + 10 duals + 5 5c = 25 lands, leaving 15 slots at most for basics. I think a spell that says "destroy 62.5% of your lands" is going to be pretty damn devastating. I wouldn't run more basics, I'd run more counterspells.

Also tbh that manabase sounds p slow and unreliable to me (also 40 is kind of a lot, and you don't have any utility lands in 5c?), but I start every multicolor deck with maximum fetches so my standards might be too high to compare to budget building.

[Krishnath]

My Ur-Dragon deck actually runs all the Alara and Tarkir triple lands, as well as ten duals of various types (a mix of shocks, cycle lands, and the rootbound cragesque lands), five or so 5c lands, a cascading cataracts, and a large number of basics, for a total of 40 odd lands not counting various fetches. It is incredibly effective, even when I used gates for mana fixing. I rarely have trouble dropping a dragon as early as turn 3, and it quickly snowballs from there. So a solid 5c mana base that doesn't screw you over is not only possible, but can be very efficient. I also run a 5c Sisay deck, but while it lacks the triple lands, it does run a mix of gates and refuges in addition to rare duals of various types and a number of basics. But the MH Sisay has a much better mana curve than a dragon deck.

I'm counting 10 triples + 10 duals + 5 5c = 25 lands, leaving 15 slots at most for basics. I think a spell that says "destroy 62.5% of your lands" is going to be pretty damn devastating. I wouldn't run more basics, I'd run more counterspells.

Also tbh that manabase sounds p slow and unreliable to me (also 40 is kind of a lot, and you don't have any utility lands in 5c?), but I start every multicolor deck with maximum fetches so my standards might be too high to compare to budget building.

I don't really count utilities nor fetches or mana artifacts as part of the mana base, but that is pretty accurate. Cascading Cataracts does have the advantage of being indestructible though, But once you count the utility, fetches, etc, I have around 50 lands total in the deck. It's pretty heavy on the mana.

My old retired sliver deck was more fun though, the mana base was like 80-90% basics and gates. I pretty much just did that to prove that I could and would still win. Of course, I won with Warp World with that one, even though I had the infinite sliver/mana combo in it. (Sliver Queen + Heartstone + Ashnod's Altar = Fun times.)

[Wallycaine]

So the mention of Slivers got me thinking about creature types which got me thinking about getting back on track, so here's a question: What sorta creature types do you expect to get introduced in LoTR and 40K cards? Which ones do you think they'll fold into existing creature types, even if they're kinda sorta their own thing? For example, if there's Necrons, I'm curious if people think they'll just fold them into zombie or skeletons, even if that's not *technically* what they are. But Tyranids seem likely to be their own thing, unless they just label them all Beast?

[Dunharrow]

So the mention of Slivers got me thinking about creature types which got me thinking about getting back on track, so here's a question: What sorta creature types do you expect to get introduced in LoTR and 40K cards? Which ones do you think they'll fold into existing creature types, even if they're kinda sorta their own thing? For example, if there's Necrons, I'm curious if people think they'll just fold them into zombie or skeletons, even if that's not *technically* what they are. But Tyranids seem likely to be their own thing, unless they just label them all Beast?

Maro did mention in blogatog that they would try to avoid adding too many new creature types.
I am really not familiar with Warhammer, but for LotR:
Orcs, Goblins, Trolls, Dragons, Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Spiders, Horses, all seem obvious. Classes should largely be fine since it is a fantasy setting.
The army of the dead = spirits
Eagles = birds
Gandalf = Wizard, obviously, but what race? I vote Angel since the Maiar were essential minor angels.

Sauron is really tough. Would you say Angel Wizard again, since he is the same species as Gandalf? Maybe Angel Warlock? Or do you make him a demon? I have one friend that said the Eye of Sauron should be creature type Eye, which I loved.

Hobbits - calling them Kithkin would be weird. But calling them hobbits would also be weird since Kithkin exist. I hope they call them Humans or that they make Hobbit an official creature type.

Balrog should probably be a demon, but again, they were originally Maiar. I would be okay with Balrogs being Demons and Sauron being a Demon Wizard, since fallen angel = demon is a very Christian concept, which I think aligns with Tolkien's views.

