About Khand...

ScarpeIron · **Posted:** Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:43 am

Clansmen have HW now, their "otherwise unarmed" is out.

Some of the Elven heros are listed as unarmed, though Celeborn is written as being unarmed but can buy an Elven Blade. The usual hobbits are listed as being unarmed. The war Galadriel is not written as being unarmed....and I'm to tired to remember any others or go through the books. Though thats probably the lions share of em.
- :puppy:

imrail · **Joined:** Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:24 pm **Posts:** 666

No one knows to stop here!
No offence, but some people act like children, done is done!
Meatboy asked to stop the argument, he asked a question and it's completly off-track.
Continue this discussion somewhere else.

Khand: They are worth it, cool miniatures!

fracas · **Posted:** Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:41 am

Lord Hurin wrote:

Ok, I don't have any of the new books so I have a question about them.

Is any model in the new books described as "unarmed"? In the previous edition, there were very few; I think perhaps just Clansmen, Cirdan, Celeborn and Galadriel. If none of these have the "unarmed" keyword in their profile, then I could see where a newer player who hasn't gone through the whole debate when the current rulebook and accompanying FAQ came out would get confused.

Yes, Elven blades got nerfed a little with the new "everyone has a hand weapon" rule. Similarly, the older "bladed Orc bow" was entirely made obsolete.

No, it doesn't state that everyone has a hand weapon right in their wargear entry. I would assume this is laziness on the book writers' parts and the later FAQ was an attempt to compensate for it.

Why is it so difficult to believe that the rules were intended for every model to have a hand weapon unless it specifically says they don't? Yes, it's sloppy rule writing (how much extra effort does it take to put in that Eomer or Theoden carry a sword?) but it's just something we have to live with. It is a little disappointing to hear they haven't fixed it with the new profile books though.

i think this is the best response thus

Lord Hurin · **Posted:** Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:31 am

fracas wrote:

i think this is the best response thus

I'm not sure whether this is serious or not, but if it is then you realize I was disagreeing with you overall, yes?

fracas · **Posted:** Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:50 pm

yours was the best post because it acknowledge the reality of the problem, and its source.
you acknowledge that the rules as written are sloppy, leaving room for alternative interpretations with rules as written and rules as intended
as well as acknowledge a certain laziness in the GW rules writing. it would have been simpler to specify hand weapons on models that have them rather than a catch all poorly worded statements.
in 40k, WHFB, BFG, and Warmaster GW took the time to specify how the models are armed, not so with LotR.
GW certainly, despite a very good rule set, has not taken SBG seriously enough to give it attention it deserves.

i have no problem with disagreements
and have no need for validations or to be right
but do find it disappointing when people cannot disagree without resorting to name calling, fallacies of logic, or irrational rigidity.

About Khand...

Who is online