| The One Ring http://ww.one-ring.co.uk/ |
|
| Army Bonus for Dead of Dunharrow http://ww.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=34643 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | bruceqn [ Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Army Bonus for Dead of Dunharrow |
I can Historically Ally two forces: Aragorn leading Rangers, with an allied contingent of the Dead. According the Army Bonus for the Dead, they ('or allied contingent' of them) “do not need a Hero.” One of the eight warriors becomes a captain. Historical Allies keep their Army Bonus. It seems clear that this Bonus is an exception to the rule that "every alliance needs a Hero". Perhaps the 'warrior captain' becomes the 'hero'? My opponent thinks I misunderstand the Army Bonus. He thinks the Bonus only applies to subsequent warbands, after the King of the Dead leads the first warband. He says, “All allied contingents must have a Hero model...” (pg 133 Rules) I say that the “...do not need a Hero” Army Bonus rule trumps that general rule in this case. (pg 52, Shire, pg 52 & 70, LOTR). |
|
| Author: | Wan Shi Tong [ Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Army Bonus for Dead of Dunharrow |
An interesting question. I'm afraid that I come down on your friend's side of the argument on this one. The general rule on pg 133 of the Main Rules controls whether you need a hero to lead an allied contingent. While the Army of the Dead special rule's language says that "warbands of eight or more models, do not need a hero to be the Captain of the warband" instead being able to nominate a warrior to serve as the Captain "for the purpose of deployment." The language indicates an override to the "Warbands," The Captain," and "Followers" rules and the deployment rules in each scenarios "Starting Positions" entry. (pg. 130 & 139, Rules). I don't see anything about in the Dunharrow rule's language that allows the nominated warrior to act as a hero for purpose other than substituting the Captain for deployment purposes. The special rule grant's only specific power, and not general exceptions to the need for a hero in all instances. Therefore, the special rule would not be able to overcome a rule beyond the specific exceptions mentioned, which is the case with the rule on pg 133. That would be my take on it. |
|
| Author: | bruceqn [ Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Army Bonus for Dead of Dunharrow |
thanks: my friend is very happy. However...I just saw The Denizens of Mirkwood bonus, which specifically states, "So long as your army includes Spider Queen..." warbands don't need a Hero. My friend says that applies to Dead and Druadan...that their Bonus should say "So long as your army includes King of the Dead..." (or Ghan-Buri-Ghan). But it does not say that. However, Sharkey's Rogues bonus specifically says,..."a force (or allied contingent) that contains models solely from..." I say that applies to Dead and Druadan, that their bonus should say "or allied contingent". But it does not say that. But the Rogues bonus does grant an exception to the general rule of needing a Hero to lead an allied contingent...which I think also applies to Dead & Druadan (though not stated so specifically) So which applies to Dead: the Rogue or Mirkwood? If Dead & Druadan is like the Rogue rule, then the warrior substituting as Captain (Hero) would also substitute as Leader (or Target in Assasination senario)...just like the Rogue rule. The wording is not clear. Maybe I should ask for a FAQ. I really appreciate this conversation. More insights? |
|
| Author: | Wan Shi Tong [ Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Army Bonus for Dead of Dunharrow |
Well, most direct response, and the one that I decided to advocate for here after giving it some thought, is that neither the clauses from the Rogues or Mirkwood are supposed to apply to Dunharrow because neither of the clauses are in Dunharrow's wording as it's written. The rules don't appear to duplicate special rules. There are at least three distinct rules (in Rouges, Mirkwood, and Dunharrow) that do similar things, but each one has its own name and its own wording. I don't see any reason to suppose there is a clause meant to be in Dunharrow's rule that has been left out by mistake. At least, I don't see why we should suppose that it is Dunharrow's rule that is the error between the three and not one or both of the others instead if they are all supposed to do the same thing. I would play each of these rules just as they are written. With the three doing slightly different things for each faction. And send an email to GW too, give them something to put in their Feb. FAQ. |
|
| Author: | bruceqn [ Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Army Bonus for Dead of Dunharrow |
So much I agree with here. I very much want to play Dunharrow's bonus rules 'just as they are written'. It is written: “...do not need a Hero to be the Captain...” So I create an alliance that earns that Army Bonus Rule...but my friend says, “Oh no: you do need a Hero to lead a contingent.” But that is not 'just as the rules are written', I reply. I get the Bonus, I should get that rule. I thought I was simply playing the Dunharrow rules 'just as they are written.' So I agree with you: not so much an 'error' as a lack of clarity that is very clearly addressed in the similar Rogue & Mirkwood rules, but not in Dunharrow or Druadan. Does a contingent need a Hero after all...even though the rule as written seems to say otherwise? Does 'as written' apply only half the time? It does seem odd (since we are guessing), because who would field a 'pure' Dead army with not even a single Might point? I have sent a FAQ question in, and hope they include it in February. Thanks for the good conversation. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|