Beorn should be a shapeshifter or a Human Bear DFC

Tom Bombadil should be Avatar in my opinion. This is a hard one to classify since Tolkien left him ambiguous on purpose.

Ents and Huorns = treefolk for sure. Maybe classes can be used to distinguish them? Or are Huorns plants? Hmm.

Uruk-Hai should be Human Orcs but I know it won't be done that way, they will just be Orcs.

Wights and Ringwraiths should be Wraiths
Fell beasts should be beasts, I think.

Elrond and his children should probably be Angel Human Elf since they are a mixed bag. If Elrond is a full elf I will be annoyed.

Wargs are wolves.

Goldberry would be an elemental in my opinion.

The Silmarillion, if referenced, would also have werewolves, vampires, and more. Not sure if anything would be problematic.

I just remembered how badly I want Goblin King to be in the LotR product. That card is perfect for the character from The Hobbit.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

@Dunharrow

I'm pretty sure you can count on being disappointed by how faithful the LotR set creature typing is to the source material. My guess is they play pretty hard towards the lowest common denominator; many people know Elrond is an elf, not as many know what a maiar is.

So I imagine they're going to boil a lot down to avoid type text density a la Neheb, the Eternal. C'est la vie, I'd rather not get a bunch of multi-tribe abominations this soon after Ikoria anyway (I did not like Ikoria).

[Sinis]

I am really not familiar with Warhammer, but for LotR:

I think there are going to have to be some concessions here to fit the square peg of Tolkien into Magic's pentagram hole. You write the Balrog was a demon, but originally Maiar, and that's totally fair. In some passages, Balrogs are referred to as demons (Book of Lost Tales calls them that). But, also, how do we type Orcs? They were originally Elves.

The Uruk-hai are not the same species. Saruman's Uruk-hai are a cross between orcs and goblin men (and it is very unclear what 'goblin men' are), but Sauron has his own Uruk-hai, and their origins are very unclear (are they just the best of an Orc Breeding program? Who knows!). Similarly, 'Goblins' in Tolkien's universe are really just Orcs, but since Tolkien was a linguist, different regions refer to the same creature with different names.

I do wonder about the Kithkin/Hobbit divide. It'd be weird if they were Kithkin, even though Kithkin (Lorwyn Kithkin, anyway) are clearly modeled on Hobbits.

As for Gandalf (and Saruman, or any of the five wizards), I think they should just be untyped Wizards. Like "Legendary Creature -- Wizard" and that's it.

[onering]

So the mention of Slivers got me thinking about creature types which got me thinking about getting back on track, so here's a question: What sorta creature types do you expect to get introduced in LoTR and 40K cards? Which ones do you think they'll fold into existing creature types, even if they're kinda sorta their own thing? For example, if there's Necrons, I'm curious if people think they'll just fold them into zombie or skeletons, even if that's not *technically* what they are. But Tyranids seem likely to be their own thing, unless they just label them all Beast?

Maro did mention in blogatog that they would try to avoid adding too many new creature types.
I am really not familiar with Warhammer, but for LotR:
Orcs, Goblins, Trolls, Dragons, Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Spiders, Horses, all seem obvious. Classes should largely be fine since it is a fantasy setting.
The army of the dead = spirits
Eagles = birds
Gandalf = Wizard, obviously, but what race? I vote Angel since the Maiar were essential minor angels.

Sauron is really tough. Would you say Angel Wizard again, since he is the same species as Gandalf? Maybe Angel Warlock? Or do you make him a demon? I have one friend that said the Eye of Sauron should be creature type Eye, which I loved.

Hobbits - calling them Kithkin would be weird. But calling them hobbits would also be weird since Kithkin exist. I hope they call them Humans or that they make Hobbit an official creature type.

Balrog should probably be a demon, but again, they were originally Maiar. I would be okay with Balrogs being Demons and Sauron being a Demon Wizard, since fallen angel = demon is a very Christian concept, which I think aligns with Tolkien's views.

Beorn should be a shapeshifter or a Human Bear DFC

Tom Bombadil should be Avatar in my opinion. This is a hard one to classify since Tolkien left him ambiguous on purpose.

