FAQ Time: Breaking down the August 2023 FAQ

Good morning gamers,

Once again, I find myself on vacation when the FAQs drop, but that doesn't keep me from looking up what's new for the game! With very little new content released for the game this year, I was kind of curious what would come out of this new batch of rules - would it be a slight modification to the game we love (like the last set)? Or would they finally get through the (moderated) laundry list of things I requested (they have answered one of my questions a time or two). For those who want to jump straight to the source material, you can find the article here and the FAQ page here (though admittedly, the FAQ page doesn't seem to open reliably - you have to refresh a few times sometimes). Let's get into the changes!

Photo Credit: Reddit 
I say this in every one of these posts - this is always me at the start of February and August . . . always . . .

What Didn't Have Changes - and Battle Companies

While fewer sourcebooks received no love this time than last time, we did have a few that escaped edits this time around. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Fall of the Necromancer supplement has no changes, but on a sadder note for me, the Quest of the Ringbearer sourcebook also had no updates. Perhaps I was too late in my email with recommended changes (and clarification questions) from Fantasy Fellowships, but alas, I'll have to wait at least 6 months before my questions about scenarios and model substitutions are answered . . .

In other news, the red-headed-cousin of MESBG (Battle Companies) had two changes - heroes don't increase their points value when they gain heroic actions (unlike stats/special rules/war gear) and heroes who don't have armor (like Uruk-Hai Berserkers) can't get armor or upgrade it.

Q: Do Heroic Actions gained by a Hero increase their points cost? (p.9) A: No.

Q: If a Hero isn’t wearing any type of armour, but a member of their Battle Company has the ability to take a type of armour (armour, heavy armour, etc.), can the Hero purchase a type of armour from the Armoury? (p.73) A: No. The only option a Hero has is to upgrade armour to heavy armour. If the Hero doesn’t have any armour then they cannot choose this option. This will likely be because the Hero in question has made a name for themselves as a ranger, scout or some similar role that doesn’t require armour and taking some would only hinder their natural talents.

While some of you may play Battle Companies and might mourn the lack of attention to certain sourcebooks, that's not why you're here - let's get the boring stuff out of the way and then we'll dive into the meat of the newest changes to MESBG . . .

Rules that Worked Like We Thought

There's always a few of these - questions that we read the answers to and we're like, "Well . . . yeah . . . I knew that one." This isn't to discredit anyone who wrote them - they're good questions to ask and good answers to have officially clarified - but I'm not going to provide any commentary on them. I will say that the one on the Great Beast I asked a year ago and it finally got clarified:

Q: If a model making a Duel roll would have a modifier applied to their roll, and they choose to re-roll due to the effect of a banner, special rule or some other effect, does the modifier also apply to the re-roll? (Main Rulebook, p.45) A: Yes.

Q: Can a Monster that has been Immobilised/Transfixed still use Brutal Power Attacks? (Main Rulebook, p.79) A: No.

Q: If a Hero with a two-handed weapon rolls a 6 in their Duel roll, which then suffers a -1 penalty due to the rules for two-handed weapons, can they then use a Might point to boost the rolls back up to a 6? (Main Rulebook, p.85) A: Yes. The roll has essentially been changed from a 6 to a 5, and so the Might point can be used to boost it back up to a 6.

Q: Does the Piercing Strike Special Strike increase a model’s Strength for the purpose of special rules such as Monstrous Charge? (Main Rulebook, p.89 & 110) A: No. Piercing Strike only increases a model’s Strength for the purpose of making Strikes.

Q: If Legolas uses his Deadly Shot special rule to hit any target on a 2+ and then rolls a 1, can he use a point of Might to turn the 1 into a 2 and therefore hit? (Armies of the Lord of the Rings, p.13) A: Yes.

 Q: Is the Great Beast of Gorgoroth a Battlefield Target or a Siege Target? (Armies of the Lord of the Rings, p.146) A: As it has the Monster keyword and is not mentioned in the list of Siege Targets, it is a Battlefield Target. Its Howdah is also a Battlefield Target.

Q: When Beorn (or Grimbeorn) uses the Crushing Strength Brutal Power Attack, if the target saves a Wound with Fate does this stop Beorn from rolling again for another Strength 10 hit? (Armies of the Hobbit, p.81) A: No. Beorn (or Grimbeorn) will continue to inflict Strength 10 hits until he fails a To Wound roll.

Q: When during a turn can Lotho Sackville-Baggins use his Considerable Wealth special rule, and how long do the effects last for? (Scouring of the Shire, p.51) A: The first bullet point states Lotho can use it when an enemy model declares a Charge against him. The other two can be used at any point in a turn. In all cases, the effects last until the end of the turn.

Q: What exactly can Grimbeorn (and as a result, Beornings) be allied with outside of the Beornings Legendary Legion? (Defence of the North, p.68) A: Treat Grimbeorn in the same manner as all other Wanderers in the Wild. As a result, Grimbeorn has his own list of what he can ally with provided in his profile. Beornings can then be included in Grimbeorn’s warband as normal.

Q: When Razgûsh’s War Leader of the North special rule references Orc Captains, is that only the Orc Captain profile or any profile that includes the words Orc Captain, such as Zagdûsh, Orc Captain; Morannon Orc Captain or Gorbag, Orc Captain? (Defence of the North, p.80) A: Only the Orc Captain profile.

Rules that Got Changed

Sneaking around amongst these other innocuous questions are two changes that actually DO change the rules. The first relates to the Master of Lake-town. He has a rule (Dragon-sickness) that has the opposing player nominate a hero who can offer the Master a large sum of money to flee the board - and if the two ever come into contact with each other, the Master is lost as a casualty. In practice, this was written down secretly or something, but now it has to be revealed to the Master's controlling player at the start of the game:

Q: When an opponent selects one of their Hero models to be the bearer of a large sum of gold as per the Master of Lake-town’s Dragon-sickness special rule, do they have to tell the Master’s controlling player which Hero they have selected? (Armies of the Hobbit, p.45) A: Yes.

We'll come back to the Master a bit later - he had one other significant change. *ominous foreshadowing* Additionally, Heroic Defense saw a change - the text for this rule says, "If the Hero would usually have been wounded on a 6/4+, 6/5+, or 6/6, then they will only be wounded if both rolls are natural rolls." Now, it's been clarified that both rolls have to be natural 6s, not just a natural 6 followed by a natural 4+ or what-not:

Q: If a Hero has declared a Heroic Defence and would normally be wounded on a 6/4+, then do both rolls now have to be a natural 6 as per the rules for Heroic Defence? (Main Rulebook, p.74) A: Yes.

I like this change a lot - the first time I read Heroic Defense, I thought that both rolls became 6s and it turns out, I was right. :-) Okay, let's get a few more boring things out of the way . . .

Scenarios and Terrain

It's good to get clarifications on scenarios and the first one we're hitting is a common question that we've had here at TMAT: where do you deploy siege engines when you don't have "a board edge." In two scenarios (Divide and Conquer and Storm the Camp), you have a corner (or two) and it's always been a question where your siege engines deploy - is it just "in one of the corners"? Or does it have to be on a specific board edge that is in your corner? This conundrum has been answered as follows: you choose a board edge touching one of your corners, but you have to deploy in the deployment zone as normal. The full text is as follows:

Q: In a Scenario where you deploy your army in a corner (such as Divide & Conquer or Storm the Camp), which table edge counts as the player’s board edge for the purpose of deploying a Siege Engine? (Main Rulebook, p.121) A: The player who decides their table edge first may choose any table edge touching their deployment zone as their table edge. However, in these Scenarios a Siege Engine must still be deployed in your deployment zone as normal.

I'm not sure if this makes it harder for siege engines without volley fire or not, but it's good to have it clarified for us to know. There was another question related to siege engines and the Clash by Moonlight Scenario - models with area effect rules don't get +1 To Wound on their collateral hits: 

Q: If when a Siege Engine lands a hit it would also deal a hit to other models within a certain range of the initially hit model (such as the Area Effect rule of the Gondor Battlecry Trebuchet), do these additional hits also gain the +1 To Wound in the A Clash By Moonlight Scenario? (Matched Play Guide, p.16) A: No.

If you like these kinds of siege engines (I like some of them), this could be a big change for you - though a S5 or S6 collateral hit is already quite likely to wound. There was also a question about Doubles scenarios - I've never played in a doubles tournament (though we've batted around the idea), but apparently scenarios that end at a quarter end when the alliance (and not a single member of the alliance) is quartered:

Q: In Doubles Scenarios, when a Scenario says that it continues until one force is reduced to 25% of its starting numbers, does this mean one player’s force, or the entire doubles army? (Matched Play Guide, p.32-37) A: The entire doubles army.

This makes sense to me. The last change we have to the general rules of the game has to deal with terrain: apparently a wall can stop models on the other side of the wall from being hurt by demolition charges (though the wall itself is, I believe, still removed):

Q: When a demolition charge explodes, does it hit models that are in range, but on the other side of a piece of tall impassable terrain such as a wall, rockface or equivalent? (Main Rulebook, p.122) A: No.

Okay, we're starting to get to the juicy stuff - before we jump into the meat of the erratas, we have one more profile to look at . . .

The Dragon Emperor

If anyone has enough clout to get his own section of the FAQs AGAIN, it's the Dragon Emperor. I mean, this model is so unique in the range, that it shouldn't be surprising that people are finding new questions to ask about him. Our first stop has to deal with the number of wounds he takes from Sorcerous Blast (presumably because his mount can become up to 6 models). As I expected, he's a single model, so he takes 1 wound:

Q: If a Magical Power such as Sorcerous Blast or Tremor hits the Dragon Emperor of Rhûn whilst he is riding his Royal Palanquin, how many hits will the Royal Palanquin take? (Defence of the North, p.73) A: One. The Royal Palanquin is essentially a single mount with 6 Wounds, and should be treated as such. When the Dragon Emperor dismounts, you simply replace the Royal Palanquin with a number of Black Dragons equal to its remaining Wounds. 

Makes sense to me - though this doesn't qualify as a "we thought it worked this way," because . . . well, it was living in a legitimate gray area. Additionally, we have a question about what the Palanquin bearers can do if the Dragon Emperor dismounts as part of a Heroic Combat move. A sneaky bit of shenanigans was probably planned once with this in mind, but as it happens, the newly-minted Black Dragons can't move with the Emperor in a Heroic Combat if he dismounts:

Q: If the Dragon Emperor of Rhûn dismounts either normally or as part of a Heroic Combat, can the Black Dragons that replace the Royal Palanquin move themselves during that move or Heroic Combat? (Defence of the North, p.73) A: No.

Looks like there's yet-another-reason to just stay on the Palanquin. Okay, we've finally reached the meat of the FAQ - changes to some of the most dangerous Legendary Legions on the block!

Legendary Legions

I'd like to begin by noting that this is the first section we've covered so far with erratas in it - changes to printed rules instead of just clarification questions/answers. As a general rule, I like when changes are made that are minor but have a sufficient impact to make their changes necessary. In previous FAQ drops, we've seen subtle changes to lists like the Black Riders Legendary Legion that forbade them for spending their last point of Will to cast a spell, eliminating the threat of them nuking themselves off the table to win a select few scenarios in 15 minutes. As a preview for what you're about to see, I think most of these changes meet this bill - they're small changes that should have a big impact, but not make the Legions or lists themselves unplayable.

Our first stop is the Defence of the North book - this sourcebook has some of the most competitive Legions in the meta right now and our first ticket is with "the bears." The Beornings Legendary Legion is renowned for its elite (but expensive) troops and its super tough (but expensive) double-bear heroes. The Great Resilience special rule that gave the bears a 5+ save before spending Fate points got changed to be a natural 6 save . . . which was a very tactful way of changing the Legion without making it obsolete:

Defence of the North, Page 91 – The Beornings – Great Resilience Change the second sentence to read: On a natural 6 the Wound is ignored just as if a point of Fate had been spent. 

The Beornings list is still going to work the way it always has - the Bears just have a Fury save now instead of a Malbeth save. If you make it past the F8/3A with Monstrous Charge and then wound against D8, having a natural 6 save instead of a mightable 5+ save will see the bears taking more damage than before, but it's still hard to do (and if you've been playing with Durin at any point in the last 15+ years since his profile was released, you're used to this).

Our next stop is the other notorious Legion in Defence of the North, the Assault on Lothlorien Legion. There were four edits to this Legion - two questions and two errata. The erratas are what have everyone talking: Muzgur has to be your army leader and you can't have more Goblins in your army than Orcs:

Defence of the North, Page 97 – Assault on Lothlórien – Additional Rules Add the following to the first bullet point: Muzgúr must always be the army’s leader. 

Defence of the North, Page 97 – Assault on Lothlórien – Additional Rules Add the following bullet point: This Legendary Legion may not include more Goblin models than Orc models.

I riped that bandage off pretty quick, huh? Muzgur being the army leader doesn't hurt my head - it just means you can't be as aggressive with him as you used to be when Druzhag was your army leader (because he was, wasn't he?). In one scenario only (Contest of Champions), you can get better mileage out of Muzgur anyway (F4/2A instead of F3/1A and the ability to transfix a warrior you're fighting/get back the Will point if you kill him), but in all the other scenarios, Muzgur has probably slanted into a wait-until-the-end-of-the-game-to-come-out kind of army leader . . . which is pretty much what Druzhag was doing in the first place.

The not being able to take more Goblins than Orcs is what probably has most players spun up . . . to which I will simply recommend a humble article written last year by yours truly about why I like having two warbands of Orcs in my Assault on Lothlorien lists. The lists in that article need very few changes to accommodate the most recent erratas (swap 2 Wild Wargs for 2 Orc Warriors with shields and spears in the 500pt list; the 700pt list is fine as-is), but this isn't to say that the change isn't huge. The more spiders you take, the less this change will hurt you - if you took more than the "previously recommended" 6-8 Orcs for F3 spears and a banner. Most armies can probably be "fixed" by changing their Goblin Shaman to an Orc Shaman and upgrading all his guys to Orcs. You may also have to run more Bats/Wild Wargs instead of Prowlers, but it should transfer pretty smoothly.

The big winner from this change, in my humble opinion, is the Orc Tracker - yes, we'll probably see more Orc Warriors than before, but Orc Trackers were never that much worse than Goblin Warriors with Orc bows. 12" range is a limit on these guys, but once your opponent is within the 12" range (6" less than the Goblin bowmen have), that 4+ Shoot Value is quite useful. While they will confer on the opponent +1 To Wound them because they don't have Cave Dweller, you can tuck them behind Goblin archers (or behind terrain - don't forget about terrain) and they might last almost as long as their Goblin cousins. You can also get them Wargs to make them faster and replace a Spider or two (which can also see them reduce the range disparity as well). If you're worried about them getting shot, you can put Moria Goblins in front of them to provide no-plus-one-to-wound in-the-ways. For the same number of points base as the Goblin bowmen, I think they're worth investigating.

But I wouldn't drop all the Goblin bows - in the comment threads on Rythbyrt's post, I mentioned Trackers were pretty good and it was pointed out that the Goblin bowmen can shoot where other armies can't - and that's still true and valuable. If you were fielding 20 Goblin bowmen before, my recommendation would be to have a mix (maybe 2:1) of Goblin bows and Trackers. Depending on how much you like Prowlers vs. some Goblin shield guys to stand in the front, you probably only 2-3 Goblin heroes in your list - the other heroes can be Orcs and I think it'll work out just fine.

The two FAQs on the Assault on Lothlorien Legion are interesting - Druzhag can't take Fell Wargs (they're listed in his profile, but not the Legion) and supporting models don't get the +1 To Wound bonus from Ruthless Savagery:

Q: In the Assault on Lothlórien Legendary Legion, can Drûzhag take Fell Wargs in his warband even though they are not listed as part of the Legendary Legion? (Defence of the North, p.97) A: No.

Q: In the Assault on Lothlórien Legendary Legion, do supporting models gain the +1 bonus To Wound for the Ruthless Savagery special rule? (Defence of the North, p.97) A: No.

Before any of you say, "Well of course you can't get the +1 To Wound from Ruthless Savagery," the rule doesn't actually say that the engaged models get the bonus - it says that "friendly models" do. I've asked this question a bunch of times with regard to the Black Gate Opens Legendary Legion (which has the exact same wording in its Hordes of Mordor special rule) and it's never been answered - until now. Speaking of that . . . 

Q: In the Black Gate Opens Legendary Legion, do supporting models gain the +1 bonus To Wound for the Hordes of Mordor special rule? (Gondor at War, p.119) A: No.

I'm so happy when mail sent in long ago finally gets answered. :-) Our last Legion change (an errata, not an FAQ) has to deal with the newest bane of my existence: the Assault Upon Helm's Deep Legendary Legion. This Legion has been on the top-tables list for a while (Centaur even voted them best Evil Legendary Legion) but they got a simple-but-effective fix: they only reroll 1s now instead of all failed To Hit/Scatter rolls:

War in Rohan, Page 95 – Assault Upon Helm’s Deep – Break the Walls Change the first sentence to read: Isengard Ballistae from this army list may re-roll results of a 1 for To Hit and Scatter rolls during the Shoot phase.

This is a good thing - removing the reroll on 3s is fine while a siege veteran has his Might Point left and rerolling 1s is consistent with the Iron Hills Ballista. Functionally in most games, I don't think this will hurt the Assault Upon Helm's Deep players that much, but it does give a little breathing room for their opponents if they get a 2 (or a 3 after the siege vet's Might has been spent). Rythbyrt isn't convinced that three ballistas is a guarantee - and maybe it isn't - but I don't think the list has been broken. Okay, we only have two other changes to look at - and boy are they DOOZIES!

The Other Real Stuff

The first change takes us back to where we started - the Master of Lake-town. Because he's so awesome (and selfish and self-absorbed and . . .), he gets a new special rule:

Armies of the Hobbit, Page 45 – Master of Lake-town Add the following special rule: “Who would have the nerve to question my authority?” (Passive) – The Master of Lake-town trusts no one, and doesn’t take kindly to others undermining his rule. If your army contains the Master of Lake-town then he must be your leader, regardless of the Heroic Tier of other Hero models in your army (unless your army includes another Hero with a similar rule). Additionally, if you are including an Army of Lake-town allied contingent as part of a Convenient Alliance or Impossible Alliance, then the Master counts as a Hero of Fortitude – both when building your army and during the course of the game.

So . . . Bard is required to ally with anyone besides Thorin's Company now . . . that's cool. Thorin's Company used to be the go-to ally for the Army of Lake-town back before Gwaihir was discovered. Until this FAQ change, it was always going to be more points-efficient to just grab Gwaihir than to grab one big hitter from Thorin's Company with a supporting hero (like Thorin + Ori/Balin/Bombur) or two big hitters (like Dwalin + Dori/Nori/Gloin). To get Gwaihir in the list now, you'll need to get Bard AND Gwaihir - which can still get you a 50-man list at 700pts, but not a 60-man list like we were seeing before.

In general, I think this is a good place for Lake-town to be: everyone knew that a 400-pt, 42-man Army of Lake-town list with the Master, Braga, and Alfrid was possible. At 700 points, this means you could add 2 Lake-town Guard Captains with almost full warbands and Gwaihir - that's a mid-60s list. At 800 points, you can just pick up another Lake-town Guard Captain with 9-10 guys to boost your numbers to a mid-70s list. Now, you CAN do something like this, but you'll need to drop one of the Lake-town Guard warbands for Bard. I put it to you that a Gwaihir-Bard-Master-Alfrid-Braga list that has 52 models at 700 points can still be competitive (this list doesn't run the girls though - you'd need to drop 5-6 Lake-town Guard for them):

• Army of Lake-town: Bard the Bowman with horse and armor
• 7 Lake-town Guard
• 2 Lake-town Guard with spears
• 5 Lake-town Guard with spears and bows
• Army of Lake-town: The Master of Lake-town [ARMY LEADER]
• 6 Lake-town Guard
• 6 Lake-town Guard with spears and bows
• Army of Lake-town: Alfrid the Councilor
• 5 Lake-town Guard
• 5 Lake-town Guard with spears and bows
• Army of Lake-town: Braga, Captain of the Guard
• 5 Lake-town Guard
• 6 Lake-town Guard with spears
• CONVENIENT ALLY - The Misty Mountains OR Radagast's Alliance: Gwaihir

Perhaps an unintended consequence of this special rule is that Galadriel, Lady of Light is now all but impossible to ally with Lake-town while still keeping your numbers up. In the post I wrote about the FAQ that changed her to Fortitude, I pointed that you could just run her with Celeborn/Glorfindel/Elrond instead of Gwaihir and get her into Lake-town lists almost as-is. Gwaihir has distinct advantages over both of these heroes, but now, to get the Lady of Light into Lake-town, you'd need Bard AND Celeborn AND Galadriel.

But this begs an important question: if you're looking to ally with anyone besides Thorin's Company, how much do you need the Master? Yes, getting F4 within 6" of him is valuable. But with F5 Easterlings being a thing, you COULD run Bard with Alfrid, the girls, and a Lake-town Guard Captain and full warbands for ~460pts - that's only 60pts more than before and you can fully ally with other factions and get a roughly 40-model/450pt alliance. If you want to make up for the F4 loss, ally with Dwarves or Elves or something.

Our final change - and perhaps the biggest change in this iteration of the FAQs - has to do with In The Way rolls directed at war beasts and flying monster models. I'll let the wording speak for itself:

Main Rulebook, Page 39 – In The Way Add the following paragraph to the end of the section: When a model makes a shooting attack that targets a War Beast or a Monster with the Fly special rule, when they are determining models that are In The Way, they ignore models (both friendly and enemy) that do not have any of the following keywords: Monster, Siege Engine, War Beast. If the target model is Engaged in a fight, then the In The Way test for being in combat is still applied.

While everyone was talking about Gulavhar with this rule change, I decided I wanted to take a more expansive look and see what models this actually applies to. As it turns out, here's the list:

• Gwaihir
• Great Eagles
• Ringwraiths on Fell Beasts/Armored Fell Beasts
• Gulavhar, the Terror of Arnor
• Great Beasts of Gorgoroth (who, as we've already mentioned, are battlefield targets)
• Dragons with Wings
• War Mumaks of Harad/Far Harad
• The Mumak War Leader
• Smaug

This covers most of the flyers in the game (not War Bats, Bat Swarms, and Crebain) and with the exception of one model (Gulavhar), the monsters being targeted (or the riders on said monsters) have pretty high Defense (6-9, depending on their upgrades). For most shooting attacks that aren't siege weapons, these kinds of models are pretty hard to kill - which is probably why Gulavhar is drawing all the attention. Still, siege weapons that shoot at any Eagle models, Dragon models, or Fell Beasts are still going to hit most of the time - and if it's a direct line of sight shot, then all the Orcs, Goblins, or the aforementioned Lake-town horde that would usually stand in the way are suddenly not doing anything. Of course, depending on how high your flying model is on his stand, that may have already been the case . . .

There are some ways to work around this, though. Other "large things" can still block line of sight, and all of these monsters can have other monsters in their list (Cave Trolls for Angmar/Moria, Mordor Trolls for Fell Beasts, other Eagles for Gwaihir/Great Eagles). Traditional blocking terrain (such as buildings, trees, or mountains/hills) remain a staple for protecting your flying models.

But this change actually does far more for the game than just make Gulavhar harder to protect - it changes an assumption about what's actually happening on the tabletop in-game. Before this rule existed, there were often questions posed by newer players in the Facebook groups (and we've probably all asked this question at least once here at TMAT) about whether you could charge a flying model. I mean, he's flying, right? So how can a model with a sword fight him if he's 10-feet or 20-feet off the ground (or roughly 3- to 6-meters off the ground for you metric users out there)? It was functionally understood that a flying model would start on the ground (could be charged), fly for up to 12" (or longer if given extra movement from a war drum or a Heroic March), and then "land" or "charge," which is why it could then be subsequently charged and fought. Now, it would appear that models that fly are still in the air (or at least above the heads of their lowly grunt followers) during the Shoot Phase.

While I'm not advocating for further changing the rules for fliers (e.g. "you can only charge a flying monster model - or any flying model - if it's charged this turn or interacted with an objective"), I feel like this change does more for the perception of the game, rather than the actual rules of the game - Gulavhar often tries to use terrain to shield him from shooting against gunline armies anyway (and that hasn't changed). Fell Beasts are often careful not to expose themselves unnecessarily to archery, but might bring along a Troll Drummer now for added movement and directional protection from archery (or at least, my recent Fell Beast Mordor lists have been including one). No matter how you cut it, it might be easier to hit flying monsters with shooting than ever before, but you'll still have to wound them and they're going to lean harder into their time-honored tricks of using terrain to their advantage than ever before. So . . . things will change, but some things might not change.

Conclusion

If you haven't read Rythbyrt's article on this round of FAQs, you should - I've tried to take an even-keel approach to it (I'm fine with most of them), but if you have comments, think I've missed something, or am just mistaken about the impacts of some of these things, let us know in the comments below! Until next time, happy hobbying!