here is hoping for the best.

Me too!

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

So what are the topics covered in the communications to GW?
Legendary formations costs
Heroic shoot with crossbows (including/excluding at the double! and/or heroic moving?)
Back-and-forth of counselor might generation
On what exact conditions does the 5+ wound bounce of Khamûl the Easterling take effect? Does it work in duels, to avoid wounds caused by strength from corruption, etc.?

Now that we know that there is not an FAQ in the Battlehosts book, we really need to press GW for an FAQ for WOTR. If they want people to play the game they need to support the rules. The Skaven already have an FAQ and they were released six months later than WOTR.

I appreciate your comments but unfortunately the original post was lost when TLA disappeared for a while and some vital explanation went missing (and I couldn't be bothered to re-create it all as I had already lost interest in WOTR by then due the "power-gaming combos", no official FAQ, and excessive magic)
In that post I made clear that my FAQ included my suggested answers, justified where I could. However, where there is no clear answer in the rulebook, I made my best guess.
This was not because I thought I had better knowledge than anyone else but to define the answer for the club I play at. Having an agreed errata (whether ultimately correct or not) seemed better than a debate starting in the middle of a game.

I suggested that other players could use my FAQ as a basis on which to make their own decisions. If a group disagree with me then change the answer for your games. However, if you play against a player you dont know, the FAQ can be a checklist so that you can quickly establish common rule interpretations (which may differ from mine).

Also, the original document was formatted to show which answers I thought were were obvious but the wording confusing, and those that really needed to be clarified. Having spoken to Matt Ward, I already know my FAQ is incorrect regarding cavalry (ie you get Charge bonus whoever you fight, not just the units you charge). However, the lack of official answers mean that I have no time for WOTR now. If an FAQ had followed quickly I would have given it another try.

I hope this makes it clearer. Use the FAQ as a reference and if you disgree, write down your own decision. But you DO NEED to decide your own interpretation on these points. Otherwise how can you play the game ?



So, when an issue crops up what do you do ? You make a decision. This is a houserule. All I've done is publish my thoughts so that others can use them or not.

The clue is the word "suggested". Unlike some people who post about rules, I dont maintain " I know this is the correct interpretation". The FAQ is MY OPINION.

Hopefully it is helpful

It seems my wording wasn't great and that I may have caused offence, in which case I really apologise. I merely meant that where rules are stated explicitly, that's how it should be played (unless, like in your case, a group houserule is created) until an errata says otherwise. Having said that, the questions raised by your FAQ are ones that we should probably ask

Hope I've cleared that up somewhat.

No problem, I wasnt offended.
I just didnt want it to seem that I was claiming to know the answers - i dont.

Because I didnt type up all the explanation that used to be on TLA I can appreciate you thought I was trying to post definitive answers (which I wasn't. I was just putting a marker in the sand that everyone could refer to and had also been submitted to GW).

I dont look at WOTR posts much (or even SBG much recently to be honest) hence the delay in replying.

The only reason I saw the thread was that someone on the new TLA had posted my original FAQ claiming they had compiled it. Given the time and effort I spent on it, I wasnt impressed !

I hope now you'll see the FAQ in a better light

Ian

A little over 6 weeks now. Any word back on the FAQ question, or even ack that they received it? They could always answer a couple for us even if they don't have all the answers right away.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

I know of whom you speak and is a major troll.

Made one post there and he jumped all over me for not agreeing with him.

That was the last time I will ever post on that forum. Any issues about WotR there are less than constructive and more akin to "That game is sooo dumb!" which is funny since the money made from WotR is basically keeping SBG alive and models continued to be made.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/conte ... 5a&start=2

Its finally here

Wait, it is?!? *goes and looks*

I was half expecting to get Rick Rolled (not because of my opinion of you arcade81, just because it seemed so unlikely to ever arrive, lol ).

Will edit with comments.

EDIT: It seems pretty complete and answers most of the key questions, but it also has some bits that make you sit up and wonder. Formations may about face for free, but they still don't have the movment to turn 90 degrees for example. At one point a question is asked and an answer of No. is given, but it doesn't say what you SHOULD do. The main thing that I have noticed is missing is that it doesn't state what happens when you fail a Terror test and have two-handed weapons, although it may say in the rulebook that 0 is the lowest (which I don't have to hand).

Hazzah!

My blisteringly excited first impressions are on my local board here:

WoTR FAQ Comments

_________________
Do not Visit this blog: Midloo

Finally!

It answers most of the rules questions.

Sadly it does not errata the counselor ability to prevent heroes from getting infinite might. This is something that I was expecting and am very surprised that they overlooked.

Here are a few that I am still wondering about.

If Strength from Corruption is cast on a unit multiple times (by using several wizards) and then Enfeeble is used as a counterspell, what happens? Are the effects of all of the Strength from Corruptions countered? Does the Enfeeble spell counter a single one of the Strength from Corruptions? Are any models that were removed because of hits from the Strength from Corruption revived if the spell is countered?

Does a unit with spirit grasp use the base courage of the formation that it is attacking or the courage of a hero in that formation?

Does the Overlord rule allow a friendly formation that does not have a hero or epic hero to call a heroic action using the overlord's might? I assume the answer is that you can't.

Can a flying monster can charge over other formations (it can move over them in the movement phase), although it must still be able to see its target? I assume the answer is yes.

That's a good way to sum it up.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

No terror immune/not immune to terror answer?

(although I haven't really been following any discussions about it, is there a concensus on it?)

Nice to see the clarification that Tremor doesn't effect your own formation, as well as making it completely clear that a Shade can still take your opponent's mighty Epic Strike Hero and turn him into a Fight 2 worm. Now your Goblin Captain can thwack Celeborn.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

for strength of corruption and enfeeble I would say yes it would counter all the strength of corruptions and the models that were killed as a result of strength of corruption do not revive, the are already dead!

formations would strike against the courage value that the formation is using, which would likely be the heroes as its usually the highest. this is quite logical when you think about it as the presence of the hero would embolden the troops and make them less vulnerable to this sort of thing.

GW already implied both in the summary at the back of the book and in one of their articles that overlord can be used on formations that don't already have a hero, which was likely the intended value of the rule in the first place as formations that already have a hero usually won't have much use for this rule.

yes flying monsters can charge over other formations and terrain providing they can see their target at the beggining of their charge.

_________________
"Thou fool! No living man may hinder me!"
Witch King, RoTK

It doesn't allow infinite might... each stat can go up to 10. I know 10 Might is a lot, but you can only use each hero to councell once per turn -> ie. he can use say 3 might to give 3, then receive 5 back but can't give the 5 back again in the same turn.


Whatever you're referring to is not a definite rulling. The rule itself is pretty clear that you can only use overlord's might instead of your own, therefore if you don't have any, you cannot use it. GW articles often contain mistakes and should never be used as definitive rullings...


It's the same as in LotR, ie. you were never immune if you yourself caused Terror.


And to the subject: I love the fact that GW finally gave us something useful

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League

it may not be a 'definite' ruling per say, but the ambiguity of the rules leaves it open to interpretation and seeing as that seems to be GW's intended use of its own ruleset I'm willing to go along with it. I don't see why it needs to be such a point of contention when it seems clear thats the way they intended the rule to work.

_________________
"Thou fool! No living man may hinder me!"
Witch King, RoTK