New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Debate all the finer points of our fine hobby under the gaze of the Lidless Eye...

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby ChrisLS » Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:06 pm

As has come up in another thread:

- Are the passengers of the Great Beast considered separate for purposes of model count in the army, or does the "Only Counts as One" mean they all count as a single model for model count? If they are all one model, do they all need to be killed to remove that model, or are the passengers not considered, similar to Broodlings from the Spider Queen?
In my fantasy world, we have pie.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain
User avatar
ChrisLS
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:04 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby Siegrend » Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:47 pm

Well, I can say this in reply if it helps. I played the Great Beast this evening and it ran off in a thundering cloud of dust as it lost its courage check after my army broke. Not a single orc atop it had been killed, yet since they cannot dismount voluntarily, they too ran off with the Beast. Should they have all counted towards my model count, well...then I wouldn't have been making that courage check at all actually. The way I read it, the "Only Counts as One" rule means just that. However, if the beast falls and the orcs atop it manage to survive the "Dead Weight" rule, then I suppose they are no different than a Warg who passes its courage test after its rider is slain. If such is the case, then all of the orcs would have to be killed to consider that ONE model to be truly slain.
Even the very wise cannot see all ends...
User avatar
Siegrend
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:31 am
Location: Bloomingdale/Downer's Grove

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby Siegrend » Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:02 am

I too have a question that came up in a game next to me this evening. So one player had fielded the Witch King on a Fell Beast and his opponent had a Galadhrim Stormcaller who cast Call Winds upon it. Call Winds, as explained in the Stormcaller profile, states that the model would be knocked to the ground after its forced backward movement. It does not state anything about monsters with Strength 6 or higher not being knocked down. However, if you read the section regarding Magic and Cavalry in the main rulebook (page 51 in hardcover), 3rd paragraph of the section states "the steed and rider are not knocked to the ground if the steed has a strength of 6 or more..." This of course referring to Sorcerous Blast, but magic nevertheless.

So, would you all place Call Winds under the same ruling? This was not a spell that was around when the main rulebook was printed, but this is the only rule I've found that comes close to answering the question. The Stormcaller player disagreed with my unbiased ruling, stating that there is nothing in the spell description that would give a pass to Strength 6 creatures.

I find it hard to believe that a spell so easily cast by a 50 point model could, or rather "should", be allowed to throw the Witch King on a Fell Beast to the ground, thus dismounting the Fell Beast which would immediately flee the battle. (on top of that the player rolled a 6 to cast, so the Witch King would have used up a LOT of will to negate the effects.

Anyway, I'd love another unbiased opinion!!
Even the very wise cannot see all ends...
User avatar
Siegrend
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:31 am
Location: Bloomingdale/Downer's Grove

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby ChrisLS » Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:10 am

My initial thought is your opponent was right. If there is no Strength immunity there is no strength immunity. Should a Mordor Troll be immune to the knockdown as well? And from a imagery position, it makes sense strong winds would mess up a flyer.

The real question is: why wasn't that Stormcaller smacked with a Sap Will?!?
In my fantasy world, we have pie.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain
User avatar
ChrisLS
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:04 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby Siegrend » Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:04 am

THAT is a good question! And the answer is I don't know. I was called over for an unbiased opinion. The ringwraith player was very new to the game and I don't think really understood what his spells could do...or when to use them...or honestly even what his opponent's spells could do! Thanks for the opinion, and in the end, yours might be the best ruling based on the rules as they are written thus far. My opinion is that this was an oversight though, and that the spell would effect, but not knock down, Strength 6 or better creatures. Until GW makes an amendment, or unless there are further comments to dispute your opinion, I'll pass along the judgement.

Thanks again.
Even the very wise cannot see all ends...
User avatar
Siegrend
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:31 am
Location: Bloomingdale/Downer's Grove

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby Smeagol » Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:13 am

Likewise how do you resist the spell Nature's Wrath when auto cast by Thranduil's crown?
User avatar
Smeagol
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:20 pm

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby ChrisLS » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:14 am

Really good question, Smeagol. I'd say as a TO default to a 6, but that's a toughie. Definitely worth a FAQ.
In my fantasy world, we have pie.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain
User avatar
ChrisLS
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:04 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby Siegrend » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:12 am

Another good question Smeagol. We've been playing that as irresistible based on the crown allowing this spell to be cast once per game only, and I suppose under the same logic that Chris answered my previous question...that there was no rule to state that it could be or rather HOW it could be resisted.

It is a fair question though, and we had not entertained the idea of defaulting to a "6". Not a bad fix really, until an FAQ comes out. My bet is that there might be a few House Rules for this depending on where/who you play.
Even the very wise cannot see all ends...
User avatar
Siegrend
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:31 am
Location: Bloomingdale/Downer's Grove

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby jlong05 » Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:30 pm

If the crown doesn't say the ability can be resisted, why woudl we place an abitrary rule on it to allow that. Other special abilities indicate specific resist options, and although it is possible that was an oversight, it very likely could have also been intended as a no resist single use ability.

Another example is the Loremaster ability which isn't even single use, but provides no option to resist either.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
User avatar
jlong05
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ (In a lead-lined fridge)

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby ChrisLS » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:50 pm

Hmmm... Good point, though IIRC the loremaster's ability is explicitly not a magical power and this couldn't be resisted.
In my fantasy world, we have pie.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain
User avatar
ChrisLS
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:04 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby jlong05 » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:16 pm

ChrisLS wrote:Hmmm... Good point, though IIRC the loremaster's ability is explicitly not a magical power and this couldn't be resisted.

Which I understand, but given the crown just 'works' it could easily be argued it is also just a special ability since no dice roll is required.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
User avatar
jlong05
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ (In a lead-lined fridge)

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby ChrisLS » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:01 am

The rule does state that he casts the magical powers automatically with no die roll required, so it creates a weird dual position where a magical power (which can be resisted with will) doesn't follow the rules for magical powers (roll a die). A FAQ is definitely needed.
In my fantasy world, we have pie.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain
User avatar
ChrisLS
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:04 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby Smeagol » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:56 am

Curious bit about the Lords of Battle scenario. You get one victory point for each wound you inflict on a model. No issue here.

According to the Volley Fire rules cavalry models have two wounds. One for the mount (typically) and one for the rider.

So if I kill the horse and then the rider I gain two victory points right? Basically this is the same issue with the Contest of Champions sceanrio in LOME.
User avatar
Smeagol
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:20 pm

Re: New Sourcebook FAQ requests

Postby Smeagol » Wed May 29, 2013 10:27 am

For those of you like me that didn't know the LOTR/Hobbit FAQs were updated in April on the GW website.
User avatar
Smeagol
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:20 pm

Previous

Return to Rules Discussions (LotR)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron