All times are UTC


It is currently Sat Oct 05, 2024 4:32 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:50 pm 
Elven Elder
Elven Elder
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:30 am
Posts: 2793
Location: In the Tardis Bar
Images: 1
*Copied from Dr G on the GBHL FB page*

Quote:
Afternoon! So, here it is, the much rumoured Unofficial GBHL FAQ document. This document (and so ALL of these rulings) will be used at both the Mansfield tournament this weekend and at the Best Event Ever at East Grinsted on March 2nd. This document has been approved by the TOs of both of those events and the rulings have been reached by a majority vote between 5 people. In addition, those questions from Mik's original TLA FAQ that have not since been answered in an official FAQ have been included in this document so we have everything in one place. None of these rulings are right and none of them are wrong, they are simply our first attempt to provide consistency between tournaments and, more importantly, between different games at the same tournament. I appreciate that many people will feel strongly about many of these rulings, indeed there are some that I disagree with, but that's just the nature of unclear areas in the rules. I would ask players to remember that we are not claiming that these are correct or final, we are simply saying that if these issues come up at the Mansfield or East Grinsted events, this is the ruling that the TOs will give so you can go into the event forewarned. The hope is that on the Saturday night in Mansfield, players can feedback on those issues that they feel should have different rulings and we can start to generate an FAQ that represents the wider view of this vibrant community. This is simply a starting point, after the East Grinsted Event I will start running polls on the page for any questions that have contentious or disputed rulings, this will then generate a wider consensus and provide 'community approved' answers that will be used at future events that choose to use the FAQ. It is entirely at the discretion of future TOs whether or not they choose to use the FAQ, they can make that decision on an individual basis. All of the questions in this FAQ have been submitted to Games Workshop so hopefully we will have an official answer to them all before long. Finally, I would ask all players to remember that this document is intended to prevent frustrations and heated discussions at tournaments and relieve pressure on TOs, ensuring that everyone has the best time possible, so I would ask that you read and respond to it with that in mind. I hope you find the document useful and look forward to the 'debate' that will inevitably arise


Community FAQ

_________________
12th GBHL 2013.
13th GBHL 2014
9th GBHL 2015



Mid Sussex Wargamers
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:15 am 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:03 pm
Posts: 1984
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Images: 1
Great job putting this together, but there was one thing that I totally disagree with. The question about a prowler wounding on a 1. Why do you say that a 1 always fails? No where in the book does it ever say that afaik.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:05 am 
Ringwraith
Ringwraith
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm
Posts: 1339
It's a fair point but there's 76 questions in the FAQ and I'm sure every member of this forum will disagree with at least 1. The FAQ is what it is, it's not official, it's just a doc that some TOs will choose to use on the UK scene, the main aim is to ensure that all the games at one event are dealt with in the same way (particularly when it comes to the VPs for breaking in points match games).

As for your particular disagreement, no, the rulebook doesn't say 1 always fails but neither does it ever account for a time when you need a 1+ to wound and don't have to roll a dice. That isn't the same as a special rule that allows you to automatically wound. That's why it's a grey area that could cause confusion. As far as I know this is the only situation in the whole system where it can come up and it's pretty clear it's an omission. We came down on the side of 1 always fails as historically that's a fairly common ruling in GW games, it just happens that in SBG the wound chart only goes to a maximum of 3+ to wound (rather than 2+) which means the situation hardly ever comes up.

Ultimately I think it's a fairly moot point, this question was largely hypothetical, I've never heard of it actually happening in a game, it's SO situational.

Glad you like the FAQ though, I hope it's useful.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:46 am 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:14 am
Posts: 1121
Great work, with such a lenghty document I had expected many 'oh, come on, that's not how it's supposed to work..' moments, but I actually think nearly all solutions are sensible, realistic and balanced. Well done!

The only exceptions are:
[Question about special strikes with 'named' weapons]
A. [..]Aeglos is a Spear[..].
~Is a bit confusing, as spears don't have special strikes and Aeglos specifically states it doesn't follow the rules for spears.


