New FAQs!

Terentius · **Joined:** Mon May 02, 2016 7:35 pm **Posts:** 29

The Middle-earth team has just released updated FAQs for the Rulebook and the five LotR Sourcebooks!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/12/22/faqs-from-middle-earth/

LordoftheBrownRing · **Posted:** Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:44 pm

Hurl still fails miserably. Sigh.

Commissariat · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:54 pm

I am only on the first 6 changes of the rules manual and already I am happy. There are a lot of good clarifications and rulings so far. At least Hurl got GBHL-ified!

Notably, for Iron Guard, I enjoy this precedent:
Q: Can Erestor use his Noldorin Throwing Daggers in a Fight? (pg 18)
A: Yes. This is a special exception where his daggers count as both
throwing weapons and hand weapons.

Seems like Iron Guard are Feint special strikers since they have throwing axes iirc. Still able to be fudged by painting each axe differently, but it'll be hard to sell to me.

lol
"Q: What exactly does an Easterling War Priest’s Fury affect? Does it
affect mounts? (pg 42)
A: It will affect everything in the Eastern Kingdoms army list,
whether this is Warriors, Heroes, mounts or even Ringwraiths."

Q: Can Sauron use Might for his The One Ring roll? (pg 17)
A: Yes.

Michaelc · **Joined:** Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:59 pm **Posts:** 58

Commissariat wrote:

lol
"Q: What exactly does an Easterling War Priest’s Fury affect? Does it
affect mounts? (pg 42)
A: It will affect everything in the Eastern Kingdoms army list,
whether this is Warriors, Heroes, mounts or even Ringwraiths."

^why GW can't be trusted to FAQ their own game.

chranos · **Joined:** Sun Jul 26, 2015 12:24 pm **Posts:** 257

It's been this way for ages mate.

When they get around to do the Lotr factions they will be looked at I'm completely sure but until then there is no difference.

Asamu · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:19 pm

From what I can see, these are the notable/important changes:

A model loses the benefits of an Elven Blade when using a shield.

The Taskmaster's might can't be used on the roll to make a heroic action action free.

Dragon, Shelob, and Spider Queen require a courage test for every wound suffered, rather than only one per turn, contrary to the "multiple courage tests" section of the rules.

Sauron must roll the one ring save for each wound suffered, instead of only once in combat.

The one ring no longer makes mounts invisible. Instead, the rider must take a thrown rider test as the mount panics.

Cavalry casualties are now counted as each "full" model (rider+mount; but can be from different models) removed, rather than just counting the number of models remaining on the table.

Commissariat · **Posted:** Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:11 am

Yeah, but do not forget the In the Way checks for large target clarification! No longer can two goblins on opposite ends of a dragon collectively cause two in-the-way rolls of BS-itude.

LordoftheBrownRing · **Posted:** Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:35 am

It's funny the way two people could see something so differently.

This FAQ provided the answers to some good things but also answered a lot of questions that simply require adult attitude and common sense.

Commissariat · **Posted:** Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:52 am

Or needed to be answered for the sake of consistency.

Event organizers and the like can now rest easy not having to be bothered with RAW, RAI, and the counter-arguments. I can gladly play in Norway knowing I would have a consistent In-the-Way check experience.

As someone who grew tired of having questions or complaints arise in my league, I welcome the overlords offering a final say for the first time in forever.

I like to celebrate and include the small victories.

chranos · **Joined:** Sun Jul 26, 2015 12:24 pm **Posts:** 257

You are more than welcome to Norway to play us any time

Dikey · **Joined:** Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:19 am **Posts:** 508

I'm still disappointed by the fact that spears can support monsters and cavalry. That is so wrong on so many levels...
I don't understand the rule about the multiple in the way test, because there is no need for a roll off: just pick the line of sight with less in the way (min.1)
I'm glad that stuff like Transfix blocking active abilities is now official.

chranos · **Joined:** Sun Jul 26, 2015 12:24 pm **Posts:** 257

Dikey wrote:

I'm still disappointed by the fact that spears can support monsters and cavalry. That is so wrong on so many levels...
I don't understand the rule about the multiple in the way test, because there is no need for a roll off: just pick the line of sight with less in the way (min.1)
I'm glad that stuff like Transfix blocking active abilities is now official.

You must have missed the 1 week long discussion about in the ways earlier this year. As it is not clear cut in the rulebook it needed to be adressed even though as you say it is better to just be nice.

For the purposes of spear support for monsters and cav this is nothing new and has been in the game since the hobbit started.
If you need a rational explanation for the rule watch the battle scene from GoT "battle of the (Oooh, naughty word)".

Wan Shi Tong · **Posted:** Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:55 am

The elven blade being negated by having a shield in interesting and a little disappointing, considering you have to buy one on the Mirkwood elves with shield. I wonder, though, if the wording opens up the possibility to have a shield and just choice not to use it like with two-handed weapons and what not? Now that would make gluing shields on the backs of High Elves more appealing to me. But if it's not the case then no reason to keep the cut down elven blade in the one hand when converting them to have shields either, just use a Glamdring looking sword instead.

Commissariat · **Posted:** Mon Dec 26, 2016 1:40 am

From a mechanics perspective, it makes sense that "going all out with your shield" negates any benefit of the weapon in your other hand. From an Elf perspective, I feel pity for the pointy-ears a bit, despite my love-to-hate feeling toward them. Elf Shielders with elven blades was pretty awesome to behold, but could get a little BS which might have been the death-sentence for the old version.

This still means you can't have your shield on your back as the rules state that you cannot use a weapon two-handed (elven or not) while wielding a shield. It makes sense, I guess, to allow ranged weapons to be paired with shields since you are not as pressured for time to switch from melee to ranged.

I do not use Elven blades that much anyways on elves, but that is because I like cheap elves.

(Yes I am posting on Christmas, but you cannot expect 100% of the day to be spent Christmas-ing. It is like 9pm right now.)

Lord of Edoras · **Posted:** Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:15 am

Wan Shi Tong wrote:

The elven blade being negated by having a shield in interesting and a little disappointing

I'm pretty sure this wasn't the intended meaning.

"a model will not benefit from having an Elven blade if they choose to use a shield"

The way I interpret the FAQ is that it's negated only when you declare you are shielding. You are not using the shield in a fight; the +1 defense is added automatically.

Commissariat · **Posted:** Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:59 am

I share the same understanding as Lord of Edoras, long may he rule justly. Shielding is a choice of action but you get +1 Defense regardless, as it has always been. You just cannot get the benefit of the Elven Blade when shielding since you are not actively using the Elven Blade as far as the mechanic is concerned.

Wan Shi Tong · **Posted:** Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:18 pm

I'm all for that interpretation and all but if that were the case why doesn't it read "when shielding" or "if they choose to shield"? When has shielding even been referred to as choosing to "use a shield" before?

Coenus Scaldingus · **Joined:** Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:14 am **Posts:** 1121

It has been clarified online that 'using a shield' indeed refers to shielding (having a shield confer +1D is a passive effect after all), though I don't know why they phrased it as such.

The spearsupport clause could well be re-inserted in a next edition of the rules, but may simply be left out because it hardly affects the game currently: yes, it's stupid when a goblin's spear reaches beyond a troll, but nobody is breaking the game by having an army of trolls with a spear support each (you'll just pick off the supports and break the army...). Another thought that just occurred to me was that future releases may include ever so slightly larger infantry on 32mm bases, which could realistically be supported in game by other infantry on the usual 25mm bases.

Not sure what to think of the in-the-way ruling. Always having only a single obstacle along the path would make hitting models behind a few ranks unrealistically easy, but having all models between shooter and target count also can result in stupid scenarios. I guess they now got a compromise that will eventually give a relatively fair result for both players, but it's not very elegant, and continuing roll-offs and finding a path with the largest number of obstacles doesn't make for great gameplay.

Happy with the other changes though.

Commissariat · **Posted:** Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:29 am

Coenus, do not forget that the in-the-way stuff applies to large targets only. 25mm base models do not have a lot of choices in "path of fire". So shooting models in a pikeblock is still the same.

Valadorn · **Posted:** Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:10 pm

Now that we speak about digital releases, do we have any idea when the new rulebook will be released in the digital version. I am a tablet guy so I am waiting too long for the new book and can't use these faqs too...

New FAQs!

Who is online