Question about Army validity after re-reading the new FAQ

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

Question about Army validity after re-reading the new FAQ

Postby thorhak » Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:23 am

In the previously "hi-jacked" thread, I had posted the "Good" Army List that I intend to
bring to BBB. My lists will focus on a "Battle of 5 Armies" theme. For the forces of Good:

Warband 1: Dain, 6 Khazad Guard, 6 Iron Guard
Warband 2: Thorin w/ Oakenshield and Orcrist, Fili, Kili, Dwalin, Ori, Oin, Bifur

Today I made it over to Rob's house to try and get a game in, but he was finishing
a game w/ another friend (Moria was applying a beating to a Rohan/Gondor force as one
of the many battles in a year-long global campaign he's been running - I digress). So I spent
some time working on my Evil list, and have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to bring -
and guess what...it's only 30 models (but potentially changed depending on the answers here.)

In thinking through my Evil list, I kept coming back to one of the items addressed in the new
Hobbit FAQ:

Q: Can Heroes from The Hobbit: An Unexpected
Journey rules manual, such as Thorin Oakenshield, lead
appropriate warbands of Warriors from the five
sourcebooks? Similarly, can Heroes from the
sourcebooks, such as Gothmog, lead appropriate
warbands of Warriors from The Hobbit: An Unexpected
Journey rules manual? (p194/195)
A: No to both questions.

In my mind, that can be interpreted 2 ways:
1. Thorin can't lead a warband of say Khazad Guard. Thorin exists in the Hobbit rules,
Khazad Guard in the Free Peoples Sourcebook. In other words, a Warband with Thorin
as "the Hero" can't include models from the Sourcebooks.

2. Thorin can't be in an Army that contains models from another Sourcebook. i.e.
Even if Thorin is leading his "Company" (Fili, Kili, etc.), a second Warband lead by Dain and containing
Iron Guard and Khazad Guard can not be included in the Army.

I'm hoping it's 1, if it's 2 then my proposed list is null and void.

Any thoughts???
Mayhem in the Mountains 2014?!?!?!?! Stay tuned! Adeptus Mile High
User avatar
thorhak
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:27 pm

Re: Question about Army validity after re-reading the new FA

Postby BostonNazgul » Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:42 am

I think the answer to that question lies in timelines.

Image

"YOU CANT MEET YOURSELF!" - Doc Brown

In my mind, that FAQ statement is almost useless because it is obvious in the army lists.

Thorin's company army list is only included in The Hobbit, he is not be added to an Erebor, or now technically, Free peoples army book and vice versa.

Gothmog did not get added onto the Azog's hunter's army list in the Hobbit publication and thus cannot lead orc hunters.

Since Warbands now made the allies rules much more free form, it would fall with the players choice.

For instance Dain leading dwarves going to help thorins company is right from the books.... literally.

Something that would not work and frowned upon would be using the old Balin profile, leading khazard guard, and then bringing fili and kili along in a thorins company ally list. two different points in time coming together.

another disallowed list could be Hobbit elrond, mounted with armor, leading knights and infantry in the same list. If you want to have knights you must have a pure Hobbit elf warband, then ally in an arwen led infantry warband from the free peoples book, something that would make sense to me, what do the non house riders do in rivendell....

that is my take
User avatar
BostonNazgul
 
Posts: 2432
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Question about Army validity after re-reading the new FA

Postby jlong05 » Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:46 pm

Agree with Jeremy.

However from a simply RAW standpoint the rules simply state you cannot lead warriors outside of the defined army list given. Allying in works, but given the timeline items discussed above, you are legal but will kicked in the nads for being cheesy.
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: Question about Army validity after re-reading the new FA

Postby thorhak » Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:52 pm

jlong05 wrote:you are legal but will kicked in the nads for being cheesy.


Cheesy?!?!?!?! lmao

I was thinking more like Courageous, Inspirational, Visionary or even Aule-Inspired! :mrgreen:

Besides....I like my Cheese with a "z", and lots of 'em (Cheezzzzzy!) Makes any dish better -
even the slop Jeremy serves! 8)
Mayhem in the Mountains 2014?!?!?!?! Stay tuned! Adeptus Mile High
User avatar
thorhak
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:27 pm

Re: Question about Army validity after re-reading the new FA

Postby BostonNazgul » Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:59 pm

too dollar for my slop....

I think John meant the timeline cheez in the examples I posted, not your army list.
User avatar
BostonNazgul
 
Posts: 2432
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Question about Army validity after re-reading the new FA

Postby jlong05 » Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:46 pm

BostonNazgul wrote:too dollar for my slop....

I think John meant the timeline cheez in the examples I posted, not your army list.

This, not that. ;)

I was in agreement with Jeremy on timeline stuff saying while it may be legal RAW-wise, I would kick you in the nads if you tried it.
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