An MT in a Shieldwall has D7. He loses the fight...and loses a Defense point?

Yes, the game mechanic has him backing away, so technically RAW, he is no longer in contact with two friends. That is the Letter of the rule--but is that the intended Spirit...what the rule was realistically supposed to represent?

This legalistic interpretation nullifies the Shieldwall special rule. If losing also means losing a Defense point, the Shieldwall rule is void. You only need Defense if losing, so why bother writing it if it gives no advantage to the loser?

This legalistic interpretation is also painfully unrealistic. Backing away after losing is only figurative, in order to make the fight clear and test for trapped. Realistically, the loser does not retreat five feet, out of weapon range, then wait for a strike.

Therefore, Defense should be determined when the fight is resolved--not after backing away. Realistically...and as the rule was intended.

Unless I am wrong. A post from a year ago had the loser losing a Defense point and went uncorrected. Has there been a FAQ since?

I think you are correct to say that if the Minas Tirith warrior loses the fight, he drops a defence point and is forced to back away. But the argument would be that shieldwall is still a useful rule, because:

The warriors remain defence 7 against arrows. If hit by an arrow they don't back away. This particularly helps against strength 2 orc bows.

If you have a formation of swords & shields first rank, then spears & shields second rank, you may be able to back away in such a fashion that you remain in base contact with two other shields at the end of the back-away move, and thus retain the bonus.

You can also buy the Forgeworld model Ingold, whose troops don't back away, and therefore stay at defence 7 even in combat.

So, it's not quite as good as it first appears, but is still a useful rule.

Yes, this is the classic, RAW interpretation.

I am questioning this interpretation...and likely need to submit a FAQ request.

Yes, fine for bows (but like the Beserker nerf, weak & secondary).
Yes, Ingold (created to counter Shieldwall weakness? If so, perhaps this weakness was intentional...or became Fixed with use?)
Yes, support shields would allow backing into renewed Shieldwall rule--but at such a tactical cost! Front shields become FV 3 if support shields are normal Minas Tirith.
Only expensive Fountain Crt w/ Spear&Shield could maintain MT as an FV 4 army...three points per model more than Rangers. Viable?

Shieldwall rule nullified by losing the fight? Again, was this the intention of the rule?

I believe that the RAW interpretation is the correct one even if it makes the power weaker than it otherwise might be. My chief point of support for this believe is that Ingold was released with a special rule that was aimed at making it more useful. Thereby, increasing the importance of the new hero over existing ones. Which is definitely a marketing ploy to sell Ingold models. If shieldwall worked as you suppose it might have been meant to, then Ingold's rule would much less useful and less of a selling point. Plus, the shieldwall rule has been played RAW since it was introduced with the Iron Hills in the last edition. If the middle earth team wanted it done another way they could have changed things during the new edition or in the FAQ up to this point.

I suppose you are right about needing to email the guys at GW if you want to know for use if that is what they wanted for sure. I just don't think anything else is very likely.

On the FV 4 support matter, however, I have seen rangers do the job very well if a player uses cavalry and a smaller number of warriors with shield and spear to balance the bow limit. It becomes a decent def 7 firing line. Also, veterans with the brothers, the banner of the white tower, and citadel guard can all get your line to fight 4 without paying more that you would for warriors with shields.

_________________
"Draw your sword with a heavy heart, but swing it with a heavy hand"