Q. If a model on a War Camel charges into a mounted model, does its impaler rule strike the rider, the
mount or both?

A. Both
~Although I don't know the exact phrase used in the book, I would expect it be randomised over horse and rider, as if it were a missile.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:04 am 
Elven Warrior
Elven Warrior
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:35 am
Posts: 922
Location: London, UK
Images: 58
theavenger001 wrote:
No where in the book does it ever say that afaik.



Pretty much the definition of an FAQ question.

_________________
Available for Commissions!

Check out my blog: http://yggdrasilpainting.wix.com/yggdrasilpainting
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:45 am 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:03 pm
Posts: 1984
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Images: 1
mertaal wrote:
theavenger001 wrote:
No where in the book does it ever say that afaik.



Pretty much the definition of an FAQ question.

The question is not whether a 1 is an auto fail though. In this situation I don't see any reason for a 1 to fail, as I have no other wargaming background other than sbg. So having never played in a system where a 1 is an auto fail, and not seeing it in the book, and knowing that with might a 1 is not an auto fail, I am inclined to say that if this very rare situation does come up then you can wound on a one.


I just don't see how you can come up with this from the rules as written. As written, taken to the letter of the rule, you are wounding on a 1+. If you say that you're going to over-ride that with a '1 is always a fail' rule for no reason other than other systems use that, then how do you deal with might? Now a 1 is an auto fail, unless you use might to boost it?

The logic for this reasoning over having it wounding just seems way too thin imo.

That sounded kinda heated. I'm not wanting to get into a flame war or anything, I am just honestly surprised that you see the evidence tipping the other way...
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:58 am 
Elven Elder
Elven Elder
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:18 pm
Posts: 2528
Location: Dallas, Texas
Is a 1 an auto-fail in fantasy? Because I don't remember that in 40k back when I used to play.

I know several games that do have "auto-fails" however all of the ones I'm familiar with either have 3D6 for shooting or a D20 so that it's far less common than 16.6%.

I too think this is an overlooked situation by GW that hopefully will be FAQ'd. I know I won't be attending this event (as some little pond called the Atlantic is in my way) but if it's alright I'd like to give my thoughts.

Firstly I think this should be an "auto-wound" situation simply because it's impossible to roll a 1 so auto-fail is a moot-point.
If you have the correct scenario, trapped, 2-handed, and piercing strike. Then a roll of 1 isn't a 1 it's a 3. Your possible rolls in this occasion are 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (6), 8 (6). Much in the same way as a 2-h weapon subtracts -1 from your "duel roll" so a 6 isn't a 6 it's a 5.

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:00 am 
Elven Elder
Elven Elder
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:04 pm
Posts: 6308
Location: Wandering around looking for Middle-earth
Images: 58
In addition to this, Azog's Will + White Warg's Will does not = 2, it equals 4.

In terms of the FAQ, I think the Betrayers rule et al should be able to combine with rend, due to the nature if rend.

Also with Gully and Dwellers, they still kill people that get hurled into.

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:52 am 
Ringwraith
Ringwraith
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm
Posts: 1339
I'm slightly dubious about getting into debates about all the rulings, there are 76 and as I've said above they are all open to interpretation so of course some people will disagree. However, I appreciate people taking the time to feed back and so will try and explain the thinking behind the decisions.

As I said above though, it's very important to remember that we're not saying these are right, we're just saying these seemed to make sense to a majority and it's better to play a grey-area rule 'wrong' consistently at a tournament than to have different tables using different interpretations.

Coenus Scaldingus wrote:
The only exceptions are:
[Question about special strikes with 'named' weapons]
A. [..]Aeglos is a Spear[..].
~Is a bit confusing, as spears don't have special strikes and Aeglos specifically states it doesn't follow the rules for spears.


Yes, you're right, this isn't the best example, it was simply there as another example of a named weapon whose type is known, it doesn't necessarily help with the special strike example.

Coenus Scaldingus wrote:
Q. If a model on a War Camel charges into a mounted model, does its impaler rule strike the rider, the
mount or both?
A. Both Although I don't know the exact phrase used in the book, I would expect it be randomised over horse and rider, as if it were a missile.


This was an issue where we tried to be consistent, we ruled that mounted models hit by a Hurl or Sorcerous Blast would hit both rider and mount as they 'would' strike both. An arrow could only hit one or the other. We ultimately decided that a War Camel charging into the model would likely do damage to both models.

JamesR wrote:
Is a 1 an auto-fail in fantasy? Because I don't remember that in 40k back when I used to play.


I'm not sure if it is now but I'm almost certain it was in some version in the past. It was also widely prevalent in GW games for a while, I don't have my old rulebooks to hand but I think Mordheim, Warhammer Quest, Warmaster etc. might well have used this mechanic. It's definitely been in some GW games over the years

JamesR wrote:
I know I won't be attending this event (as some little pond called the Atlantic is in my way) but if it's alright I'd like to give my thoughts.


Of course! It's been uploaded here to garner reaction and see what people think, we welcome feedback!

theavenger001 wrote:
I just don't see how you can come up with this from the rules as written. As written, taken to the letter of the rule, you are wounding on a 1+. If you say that you're going to over-ride that with a '1 is always a fail' rule for no reason other than other systems use that, then how do you deal with might? Now a 1 is an auto fail, unless you use might to boost it?


I see where you're coming from and you may well be right, I've explained our thinking above but I'd add that whilst it never says '1 always fails' it equally never says 'if you ever need a 1+ then you automatically wound and don't need to roll'. It's an incredibly specific situation that they obviously didn't consider one-way or the other, we came down on the side of 1 always fails but GW may well rule it your way.

theavenger001 wrote:
That sounded kinda heated. I'm not wanting to get into a flame war or anything, I am just honestly surprised that you see the evidence tipping the other way...


Thanks for the note but not at all! As I said above we welcome feedback, I find it interesting seeing which questions people disagree with and why. What I'm quite pleased with is that everyone seems to disagree with one or two questions (as is to be completely expected when clarifying unclear areas), there's no-one saying 'these are all wrong, this is ridiculous'. If we can get the majority of players who know the rules very well to agree on the vast majority of our answers then I'll consider that a big victory!

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:
In terms of the FAQ, I think the Betrayers rule et al should be able to combine with rend, due to the nature if rend.


Possibly but the important thing here is that BOK was written before the Hobbit rulebook so before BPAs were an issue. The rules clearly state that you make a BPA (so Rend) instead of striking normally and BOK comes into play when the Betaryer strikes normally. The heavy implication of Rend is that it's the monster doing the fighting rather than the rider, hence we said no.

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:
Also with Gully and Dwellers, they still kill people that get hurled into.


Possibly (and for Khamul), but again it's up for debate (and trust me, HAS been debated at numerous tournaments). Again, the three rules were written before the BPAs were published and so at the time Hurl wasn't an issue. Our decision was based on the fact that they all gain their Wound/Will back from directly killing the enemy model (hence they get one back if the Hurled model dies) but that the models hit on the way are killed indirectly by the Hurled model rather than by the Hurling model. To put it another way, they don't cause the wound on the model that is Hurled into, it's the Hurled model that causes the wound. It also makes all three of them (but particularly Khamul) GROSSLY overpowered if they get a Wound/Will back for every model Hurled into. Again, certainly up for debate but I think that's how GW would rule it.

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:
In addition to this, Azog's Will + White Warg's Will does not = 2, it equals 4.


Good point, thanks, don't know how that typo slipped through, I'll amend it for the next update, the ruling's unchanged though.

Thanks for all your feedback guys, I genuinely appreciate it :yay:

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:56 pm 
Ringwraith
Ringwraith
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:05 pm
Posts: 3140
Location: Canada
Images: 4
Dr Grant wrote:
Coenus Scaldingus wrote:
Q. If a model on a War Camel charges into a mounted model, does its impaler rule strike the rider, the
mount or both?
A. Both Although I don't know the exact phrase used in the book, I would expect it be randomised over horse and rider, as if it were a missile.


This was an issue where we tried to be consistent, we ruled that mounted models hit by a Hurl or Sorcerous Blast would hit both rider and mount as they 'would' strike both. An arrow could only hit one or the other. We ultimately decided that a War Camel charging into the model would likely do damage to both models.


I'm not sure how this is "consistent", or what it's consistent with. The power behind Hurl and Sorcerous Blast seem far greater to me. Plus there is the points issue...this would make Mahud more potent, especially against warg riders.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:09 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:14 am
Posts: 1121
In addition, the Impaler rule is much closer in effect to a thrown weapon used on the charge, which only hits one of the parts (which is randomised).
Had the intention been to make it two hits, I'd say it should be mentioned - a single automatic hit seems painful enough as it is.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:28 pm 
Ringwraith
Ringwraith
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm
Posts: 1339
whafrog wrote:
I'm not sure how this is "consistent", or what it's consistent with. The power behind Hurl and Sorcerous Blast seem far greater to me.


Purely with other answers in the FAQ. We basically ruled that anything that 'smashes' into another model and could conceivably hurt both parties should. We were aiming for clarity so, whenever there's a question about does this hit the mount or the rider?' the answer is always 'both' rather than having to remember which of the three effects (Hurl, Camel, Sorcerous Blast) only causes one hit. By our FAQ, single missiles like arrows or throwing weapons hit one or the other, anything larger hits both.

I think the fact that all 3 are unclear means that when writing the rules, the idea of cavalry being hit by such attacks wasn't thought through. This could well be down to the fact that all the cavalry rules were removed late in the day and had to be pasted back in at the last minute (hence there were so many cavalry omissions before the first Hobbit FAQ).

As for which is more powerful, I think that's a personal opinion. A camel charging into you full pelt from a distance would hit you with quite some force, whether or not that's more or less force than Gandalf's magic is subjective to say the least.

Coenus Scaldingus wrote:
In addition, the Impaler rule is much closer in effect to a thrown weapon used on the charge, which only hits one of the parts (which is randomised).
Had the intention been to make it two hits, I'd say it should be mentioned - a single automatic hit seems painful enough as it is.


It's only more like a Throwing Weapon in that it happens on the charge, the effect of the camel smashing into you would be, IMO, more akin to a model being hurled into you.

As I keep saying though these are only our interpretations, and your opinions may well be correct, we'll only know as and when GW update their official FAQ. This is intended for GBHL tournament play to prevent situations where someone gets hits by a Sorcerous Blast in one game that kills their leader Eomer's horse and takes his last wound (ultimately costing you the game) and then is told in their next game that it only wounds one or the other resulting in undesirable and negative feelings/discussion.

The simple fact is, as demonstrated above, people disagree on many of these issues and so, for competitive play, a ruling one way or the other is desirable.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:34 pm 
Elven Warrior
Elven Warrior
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:08 am
Posts: 775
Location: Notts, UK
I cant see how the hurl essench leech could be ruled the other way.
It would mean Khamul would be able to be a magic hero, win 1 combat, hurl a laketown guy and kill 6+ men and be ready to go again.

That is clearly not the way it was supposed to work.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:48 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:14 am
Posts: 1712
I think you have used your purple username to rule everything in your favour Dr.G and I hope everyone here agrees.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 1:26 pm 
Elven Warrior
Elven Warrior
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:20 pm
Posts: 720
Location: Norwich, Great Britain
Coenus Scaldingus wrote:
In addition, the Impaler rule is much closer in effect to a thrown weapon used on the charge, which only hits one of the parts (which is randomised).
Had the intention been to make it two hits, I'd say it should be mentioned - a single automatic hit seems painful enough as it is.


If it's balance we're going for, it should hit both. There are two spikes on the model, and the rule costs 4 points if you work it out. A single hit doesn't seem painful enough.

_________________
Sun is by sea-men always hoped for,
when they fare away over the fishes' bath,
until the brine-stallion they bring to land.
OERP
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:23 pm 
Ringwraith
Ringwraith
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm
Posts: 1339
Latest version of the Community FAQ available ahead of tomorrow's Shadow and Sorcery event, changes from the previous version are in red font to make them easy to find.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xd4u3pis8fiaylt/GBHL%20FAQ%20-%20March%202014.pdf

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:22 am 
Elven Warrior
Elven Warrior
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:56 am
Posts: 744
Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia
I have just spend a good few hours researching the Mumak rules and typing them up. Please have a review of them and consider adding them to the FAQ. I have tried to keep it simple and consistent and of course, balanced, taking the info from a variety of sources. Please give me feedback so I can give thoughts - I can happily say I would not be upset by the rulings I am putting forward, even though it could have my army destroyed very quickly.

Please Update the first post of this thread to link the current FAQ so it can be found in future and please request a sticky for this thread.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok, here are my conclusions, based on GW & community FAQs and my own thoughts. The topic has not been fully resolved by GW.

1. The GW Mordor FAQ states that the war drum (Mordor Troll) cannot affect the Mumaks Trample move.

2. There is no answer weather or not the Mumak is affected by heroic march. There is no extremely clear sentence which says if a Mumaks move counts as charging or not.
The Fallen Realms source book says when it fails to wound it stops "exactly like a charging model" or in my translation - exactly like any other charging model. To me, this is a direct comparison to every other model in the game except the GBoG. The reason behind the trample rule is to give it a realistic attack comparable to its size. There is no reason to suggest it is different in any other manner, so in my ruling, and what I think is both logical and sporting, the trample counts as charging "exactly like" any other charging model.

Therefore, as it counts as charging, it cannot benefit from Heroic March in order to trample as you cannot charge when affected by a Heroic March or by a drum.

3. The Mumak is listed as a (Mumak, Monster). It therefore is able to access brutal power attacks. The most significant of these is barge, which allows it to charge again, to a maximum of D6".

The GBHL crew have ruled that it is not permitted to trample as part of this move (community FAQ).
The Mordor FAQ states that the Great Beast of Gorgoroth CAN use its own Slam rule as part of this brutal power attack. The intention of this Brutal Power attack was to stop monsters being tied up by 1 warrior and thereby make them more realistic.
I therefore think that we should continue with the intention of GW in making the rule and by allowing the GBoG to use it and say that the Mumak may also use its trample rule as part of the power attack, but remains restricted to D6" in movement.

4. The Fallen Realms source book states that the Mumak is never affected by Heroic Moves called by heroes other than its own commander. It also states that the Mumak Commander's heroic moves affacts the Mumak, even though the base is more than 6" away. This is because the Mumak is treated as his mount (under the crew section). Just to emphasize, this does not make it a Cavalry model, as it is not listed as such, it is just "treated as", to make things simpler.

That GW has made a point about the bases being more than 6" away I think is very important. This indicates that measurement is from base to base. Normally this is not important as everything is virtually horizontal. However it causes an issue with the Mumak which is, can it be affected by a Heroic March of another hero (without trampling). The answer I think is yes, it can, but the caller of the Heroic March must be within 6" of the Mumak Commander (or warrior controlling), base to base. Therefore I don't think it is possible for any other hero to be in range of the Mumak Commander unless they are on a hill or other elevated terrain piece.

In addition, as the Mumak as "treated as" the commanders mount, it would be affected by a Heroic March called by the Mumak Commander (he is basically calling it to himself anyway) and would gain 3" (not 5" as it is not listed as "Cavalry"), therefore being able to move 11", without trampling or charging.

5. Heroic combat, by extension, count as a move but occurs in the fight phase. There is nothing to forbid the Mumak from participating in a Heroic Combat. It starts to get very messy here.
Firstly, the Mumak Commander can call a Heroic Combat and it will affect the Mumak, just like any other call he makes - I am sticking to the same rule for consistency and to make it easier to remember and decide. The Mumak can therefore trample twice and move a total of 16" (8 + 8) in one turn.

If another hero in base combat with the same model as the Mumak calls a Heroic Combat, it states that "any models from his force engaged in the same fight (except supporting models", may move again. For once this includes the Mumak, as it is not range limited like other heroic actions. Move and trample with the Mumak like normal.
This might seem very powerful, and it is, but having a hero so close to the Mumak, and being able to charge the same model, is very unlikely to occur, and would mean a quick death for the hero on the ground if the Mumak trampled. You could also trap him against the Mumak.