Ents and Huorns = treefolk for sure. Maybe classes can be used to distinguish them? Or are Huorns plants? Hmm.

Uruk-Hai should be Human Orcs but I know it won't be done that way, they will just be Orcs.

Wights and Ringwraiths should be Wraiths
Fell beasts should be beasts, I think.

Elrond and his children should probably be Angel Human Elf since they are a mixed bag. If Elrond is a full elf I will be annoyed.

Wargs are wolves.

Goldberry would be an elemental in my opinion.

The Silmarillion, if referenced, would also have werewolves, vampires, and more. Not sure if anything would be problematic.

I just remembered how badly I want Goblin King to be in the LotR product. That card is perfect for the character from The Hobbit.

I'd say that Maiar are less angels and more something that English doesn't really have a word for. Supernatural beings that can be godlike in power and yet are not gods, with "angel" being the good form and "demon" being the evil form. From a strict reading of the war in Heaven and the Fall, Christian demons are fallen angels. So Sauron and Gandalf would both be angels, but Sauron, as a fallen one, would get the creature type demon, with demon being a fallen angel. Since Tolkien writes from a Catholic world view, I think it makes sense to type them based on that. MtG's angels and demons are quite different, being manifestations of white and black mana respectively and not related to each other. Because of this, and to nod to the fact that term Maiar is neutral to good and evil and is what is used to describe these beings in the text, I think that Maiar should be introduced as a creature type, and used for all of them.

[Dunharrow]

So the mention of Slivers got me thinking about creature types which got me thinking about getting back on track, so here's a question: What sorta creature types do you expect to get introduced in LoTR and 40K cards? Which ones do you think they'll fold into existing creature types, even if they're kinda sorta their own thing? For example, if there's Necrons, I'm curious if people think they'll just fold them into zombie or skeletons, even if that's not *technically* what they are. But Tyranids seem likely to be their own thing, unless they just label them all Beast?

Maro did mention in blogatog that they would try to avoid adding too many new creature types.
I am really not familiar with Warhammer, but for LotR:
Orcs, Goblins, Trolls, Dragons, Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Spiders, Horses, all seem obvious. Classes should largely be fine since it is a fantasy setting.
The army of the dead = spirits
Eagles = birds
Gandalf = Wizard, obviously, but what race? I vote Angel since the Maiar were essential minor angels.

Sauron is really tough. Would you say Angel Wizard again, since he is the same species as Gandalf? Maybe Angel Warlock? Or do you make him a demon? I have one friend that said the Eye of Sauron should be creature type Eye, which I loved.

Hobbits - calling them Kithkin would be weird. But calling them hobbits would also be weird since Kithkin exist. I hope they call them Humans or that they make Hobbit an official creature type.

Balrog should probably be a demon, but again, they were originally Maiar. I would be okay with Balrogs being Demons and Sauron being a Demon Wizard, since fallen angel = demon is a very Christian concept, which I think aligns with Tolkien's views.

Beorn should be a shapeshifter or a Human Bear DFC

Tom Bombadil should be Avatar in my opinion. This is a hard one to classify since Tolkien left him ambiguous on purpose.

Ents and Huorns = treefolk for sure. Maybe classes can be used to distinguish them? Or are Huorns plants? Hmm.

Uruk-Hai should be Human Orcs but I know it won't be done that way, they will just be Orcs.

Wights and Ringwraiths should be Wraiths
Fell beasts should be beasts, I think.

Elrond and his children should probably be Angel Human Elf since they are a mixed bag. If Elrond is a full elf I will be annoyed.

Wargs are wolves.

Goldberry would be an elemental in my opinion.

The Silmarillion, if referenced, would also have werewolves, vampires, and more. Not sure if anything would be problematic.

I just remembered how badly I want Goblin King to be in the LotR product. That card is perfect for the character from The Hobbit.

I'd say that Maiar are less angels and more something that English doesn't really have a word for. Supernatural beings that can be godlike in power and yet are not gods, with "angel" being the good form and "demon" being the evil form. From a strict reading of the war in Heaven and the Fall, Christian demons are fallen angels. So Sauron and Gandalf would both be angels, but Sauron, as a fallen one, would get the creature type demon, with demon being a fallen angel. Since Tolkien writes from a Catholic world view, I think it makes sense to type them based on that. MtG's angels and demons are quite different, being manifestations of white and black mana respectively and not related to each other. Because of this, and to nod to the fact that term Maiar is neutral to good and evil and is what is used to describe these beings in the text, I think that Maiar should be introduced as a creature type, and used for all of them.

That would be a cool idea. I just don't know that they have the kind of recognition that warrants getting a new creature type for Sauron, Balrog, Gandalf, Saruman and Radagast. And if ever they covered the Valar, what would you do - have a different type for them too?
Hobbits are at least super well-known.

[Dunharrow]

I am really not familiar with Warhammer, but for LotR:

I think there are going to have to be some concessions here to fit the square peg of Tolkien into Magic's pentagram hole. You write the Balrog was a demon, but originally Maiar, and that's totally fair. In some passages, Balrogs are referred to as demons (Book of Lost Tales calls them that). But, also, how do we type Orcs? They were originally Elves.

The Uruk-hai are not the same species. Saruman's Uruk-hai are a cross between orcs and goblin men (and it is very unclear what 'goblin men' are), but Sauron has his own Uruk-hai, and their origins are very unclear (are they just the best of an Orc Breeding program? Who knows!). Similarly, 'Goblins' in Tolkien's universe are really just Orcs, but since Tolkien was a linguist, different regions refer to the same creature with different names.

I do wonder about the Kithkin/Hobbit divide. It'd be weird if they were Kithkin, even though Kithkin (Lorwyn Kithkin, anyway) are clearly modeled on Hobbits.

As for Gandalf (and Saruman, or any of the five wizards), I think they should just be untyped Wizards. Like "Legendary Creature -- Wizard" and that's it.

I like what you wrote for the most part, but the 'Goblin Men' part is actually movie-only. In the book, Uruks are clearly a cross between goblins (orcs) and men from Dunland.
What's probably going to happen, imo, since LotR sparked interest in Orcs for fantasy settings, is that they will make the Uruks Orcs and the rest of them will just be goblins. It's weird, as a fan of the literature, but probably the division that resonates the most with the general population who sees the small things as goblins and the big things as orcs.



Ok - new question for y'all. - Grond, the siege weapon - is that a vehicle?

[Wallycaine]

Elrond and his children should probably be Angel Human Elf since they are a mixed bag. If Elrond is a full elf I will be annoyed.

Unfortunately, you should probably be prepared to be annoyed. We've got significant precedent in the various forms of Radha, Heart of Keld that Half elves tend to only get "Elf" listed as a race, and I doubt they'd go any different for Elrond. Especially with his "Angel" background being a bit more... obscure, I doubt either makes it onto his card. I'd think most people are expecting Elrond to be an Elf... wizard, or advisor, or something along those lines.

[Krishnath]

Elrond and his children should probably be Angel Human Elf since they are a mixed bag. If Elrond is a full elf I will be annoyed.

There is already precedent in MTG. Radha is a half-elf. Her mother was a Skyshroud Elf, and her Father a Keldon Warlord of the Carthalion line. WotC has stated that in the case of hybrids and things like undeath, the new creature type "erases" the human part. So, Elrond would likely be an Elf Noble Warrior. I know that technically one of his ancestors was a Maiar, but she chose to become an elf giving up her divinity.

[Dunharrow]

Elrond and his children should probably be Angel Human Elf since they are a mixed bag. If Elrond is a full elf I will be annoyed.

There is already precedent in MTG. Radha is a half-elf. Her mother was a Skyshroud Elf, and her Father a Keldon Warlord of the Carthalion line. WotC has stated that in the case of hybrids and things like undeath, the new creature type "erases" the human part. So, Elrond would likely be an Elf Noble Warrior. I know that technically one of his ancestors was a Maiar, but she chose to become an elf giving up her divinity.

I do not think Melian gave up her status as a Maia. She lived with Thingol, had extremely powerful offspring, and then when he died she went back to Valinor.
It's not like Luthien (said offspring) who gave up immortality in order to spend her life (and afterlife) with Beren. Elves and Maiar have the same destiny to spend eternity in Valinor.
In fact, I have to think at some point she was reunited with Thingol. Hmmm.

I am 99% sure they will make Elrond an Elf Noble or Elf Advisor or something. It just sucks. Thanks for the lore on Radha.

[Krishnath]

Elves and Maiar have the same destiny to spend eternity in Valinor.
In fact, I have to think at some point she was reunited with Thingol. Hmmm.

She wasn't reunited with Thingol, he wanted to remarry, and since the laws of the Valar said that an elf could not have more than one wife at a time, she had to remain among the dead. Then eventually he died, they were reunited briefly in the elven afterlife, then she chose to be reborn, eternally trapping him in the afterlife (which he was happy with, he just wanted both of his wives to be happy. Thingol was a good man.) But even before she died, she had to give up her divinity to be allowed to marry Thingol in the first place. Her soul was changed from that of a Maiar to that of an Elf. Elrond and his brother were forced to make the same choice, choosing between Elf and Human, with Elrond choosing Elf and his brother choosing human (and eventually becoming an ancestor to Aragorn.)
This choice between being one or the other had a lot to do with how afterlives work in LotR. Depending on what sapient species you are, your soul goes to different places. Elves for example go to one afterlife, which they can then chose to leave whenever they feel like it, thus being reborn in Valinor. Humans on the other hand go to another place, can't be reborn, and eventually pass on to somewhere else that not even the Valar knows the location of. Dwarves go to a third place that was set up by their creator, hobbits a fourth, and so on. This is also why Arwen eventually had to give up her immortality to be with Aragorn. She could literally no longer be an elf if she wanted to be with him.
Maiar and Elves do not have the same souls at all. Elves are children of Middle Earth, just like humans, dwarves, and hobbits. They were simply the first born, and the Valar took the ones that wanted to and brought them to Valinor (the High Elves), while those who chose to remain in Middle Earth became the Green Elves. And the latter would have been rendered extinct if Faenor hadn't gone on his crusade against Melkor.

[Sinis]

I like what you wrote for the most part, but the 'Goblin Men' part is actually movie-only. In the book, Uruks are clearly a cross between goblins (orcs) and men from Dunland.

I do not have my books on hand, but, 'Goblin men' (as part of the parentage of Saruman's Uruk-hai) are referred to by Gamling in the Helm's Deep chapter of the Two Towers.

What's probably going to happen, imo, since LotR sparked interest in Orcs for fantasy settings, is that they will make the Uruks Orcs and the rest of them will just be goblins. It's weird, as a fan of the literature, but probably the division that resonates the most with the general population who sees the small things as goblins and the big things as orcs.

I don't disagree with this. There is something of a small-medium-large relationship between goblins, orcs, and trolls.

Ok - new question for y'all. - Grond, the siege weapon - is that a vehicle?

Heck yeah!

[Dunharrow]

Elrond and his brother were forced to make the same choice, choosing between Elf and Human, with Elrond choosing Elf and his brother choosing human (and eventually becoming an ancestor to Aragorn.)
This choice between being one or the other had a lot to do with how afterlives work in LotR. Depending on what sapient species you are, your soul goes to different places. Elves for example go to one afterlife, which they can then chose to leave whenever they feel like it, thus being reborn in Valinor. Humans on the other hand go to another place, can't be reborn, and eventually pass on to somewhere else that not even the Valar knows the location of. Dwarves go to a third place that was set up by their creator, hobbits a fourth, and so on. This is also why Arwen eventually had to give up her immortality to be with Aragorn. She could literally no longer be an elf if she wanted to be with him.
Maiar and Elves do not have the same souls at all. Elves are children of Middle Earth, just like humans, dwarves, and hobbits. They were simply the first born, and the Valar took the ones that wanted to and brought them to Valinor (the High Elves), while those who chose to remain in Middle Earth became the Green Elves. And the latter would have been rendered extinct if Faenor hadn't gone on his crusade against Melkor.

Elves are bound to Arda (including Valinor, even after it was physically separated), as are the Maiar. Elves die and are reborn in Valinor. I just meant that for the rest of eternity, both Melian and Thingol would be in Arda.
This is different from men (and hobbits) whose souls will leave the confines of Arda and join with Illuvatar. This was done to align with Tolkien's Christian view of the Afterlife.
There is a reason the names Beren and Luthien are on JRR and Edith Tolkien's tombstones. He didn't think he would be with her in the afterlife unless she converted to catholicism. This is where the notion of Luthien choosing a mortal life (and afterlife) was really important to Tolkien.

She wasn't reunited with Thingol, he wanted to remarry, and since the laws of the Valar said that an elf could not have more than one wife at a time, she had to remain among the dead. Then eventually he died, they were reunited briefly in the elven afterlife, then she chose to be reborn, eternally trapping him in the afterlife (which he was happy with, he just wanted both of his wives to be happy. Thingol was a good man.) But even before she died, she had to give up her divinity to be allowed to marry Thingol in the first place. Her soul was changed from that of a Maiar to that of an Elf.

I have never read any of these things and do not even find them when I look up Thingol and Melian. Where are you getting this from?
I don't recall Thingol remarrying or Melian giving up her status as a Maia. I don't see why that would be needed. In the case of Earendil, Elwing and their children (and grandchildren), they had a choice because of their mixed heritage, and because the fate of mortal and immortal souls was quite different.
Why would Melian need to 'become an elf'. There is no story of any of the Ainur becoming one of the Children of Illuvatar.
I also do not recall hearing a single thing about Thingol after his death.
Where are you getting all of this from?

[onering]

Elves and Maiar have the same destiny to spend eternity in Valinor.
In fact, I have to think at some point she was reunited with Thingol. Hmmm.

She wasn't reunited with Thingol, he wanted to remarry, and since the laws of the Valar said that an elf could not have more than one wife at a time, she had to remain among the dead. Then eventually he died, they were reunited briefly in the elven afterlife, then she chose to be reborn, eternally trapping him in the afterlife (which he was happy with, he just wanted both of his wives to be happy. Thingol was a good man.) But even before she died, she had to give up her divinity to be allowed to marry Thingol in the first place. Her soul was changed from that of a Maiar to that of an Elf. Elrond and his brother were forced to make the same choice, choosing between Elf and Human, with Elrond choosing Elf and his brother choosing human (and eventually becoming an ancestor to Aragorn.)
This choice between being one or the other had a lot to do with how afterlives work in LotR. Depending on what sapient species you are, your soul goes to different places. Elves for example go to one afterlife, which they can then chose to leave whenever they feel like it, thus being reborn in Valinor. Humans on the other hand go to another place, can't be reborn, and eventually pass on to somewhere else that not even the Valar knows the location of. Dwarves go to a third place that was set up by their creator, hobbits a fourth, and so on. This is also why Arwen eventually had to give up her immortality to be with Aragorn. She could literally no longer be an elf if she wanted to be with him.
Maiar and Elves do not have the same souls at all. Elves are children of Middle Earth, just like humans, dwarves, and hobbits. They were simply the first born, and the Valar took the ones that wanted to and brought them to Valinor (the High Elves), while those who chose to remain in Middle Earth became the Green Elves. And the latter would have been rendered extinct if Faenor hadn't gone on his crusade against Melkor.

Your confusing Thingol and Finwe. Finwe is the one who remarried, trapping his first wife in Mandos' halls until he got killed by Melkor. Then she was reborn and he stayed in the halls until the end of the world with Feanor. Thingol got killed by dwarves for saying something stupid and racist, and then Melian told Mablung she was leaving and went back to Valinor. She's still a Maia, and likely will reunite with Thingol whenever he gets out of Mandos.

[onering]

Maro did mention in blogatog that they would try to avoid adding too many new creature types.
I am really not familiar with Warhammer, but for LotR:
Orcs, Goblins, Trolls, Dragons, Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Spiders, Horses, all seem obvious. Classes should largely be fine since it is a fantasy setting.
The army of the dead = spirits
Eagles = birds
Gandalf = Wizard, obviously, but what race? I vote Angel since the Maiar were essential minor angels.

Sauron is really tough. Would you say Angel Wizard again, since he is the same species as Gandalf? Maybe Angel Warlock? Or do you make him a demon? I have one friend that said the Eye of Sauron should be creature type Eye, which I loved.

Hobbits - calling them Kithkin would be weird. But calling them hobbits would also be weird since Kithkin exist. I hope they call them Humans or that they make Hobbit an official creature type.

Balrog should probably be a demon, but again, they were originally Maiar. I would be okay with Balrogs being Demons and Sauron being a Demon Wizard, since fallen angel = demon is a very Christian concept, which I think aligns with Tolkien's views.

Beorn should be a shapeshifter or a Human Bear DFC

Tom Bombadil should be Avatar in my opinion. This is a hard one to classify since Tolkien left him ambiguous on purpose.

Ents and Huorns = treefolk for sure. Maybe classes can be used to distinguish them? Or are Huorns plants? Hmm.

Uruk-Hai should be Human Orcs but I know it won't be done that way, they will just be Orcs.

Wights and Ringwraiths should be Wraiths
Fell beasts should be beasts, I think.

Elrond and his children should probably be Angel Human Elf since they are a mixed bag. If Elrond is a full elf I will be annoyed.

Wargs are wolves.

Goldberry would be an elemental in my opinion.

The Silmarillion, if referenced, would also have werewolves, vampires, and more. Not sure if anything would be problematic.

I just remembered how badly I want Goblin King to be in the LotR product. That card is perfect for the character from The Hobbit.

I'd say that Maiar are less angels and more something that English doesn't really have a word for. Supernatural beings that can be godlike in power and yet are not gods, with "angel" being the good form and "demon" being the evil form. From a strict reading of the war in Heaven and the Fall, Christian demons are fallen angels. So Sauron and Gandalf would both be angels, but Sauron, as a fallen one, would get the creature type demon, with demon being a fallen angel. Since Tolkien writes from a Catholic world view, I think it makes sense to type them based on that. MtG's angels and demons are quite different, being manifestations of white and black mana respectively and not related to each other. Because of this, and to nod to the fact that term Maiar is neutral to good and evil and is what is used to describe these beings in the text, I think that Maiar should be introduced as a creature type, and used for all of them.

That would be a cool idea. I just don't know that they have the kind of recognition that warrants getting a new creature type for Sauron, Balrog, Gandalf, Saruman and Radagast. And if ever they covered the Valar, what would you do - have a different type for them too?
Hobbits are at least super well-known.

Yeah. I mean, we're already at the point where we're bringing in outside IPs, so if your going to do it do it right. You've already diluted the brand, creating a creature type to represent a rare but iconic set of creatures is a much smaller thing. Gods already broke that mold. If they even did the Silmarillion, they'd have even more Maiar to draw from. In LotR you have Sauron, Durin's Bane, Gandalf, Saruman, and Radagast. Possibly the two blue wizards if they have the copyright and chose to include them. Expand to the Silmarillion and you get Melian, maybe Luthien as half Maia, Thuringwithel (sp) the vampire, many more Balrogs named and unamed, Ungoliant, Manwe's herald whose name escapes me at the moment, etc. The Valar are important enough to deserve their own type.


Also, I really hope we only see orcs, not goblins, or few goblins. The Hobbit used goblin but the goblins were all orcs. They all were the same species, goblin was just a term used to denote orcs that were particularly small, like Uruk Hai was used to denote orcs that were very large or leaders, while the average orc was just an orc. But they were all orcs, and all came from the same source (most likely being descended from Avari elves captured and tortured by Melkor, but there's no definitive source). I could see labeling the orcs encountered by Thorin's Company as goblins, or preferably as goblin orcs, but that's it. The "goblins" were pretty limited to Misty Mountains orcs who were smaller because they only lived in deep caves, most orcs weren't called goblins. Besides that, in real world terms goblins was only really used in the Hobbit, which was written for children and used the more accessible and recognizable term goblin instead of orc, which was Tolkien's preferred term but at the time its only use was obscure as hell, an Old English term for demon borrowed from Latin's Orcus. For the half orcs from the movies, depends on whether this set is book or movie based. Book based, they get left out, movie based their human orcs.

[Krishnath]

Elrond and his brother were forced to make the same choice, choosing between Elf and Human, with Elrond choosing Elf and his brother choosing human (and eventually becoming an ancestor to Aragorn.)
This choice between being one or the other had a lot to do with how afterlives work in LotR. Depending on what sapient species you are, your soul goes to different places. Elves for example go to one afterlife, which they can then chose to leave whenever they feel like it, thus being reborn in Valinor. Humans on the other hand go to another place, can't be reborn, and eventually pass on to somewhere else that not even the Valar knows the location of. Dwarves go to a third place that was set up by their creator, hobbits a fourth, and so on. This is also why Arwen eventually had to give up her immortality to be with Aragorn. She could literally no longer be an elf if she wanted to be with him.
Maiar and Elves do not have the same souls at all. Elves are children of Middle Earth, just like humans, dwarves, and hobbits. They were simply the first born, and the Valar took the ones that wanted to and brought them to Valinor (the High Elves), while those who chose to remain in Middle Earth became the Green Elves. And the latter would have been rendered extinct if Faenor hadn't gone on his crusade against Melkor.

Elves are bound to Arda (including Valinor, even after it was physically separated), as are the Maiar. Elves die and are reborn in Valinor. I just meant that for the rest of eternity, both Melian and Thingol would be in Arda.
This is different from men (and hobbits) whose souls will leave the confines of Arda and join with Illuvatar. This was done to align with Tolkien's Christian view of the Afterlife.
There is a reason the names Beren and Luthien are on JRR and Edith Tolkien's tombstones. He didn't think he would be with her in the afterlife unless she converted to catholicism. This is where the notion of Luthien choosing a mortal life (and afterlife) was really important to Tolkien.

She wasn't reunited with Thingol, he wanted to remarry, and since the laws of the Valar said that an elf could not have more than one wife at a time, she had to remain among the dead. Then eventually he died, they were reunited briefly in the elven afterlife, then she chose to be reborn, eternally trapping him in the afterlife (which he was happy with, he just wanted both of his wives to be happy. Thingol was a good man.) But even before she died, she had to give up her divinity to be allowed to marry Thingol in the first place. Her soul was changed from that of a Maiar to that of an Elf.

I have never read any of these things and do not even find them when I look up Thingol and Melian. Where are you getting this from?
I don't recall Thingol remarrying or Melian giving up her status as a Maia. I don't see why that would be needed. In the case of Earendil, Elwing and their children (and grandchildren), they had a choice because of their mixed heritage, and because the fate of mortal and immortal souls was quite different.
Why would Melian need to 'become an elf'. There is no story of any of the Ainur becoming one of the Children of Illuvatar.
I also do not recall hearing a single thing about Thingol after his death.
Where are you getting all of this from?

Apologies, I mixed him up with Finwe. It has been a while since I read Silmarilion last.

On that topic, I also mixed up the Green elves and the Grey Elves.

[materpillar]

... well this thread has confirmed for me that people are going to be legitimately excited for LOTR crossovers.

It also makes me slightly more excited for the 40K ones myself. I'm a pretty big fan of the 40k universe.

This also makes me less down on TWD secret layer. I have to assume some people who bought that were just as excited for it as people in this thread are for LOTR.

[Krishnath]

This also makes me less down on TWD secret layer. I have to assume some people who bought that were just as excited for it as people in this thread are for LOTR.

I think most peoples issue was not the subject matter, but that it was a Secret Lair and thus not widely available.

But I must admit, that Maro answering a lot of questions about UB on his tumblr has allayed the few lingering fears I had. If you haven't bookmarked it yet, and check it daily, you really should.

[Wallycaine]

This also makes me less down on TWD secret layer. I have to assume some people who bought that were just as excited for it as people in this thread are for LOTR.

I think most peoples issue was not the subject matter, but that it was a Secret Lair and thus not widely available.

But I must admit, that Maro answering a lot of questions about UB on his tumblr has allayed the few lingering fears I had. If you haven't bookmarked it yet, and check it daily, you really should.

Eh, there were still plenty of people mad about "real world" characters appearing in magic. While I think the distribution was (rightfully) the larger issue, there were definitely people upset at the subject matter.