Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:23 pm
by Smeagol
I don't. :P

However a healthy debate under a seperate rules thread will help the T.O.'s sort things out.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:41 pm
by Gartl
You need to address the point cost error for the crew of a black numenorean catapult. As Tim pointed out (yes the expert on finding broken rules) you can buy a black numenorean catapult and purchase as many crew as you like and then have them leave the catapult. They are identical to regular black numenoreans and are one point cheaper. A little loophole in the rule because GW forgot to mention that the crew don't have shields ;-)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:06 pm
by Smeagol
That loophole exists because GW decided not to sculpt crew for the catapult. It would have been easily fixed by changing the cost of the extra crewman.

It is true I have proposed using the following force:
1 Black Numenorean Marshal with shield
27 Orcs with spear
1 Black Numenorean Catapult with
1 Black Numenorean Engineer Captain
26 extra Black Numenorean Crew

Points = 600
Models = 57
Might = 4

Of course to date I haven't, but the models are all painted and based.

Though the following non-loophole force is just as viable and the only real difference is one less hero:
1 Black Numenorean Catapult with
1 Engineer Captain

29 Orcs with spears
29 Black numenoreans with shield

Points = 600
Models = 61
Might = 2

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:30 pm
by febber
Here are my comments on a number of issues:

1. First, we do not address the issue of the large number of GW produced FAQ that predate the ORB, but which remain relevant to the ORB rules. (The ORB actually had only a very few differences in basic game rules from the ROTK edition). A large number of these have been very formative of how the game is played and you are playing according to these interpretations without even realizing it. These are unfortunately no longer posted by GW but I have circulated them to the TOs that asked for them. One of these days I am going to do a review and see if there is anything in them that has been superseded; however, when the FAQs were combined they were edited precisely for this purpose by UK rules gurus. As far as I am concerned, they are binding today just as they were back when they were available.

2. The UK GT house rules document. A lot of really good clarifications and helpful applications; the only problem is that a few of them are dead wrong. I assume that isn’t going to be used officially in any respect? I may still bring it as support for rules arguments.

3. There are several issues for Legions that are not addressed but should be as they come up a lot. Of course some of these army list or scenario rules can be modified by a particular TO for his event, but I think it would be useful to get an interpretation on the “default” Legions rules.

a. The first is how a player selects their “champion” or “king” for the Contest of Champion scenarios. Both scenarios describe the champion or king as the “leader.” Although the scenarios are not explicit, it seems quite clear that they mean the “overall leader,” who is the leader of one of the contingents in the army that is required to be designated as such by the Legions allies rules (LOME at pg 8 ). Adepticon requires that a player designate his overall leader on the army list when it is turned in for a special reroll rule – this also prevents people from selecting their leader at the time of a game for tactical purposes. I strongly recommend that become SOP.

b. Can a siege artillery captain be a champion? Actually this isn’t a gray one as for as LOME is concerned but a lot of people still do select them. The UK GT allowed them by house rules, but there is no interpretation of LOME as written that would permit this. Artillery captains are wargear of “equipment” in the warrior list. A leader must be the first model selected from a list and must be a hero in that army’s hero list. An artillery captain can be neither.

c. Do we want to FAQ (actually house rule) certain selection criteria? It is commonly accepted that Tom Bombadill, Goldberry and Gollum cannot be included because of their special rules and because they are not included in any Legions army lists (but Gollum’s special rule would allow him to be used free by any evil player if the opponent had a free peoples ringbearer). What about correcting a couple of exploits such as multiple SQs and the outrider/Gamling banner issue? These would technically be adverse to the official FAQ but tourneys aren’t strictly bound by GW list-building rules.

d. Domination has a commonly misapplied rule – one that I, and the staff that wrote the UK GT House Rules, initially got wrong. In Domination, players should not begin rolling to end the game until the end of the turn after the turn during which one side is first reduced to 50% or less of its models. This is because a force is only determined to be broken at the beginning of a game turn. Adam Troke himself confirmed that to me at the 2008 UK GT.

e. Although it is common knowledge, there is actually no rule that says what happens in a Legions attrition scenarios (Meeting Engagement, Ill Met By Moonlight, Clash of Picquets, To the Death) or Storm the Camp if time ends before the victory conditions are met. Of course our default interpretation is that the game is a draw. Wouldn’t hurt to clarify that as a default condition, subject to the particular event establishing other rules.

f. Also, I do not agree that the Legions army list for Lothlorien should be usable. I understand the convenience of it, but the rule has always been that army lists in Legions are obsolete when they have been superseded by subsequent supplements – for example, the Mordor supplement revised some of the Mordor army lists in Legions. I don’t see why we are doing otherwise with the official WD stuff since for the foreseeable future those will be our only SBG publications. Most of the new stuff is additions anyway – the only change from the existing list is the addition of the elven blade into the base Galadhrim Warrior points cost, and the additional wargear options for them.

4. The Council of Elrond profiles. I am editing them on the sticky to give the proper name to the Aragorn and Elrond variants in case you want to do the same. There are also profiles for Gimli, Gandalf the Grey and Legolas there also, but as far as I can tell these are the basic ORB profiles. Anybody wanna double-check?

5. Comments made by other players:

a. Galadhrim steed movement. It could not possibly be clearer that the intent is that they move 12 inches through woods. The Woodland creatures special rule doesn’t say they move 6 inches – it says “elves .. never consider areas of wood to be difficult terrain. An elf can move 6 inches in wooded area classed as difficult terrain as if he were in the open.” Under this rule I rode my mounted elf heroes (the twins or Glorfindel) 10 inches right through woods in every game, including four rounds at the UK GT, and nobody ever questioned it. Now we have Galadhrim mounts that move 12 inches per turn and you guys want to slow them down to half speed? What part of “the whole model treats woodland terrain as clear terrain for the purposes of movement” is confusing you? The rules doesn’t say they are woodland creatures limited to 6 inches per turn – it says to “note the woodland creature rule,” which simply means that just as elf infantry moves full in woods, so does cavalry. And as far as Tim's high-ranking GW official goes, Mat Ward is a highranking GW official and he's a doofus as these crappy writing jobs prove.

b. Yakthor’s questions

I don’t think it is necessary to FAQ or house rule something unless one of three things it is true: (1) the rule is ambiguous, meaning that it cannot be resolved to one clear meaning by the gaming players after analysis; (2) the rule though clear is often misapplied or misunderstood; or (3) the rule is clear but it also clearly an oversight or uncorrected error, or in very rare circumstances something that needs to be fixed by house rule. As far as Yakthor’s questions, the command/compel, Amdur banner, hero volley fire/might rules are not ambiguous. However, if the hero volley fire hit question is confusing people, perhaps we could designate a rule. Generally the interpretation I have seen and I follow is that that the shooting player gets to designate what hits are in what order (meaning he selects which hit the hero is and can control its placement if he has enough hits). The rules don’t specify this of course, but they also don’t say that the volley fire dice have to be rolled simultaneously, and I don’t want to sit there while my opponent tries to game the rules by rolling volley dice one at a time. The other option would be to count the hero's hit as the last one, since it is the last hit to actually occur if rolled together (having had to be adjusted up after the other hits have been rolled).

Morannon as Black Gate = I don’t care if you clarify but the Morannon was simply another name for the Black Gate, seems clear enough if people know the lore.

Rumil – this is actually a very interesting question. Having never had this happen I haven’t had to apply it (I either avoid Rumil or steamroll him with stuff that kills him on 4 or 5s – but as written, it does mean wound rolls to. Here’s the weird thing – if I roll a 6 with my hero to wound, can I burn a might to lower the 6 to a 5 and wound? Seems like it cause the rule doesn’t say natural 6, it says 6.

Cave Drake – I am too lazy to go find that issue

c. Hixon’s favorite broken model a/k/a Druzhag.

Enrage beast spell – it says it can be used on a single warg model. I consider a warg rider/tracker to be a cavalry model not a warg model. I think this is limited to a free warg. I tell you what – it would take a brave orc to ride an enraged warg! Make him pass a courage check. Also, the enrage best spell buffs the warg’s courage, not Druzhag’s, and the Master of the Dark Wild simply means they use his value if in his range – it doesn’t change their base. Gary is right on this Tim – you already found a broken spell, you don’t need to buff it even more. :lol:

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:44 pm
by Smeagol
febber wrote:a. Galadhrim steed movement. It could not possibly be clearer that the intent is that they move 12 inches through woods. The Woodland creatures special rule doesn’t say they move 6 inches – it says “elves .. never consider areas of wood to be difficult terrain. An elf can move 6 inches in wooded area classed as difficult terrain as if he were in the open.” Under this rule I rode my mounted elf heroes (the twins or Glorfindel) 10 inches right through woods in every game, including four rounds at the UK GT, and nobody ever questioned it. Now we have Galadhrim mounts that move 12 inches per turn and you guys want to slow them down to half speed? What part of “the whole model treats woodland terrain as clear terrain for the purposes of movement” is confusing you? The rules doesn’t say they are woodland creatures limited to 6 inches per turn – it says to “note the woodland creature rule,” which simply means that just as elf infantry moves full in woods, so does cavalry. And as far as Tim's high-ranking GW official goes, Mat Ward is a highranking GW official and he's a doofus as these crappy writing jobs prove.

Feel free to ignore the wording in Woodland Ctreature then. I do believe that the rules designers didn't even bother to read the Woodland creature rule since not one of them remembered the 6" movement restriction. I will concede that the intent was that they ignore woods, but on what page do you find the intent of the rules?

febber wrote:c. Hixon’s favorite broken model a/k/a Druzhag.

Enrage beast spell – it says it can be used on a single warg model. I consider a warg rider/tracker to be a cavalry model not a warg model. I think this is limited to a free warg. I tell you what – it would take a brave orc to ride an enraged warg! Make him pass a courage check. Also, the enrage best spell buffs the warg’s courage, not Druzhag’s, and the Master of the Dark Wild simply means they use his value if in his range – it doesn’t change their base. Gary is right on this Tim – you already found a broken spell, you don’t need to buff it even more. :lol:

Since a warg rider is type "orc" then Fury and any other special rules that affect orcs therefore affect the warg mount.

This is not how the rules are played. A warg (mount) doesn't benefit from Fury and therefore it sets a precedence that the warg is a seperate part of the same model. this is also reinforced by the definition of a cavalry model. Which basically states it consists of two parts. The mount (a warg in this case) and the rider. Again I'm sure this is another oversight by the rules designer (Matt Ward in this case as I recall), but as the rules are written it is allowed.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:22 pm
by febber
Smeagol wrote: I will concede that the intent was that they ignore woods, but on what page do you find the intent of the rules?


This is one of the rare occasions in which the intent is explicitly stated in the rule. They move 6 inches (as infantry) because woods are treated as clear terrain. So the answer is -- page 94 of the ORB.

And yeah, this was badly written at the time it came out in ORB, but I suspect know why. This rule dates all the way back to the FOTR rulebook of 2001 where it applied to wood elves only. There were no wood elves that could ride horses back then. When the twins were introduced as wood elves in Shadow and Flame and given the horse option, nobody recognized the rule discrepancy. When elves were genetically reconstructed in the ORB rulebook, so that now all elves were woodland creatures, again nobody recognized it. I blame Mat Ward, who was too busy writting his Harad fairy tales to notice the difference.

Smeagol wrote: This is not how the rules are played. A warg (mount) doesn't benefit from Fury and therefore it sets a precedence that the warg is a seperate part of the same model.


All the cavalry rules assume that the cavalry model, and thus the mount itself, is controlled by the rider. Yes, orc fury doesn't affect the warg mount, but it doesn't have to test now does it? It is only a separate unit once separated. You are really stretching here. What happened to the reasonable Tim I once knew? :wink:

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:33 pm
by Smeagol
febber wrote:
Smeagol wrote: This is not how the rules are played. A warg (mount) doesn't benefit from Fury and therefore it sets a precedence that the warg is a seperate part of the same model.


All the cavalry rules assume that the cavalry model, and thus the mount itself, is controlled by the rider. Yes, orc fury doesn't affect the warg mount, but it doesn't have to test now does it? It is only a separate unit once separated. You are really stretching here. What happened to the reasonable Tim I once knew? :wink:


No, the entire model is of type orc per the rules. So Fury (save) MUST affect the warg portion of the model right (ignore the courage aspect for now)?

Well the answer is no because a warg is not an orc. Spells can be cast on mounts (Black Dart for instance) and therefore is cannot be said that spells affect the model as a whole since parts of the model can be picked off by spells. Given that spells can affect a part of a cavalry model and a warg mount is a warg by race Enraged Beast must be able to affect the warg portion of the warg riding model.

BTW I am being reasonable, I am using the rules as they are written and not as they are interpreted by the intent of the rules camp. :)

Besides we are still in debate mode. For what it's worth the "unofficial" UK GT houserules support my position.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:03 am
by Jobu
Smeagol wrote:
febber wrote:
Smeagol wrote: This is not how the rules are played. A warg (mount) doesn't benefit from Fury and therefore it sets a precedence that the warg is a seperate part of the same model.


All the cavalry rules assume that the cavalry model, and thus the mount itself, is controlled by the rider. Yes, orc fury doesn't affect the warg mount, but it doesn't have to test now does it? It is only a separate unit once separated. You are really stretching here. What happened to the reasonable Tim I once knew? :wink:


No, the entire model is of type orc per the rules. So Fury (save) MUST affect the warg portion of the model right (ignore the courage aspect for now)?

Well the answer is no because a warg is not an orc. Spells can be cast on mounts (Black Dart for instance) and therefore is cannot be said that spells affect the model as a whole since parts of the model can be picked off by spells. Given that spells can affect a part of a cavalry model and a warg mount is a warg by race Enraged Beast must be able to affect the warg portion of the warg riding model.
.

Unfortunately the rules also state that no spell can target the mount of a cavalry model unless an exception is made in the spell description. All spells can only be targeted at the rider. Yes, spells may target mounts, but they must say so in their description. This is probably another reason why Fury does not effect the wargs of warg riders, even though the entire model is classified as an orc, the spell can not be "targeted" on the warg as a seperate model. In enrage beast, there is nothing stating that the spell effects a cavalry models mount ( i.e. warg of warg rider). So the spell may only be targeted at a warg that is not part of a cavalry model.

FAQ Version 1.1 has been uploaded

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:25 pm
by BrentS
Version 1.1 has been uploaded. See the first post in this thread for the link.

Note, all new questions are marked with an asterix.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:27 pm
by Smeagol
The document looks good, but there are a couple of areas of concern for me.

* The answers on the last page isn't formated as Q and A format. The question is blended into the answer.

*
If the Herald discards the banner, he could fight with the Hand Weapon but would (obviously) lose all benefits of the banner for the remainder of the game.


Lurtz can't voluntrily drop his bow, but you are allowing a herald the ability to drop equipment?

The rules don't allow for models to voluntarily drop equipment and the rulings are contradictory if you compare Lurtz and the Herald. The LOME FAQ allows for a model armed with a bow to count as not bow armed, but you are still paying for the bow so it is not actually discarded.

Re: LOTR:SBG Indy GT FAQ Discussion

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:38 am
by prion2001
Since we have new supplements and a rulebook I took this thread off of the annoucement area. I will start another discussion thread for the new rules and books so we can develop a new FAQ for Adepticon (for anything not covered by the GW FAQs).

Jamie