Carrying on from this is an even rarer situation. Say Haldir, Defender of Helms deep (or any other model who may strike blows or deal damage when losing a fight or dying), loses the fight and is killed. If he successfully wounds the Mumak and it fails its test, causing it to stampede, it will stampede as normal at the beginning of the next evil move phase, exactly as specified in the profile. The question becomes, does it continue its heroic combat at all (controlled by good or evil?) or does it lose the ability to. My personal ruling is that it loses the ability to participate in the heroic combat any further (imagine it rearing and screaming in pain while the rest of the fight phase is completed.
NB: I did want to say that it would stampede immediately in favour of the good side, but the profile states at the start of the next move phase, so that's a shame :(.

6. Heroic Combat has in brackets (Fight Phase) in the Hobbit mini book. As a hero may only benefit from 1 heroic action per phase, you are permitted to move again and to trample, even if you benefited from a Heroic March earlier that turn. Heroic march, and its restriction on charging is stated as lasting "in the same move phase" - as the move phase is over and it is now the fight phase, there is no restriction.

If you had a hero in the same combat (from the previous example) who called a Heroic Strike while your Mumak Commander called a Heroic Combat, the result is initially unclear.

The Hobbit mini rulebook states that you may only benefit from a single heroic action in each phase. Read as written, the other hero would not be permitted to move as a result of winning the Heroic Combat. However, the GBHL crew have decided that what the rule means is that you may only benefit from one of that type of Heroic action per phase.
This is consistent with YEARS of FAQ's dealing with people trying to abuse the Heroic Action function, particularly by trying to chain together heroic combats and essentially end the game in 1 turn. I give weight to the GBHL crew as they have been in contact with some people from GW in order to sort these things out for their tournament. Elendil may benefit from a free heroic combat because of his wargear, so having the restriction on him makes him virtually useless under the current rules as he can just be beaten with a Heroic Strike, so benefiting from one of that type of action as opposed to one action only makes complete sense.
To summarise, I would say that the hero CAN move as part of the heroic combat, but obviously would not be able to move on again if he joined yet another successful Heroic Combat. Also, as It states that heroic actions must be called at the start of the phase, technically you could NOT call a heroic strike when joining a second combat, as it is no longer the start of a phase - another model in the same fight would be required to do so.

6. Lastly, A Mumak commander cannot Heroic Strike to increase the Mumaks FV. He can only do this is his own base is in contact with an enemy (who may have jumped in the Howdah). He cannot use fate on behalf of the Mumak, though he can make courage checks, as is described in the Fallen Realms source book.

TLDR/Short form summary.
A Mumak counts as charging when it tramples.
A Mumak CANNOT have its trample range increased by Heroic March or a drummer.
A Mumak CAN benefit from a Heroic March IF the caller is within 6" of the Mumak Commander or is the Commander.
A Mumak receives a 3" increase in movement from Heroic March, as it is not Cavalry.
A Mumak CAN trample in the turn it has heroic marched but only if it is as a result of being in a Heroic Combat.
A Mumak CANNOT benefit from a Heroic Move called by any hero other than its commander.
A Mumak CAN use Brutal Power Attacks.
A Mumak CAN trample as part of a Barge Power Attack, but is limited to D6"

_________________
My trade thread
http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=25957&p=325932#p325932
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:24 am 
Elven Warrior
Elven Warrior
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:56 am
Posts: 744
Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia
One more thing, can you clarify the "benefit from one heroic action per phase" using the example of heroic strike and heroic combat as the Heroic Channel is not listed in the same section, so could be an exception.

_________________
My trade thread
http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=25957&p=325932#p325932
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: GBHL Community FAQ.
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:42 pm 
Elven Elder
Elven Elder
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:30 am
Posts: 2793
Location: In the Tardis Bar
Images: 1
The community FAQ is probably due an update, once it is updated I'll change the original link. If anyone else has any questions/ queries etc, please contact either myself, Dr Grant or Cereal Thief.

_________________
12th GBHL 2013.
13th GBHL 2014
9th GBHL 2015



Mid Sussex Wargamers
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: