Old vs. New White Council

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

Old vs. New White Council

Postby prion2001 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:55 am

This got mentioned in an army list thread and is something I quickly noticed when I got the rules. The Hobbit Rulebook has a White Council list that seems to match the one in The Free Peoples Sourcebook but does remove a few models as options (I think Thandruil and Legolas). I believe the stats are the same for the Galadriel in the Hobbit book as she is in the Free Peoples (at least the "regular" Galadriel. The War Aspect version can be chosen and that profile is in the Free Peoples book but can be taken in the Hobbit version of the list.

So, which takes precedence? Do we use the newest list and profiles in cases where there is a difference? Do we allow you to pick which list you use (i.e. like back when we had Legions Galadrhim elves list and the White Dwarf Galadrhim elves list and people could choose either but had to stay with it?

Other than the removal of two models from the new version of the list nothing else seems to have changed so maybe there is no big problem. I haven't seen any other cases but I imagine it there aren't now there could be in the future.

Jamie
"It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing." Boromir
Check out my painting blog at http://www.fivearmies.blogspot.com
Shop Gorgon Studios. http://www.gorgon-studios.com
User avatar
prion2001
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Tinley Park, IL

Re: Old vs. New White Council

Postby BrentS » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:11 am

Until there is an FAQ to remove the White Council from the Free People's Book. I would think either is valid. Of course, you can't mix and match between them.
User avatar
BrentS
 
Posts: 6295
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:38 pm

Re: Old vs. New White Council

Postby jlong05 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:31 am

I thought I read in a FAQ recently that the new Hobbit book took precedence for models that were already listed in a warbands book, and would have thought that would be the same for warband lists that were republished in Hobbit, however I am unable to find this FAQ so I guess I dreamt it.

Since no FAQ seems to exist, I would agree with Brent's point and say both should be valid until otherwise FAQed.

Does this then also mean that we will have multiple profiles for models that appear similar since there are republished versions in the Hobbit book? I see this necessary for Bilbo and Gollum, but not sure how many others have adjusted rules yet.
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: Old vs. New White Council

Postby prion2001 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:29 am

I also like the idea of choosing one but then you are restricted to that one. As for profile differences I think it may depend on the models. The Adepticon LotR event rules should be up soon and we have made the decision to keep the old ruling that Gollum is not usable in tournaments. The new Hobbit book version has some issues (in my opinion) in terms of the ring.

Now, for Bilbo my personal feeling is you can use either the Hobbit version or the sourcebook one. In this case, one represents young Bilbo and one represents old Bilbo. Nothing stops someone from using the new profile with models out of that period (i.e. Lord of the Rings era models) but then someone will always try to beat the system.

I think I need to take a close look at all the profiles and see what differences may exist. For Adepticon at least, we'll have some sort of FAQ like past years to address how WE plan to handle certain issues.

Jamie
"It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing." Boromir
Check out my painting blog at http://www.fivearmies.blogspot.com
Shop Gorgon Studios. http://www.gorgon-studios.com
User avatar
prion2001
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Tinley Park, IL

Re: Old vs. New White Council

Postby jlong05 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:03 am

prion2001 wrote:The Adepticon LotR event rules should be up soon and we have made the decision to keep the old ruling that Gollum is not usable in tournaments.


Hmm.. That's unfortunate. I thought the new Gollum profile was a lot better for game play than the prior versions. Now he costs. has some benefits, but also penalties. Oh well

prion2001 wrote:The new Hobbit book version has some issues (in my opinion) in terms of the ring.


What issues are you seeing with the new ring rules? After reading them and comparing to the LotR version, I thought the new rules were much clearer in how the ring is used and works.
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: Old vs. New White Council

Postby jlong05 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:06 am

jlong05 wrote:I thought I read in a FAQ recently that the new Hobbit book took precedence for models that were already listed in a warbands book, and would have thought that would be the same for warband lists that were republished in Hobbit, however I am unable to find this FAQ so I guess I dreamt it.

Since no FAQ seems to exist, I would agree with Brent's point and say both should be valid until otherwise FAQed.

Does this then also mean that we will have multiple profiles for models that appear similar since there are republished versions in the Hobbit book? I see this necessary for Bilbo and Gollum, but not sure how many others have adjusted rules yet.


REDACTED> I found the FAQ I was looking for:

Note that some of the profiles in The Hobbit: An
Unexpected Journey rules manual will vary from those in
the five sourcebooks: Mordor, The Fallen Realms, Moria &
Angmar, Kingdoms of Men and The Free Peoples. When
picking a force, you should use the rules and points values
featured in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey rules
manual in place of those found in the sourcebooks.


Found Here: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Cus ... MBER12.pdf

Based on this. I would think that the models in the Hobbit replace 'same' versions from the sourcebooks and the rules for warbands would also replace due to the part here: " When picking a force, you should use the rules and points values featured in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey rules manual in place of those found in the sourcebooks."

Bolded for what I am referring to in that statement.

Also found this one regarding profiles for White Council in that same FAQ:

Q: In the White Council army rules, you may select Elrond
as a member of the White Council. Which version of
Elrond is this – the version from The Hobbit: An
Unexpected Journey rules manual or one of the two
versions from the Free Peoples sourcebook? (p195)
A: The version of Elrond on page 176 of The Hobbit: An
Unexpected Journey rules manual.
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: Old vs. New White Council

Postby prion2001 » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:15 pm

I think the problem with Gollum is still the same and maybe worse. You know have a good version (smeagol) in the fellowship list, evil gollum in the Mordor list and the new Hobbit version. My issue with the Hobbit version is that he has the ring, unless the opposing force has the ringbearer on the table. The issue to me is during a tournament his wargear changes based on the opponent match-up which seems odd.

My issue with the ring is in relation to Gollum in the new rules. He has the ring, that's all it says. But Bilbo has the ring and his profile says he ignores some rules because of the "It has not yet awoken" rule. So, if the gollum profile in the new rules is assumed to be 60 year old Gollum (like Bilbo) then does the ring he possesses also has the same rule as Bilbo's ring? I mean, if it hadn't awoken for Bilbo why would it for Gollum?

In the end, we could debate and figure it out but we decided banning him (as we have in the past) was just easier. It may dissapoint some folks but it will save me endless headaches. :wink:

I think that the Elrond profile and Radaghast profile are the only ones that are different. I certainly think profiles should supercede if the FAQ says so but not sure about lists. In the end, you could be forced to use the most updated profile but could field Thranduil and Legolas who are in the Sourcebook list but not listed in the Hobbit list. I think it's the only list that has been changed due to the release so maybe this becomes a specific FAQ about that one list.

Jamie
"It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing." Boromir
Check out my painting blog at http://www.fivearmies.blogspot.com
Shop Gorgon Studios. http://www.gorgon-studios.com
User avatar
prion2001
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Tinley Park, IL

Re: Old vs. New White Council

Postby Lordgoober » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:29 pm

Doing other profile comparisons, Gwaihir and the regular eagle profiles are also unchanged as well. The only actual real change in the Elrond profile is that he comes unarmored standard and can add the armor to become equal to the cheaper profile from the handbook for the exact same cost.
Lordgoober
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:47 pm

Re: Old vs. New White Council

Postby jlong05 » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:36 am

prion2001 wrote:I think the problem with Gollum is still the same and maybe worse. You know have a good version (smeagol) in the fellowship list, evil gollum in the Mordor list and the new Hobbit version. My issue with the Hobbit version is that he has the ring, unless the opposing force has the ringbearer on the table. The issue to me is during a tournament his wargear changes based on the opponent match-up which seems odd.


I can see this. Its a significant piece of wargear and in the Hobbit, it no longer has rules preventing the ringbearer from being engaged when wearing the ring. I can see where paying for Gollum and not getting the ring due to another ringbearer on the table could be an issue for tournament play, however it is a risk issue in army building and think it should be an issue for the player to deal with instead of being ruled ineligible. Gollum as a model doesn't break the game(such as Tom and Goldberry do for instance). The good version of Sméagol doesn't seem to have ring issues so I assume he is allowable for good still?

prion2001 wrote:My issue with the ring is in relation to Gollum in the new rules. He has the ring, that's all it says. But Bilbo has the ring and his profile says he ignores some rules because of the "It has not yet awoken" rule. So, if the gollum profile in the new rules is assumed to be 60 year old Gollum (like Bilbo) then does the ring he possesses also has the same rule as Bilbo's ring? I mean, if it hadn't awoken for Bilbo why would it for Gollum?

In the end, we could debate and figure it out but we decided banning him (as we have in the past) was just easier. It may dissapoint some folks but it will save me endless headaches. :wink:

Super good point here. It is clearly missing from the Hobbit profile for the not awoken rules for the Gollum profile. I expect that was an error and will be in a FAQ soon, but for now agree its an issue that needs officially fixed in a GQ FAQ.
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)


Return to Rules Discussions (LotR)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron