FAQ Time: Reviewing the February 2024 FAQs

Good morning gamers,

I know I said we would do Thursday posts every other week this year, but golly I couldn't wait two weeks to cover the FAQ drop, now could I? I'll admit it - I was a little afraid we weren't going to get a February FAQ, but surprise, surprise, the GW MESBG team does in fact love us and dropped us an FAQ . . . albeit the shortest FAQ we've gotten to date. Perhaps this means the game is in a good place - and it probably means they didn't read my mail again (or just wrote it off as the antics of a crazy man). Still, it's good to get some updated content for MESBG, so without further ado, let's get into the changes!

Photo Credit: Reddit 
Where is it? Did they fix all those things I asked about for Fantasy Fellowships and the Men of the West? No? Oh well . . .

What Didn't Have Changes

This time around, there were only changes to four of the GW supplements - the main rulebook, the Armies of the Lord of the Rings, Defence of the North, and the Matched Play Guide. If you're interested in any of the other sourcebooks, you can look at our article for the August 2023 FAQ (or in the case of Quest of the Ringbearer and Fall of the Necromancer, before then).

While I don't have any insider knowledge, it would appear that the older supplements are being left alone unless there are game-altering changes that need to be made. In my humble opinion, this is a real shame - mostly since the errata requests I submitted were tied to clarifying things about certain scenarios from the older books (all tied to Fantasy Fellowships - which I think is a great way to keep the game entertaining and interesting for players who have been in the game for a long time . . . and it can make you buy hero models that you'd otherwise avoid picking up) and to Legendary Legions that have been chucked to the wayside by competitive players (though my hat off to the guy who won a GBHL90 event with the Men of the West - you are truly a legend).

Right or wrong, the only non-rules-heavy supplement that got any changes was Defence of the North - which, honestly, was totally expected (or for you double-negative lovers out there, wasn't unexpected). Before we dig into the meat that we got in this release, let's take a quick look at rules that got clarified and worked as we expected (and by "we," I mean us here at TMAT - I know these have come up before and we ruled on them the way the FAQs said).

Rules that Worked Like We Thought

One of the highlights in the announcement article was about whether models can charge other models if they start in a hostile model's control zone. We've all been there - we want to charge into a model that's nearby, but we're stuck facing a Heroic Defense hero that we can't chop through and because of the way Making Way works in MESBG, we ended up starting in his control zone. Best I can tell, the request for clarity on whether you can charge one model when you start in another hostile model's control zone is that there are bullet points that indicate what you can do when you start in a hostile control zone - and moving out of one model's control zone and charging another model are two different bullet points.

It's been clarified that if a model starts in an enemy control zone and moves away, it can then charge a different enemy model . . . which is good, because I've been doing that for ages. This can be summed up simply by saying that the bullet points are not mutually-exclusive options - you can do more than one as part of your move:

Q: If a model begins its move within an enemy model’s Control Zone and chooses to move away (as one of the options listed), can the model moving away still Charge a different enemy model? (p.26) A: Yes.

Another clarification was made regarding the Unarmed keyword - we know from previous FAQs that a model isn't Unarmed if it just doesn't have a weapon specified in its profile (there's usually a clarification on the profile for whether it's unarmed or not - see Shades in the Angmar list or Tom/Goldberry in the Wanderers in the Wild as examples of this). We also know from the Shatter magical power, that a model will count as being Unarmed if it has its last melee weapon broken. It's been clarified that if a model has a ranged weapon but no melee weapon . . . it is, in fact, Unarmed:

Q: If a model has its melee weapons shattered by the Shatter Magical Power but still has a ranged weapon, does it still count as unarmed? (p.103) A: Yes, as it has no melee weapons.

Finally, in a previous FAQ, there was a big hullabaloo about magical powers that could target a mount and not be resisted unless the model was affected by a special rule that granted it resist dice or had Will of its own. I thought it was pretty clear back then that if the rule that provided resist dice (usually in the form of the Fortity Spirit magical power and the Resistant to Magic special rule) specifically said that the "model" was affected, then both mount and rider would be able to use that rule to protect themselves from magic. As an example, because the Dernhelm profile includes Merry (who has Resistant to Magic), the horse that's keeping Eowyn and Merry together (and a better overall profile than the two of them separately) could roll 1 free die to resist magical powers that target it (like Black Dart or Chill Soul), but couldn't use the Will points of either Eowyn or Merry.

Apparently, there was an uncertainty about Fortify Spirit - probably because, as a magical power, it targets a "rider". But in fact, it affects the whole model, including the mount (and I assume also the passenger while mounted with the rider):

Q: If a Cavalry model has the Fortify Spirit Magical Power cast upon them, will the mount also gain the benefits if they are subsequently targeted separately by an enemy Magical Power? (p.101) A: Yes.

That's it for the simple rules changes - now let's look and see what's been actually changed from before . . .

Rules That Got Changed

Like I said at the beginning, there wasn't a lot that changed in this update. The easiest one for me is that if you choose to do a weapon swap on a model that has multiple weapons (like a Corsair Reaver, Feral Uruk-Hai, or a Mirkwood Ranger), you won't retain the original special strike option:

Q: If a model has two weapons (such as a Dragon Cult Acolyte or a Corsair Reaver) and wishes to swap them for a different type of weapon for 1 point, can they only swap one and therefore use either their original Special Strike and the one for the new weapon? (p.88) A: No. If such a model pays a point to swap their weapons in this manner, they must swap both of them for the same type of weapon.

When I first read this, I was like, "Okay, so they're really getting at the concern that you could both Feint and Piercing Strike at the same time." As written, however, it means that a Mirkwood Ranger that chooses to weapon-swap an Elven-made dagger for an axe will swap ALL of its Elven-made daggers for axes . . . and with it, not only lose the Feint/Stab special strikes, but will also lose the Elven-made keyword for all of its melee attacks. Perhaps this isn't want was intended with the change - or perhaps it was - but that's the way it works now. How often you NEED an Elven-made weapon on your F5 Mirkwood Elves is a decent question to ask . . .

Anyway, this isn't what most of the FAQ drop was focused on - the bigger "change" was how fights are paired off (though it's really more of a clarification on the spirit of the law). For time in memorium, the priority player has always paired off fights the way he wanted them to - and since you have to pair off fights into at least one-on-one fights, whoever had priority would determine how the match-ups worked out. Sometimes you could force certain match-ups - a model that charged into only one model HAD to fight just that one model because . . . there was no one else to fight. What has happened in recent years is that the emphasis on one-on-ones as an option has become the rule - pair off fights into one-on-ones where possible (not as the priority player wants).

This has led to all kinds of crazy anti-hero tricks because you know that a Heroic Combatting hero can only pull off one model when trying to save a friend. Apparently, the idea that you could lock Aragorn or Boromir into only charging one of six angry foes who have swarmed Frodo (instead of two of them) went against what the rule was originally intended to do (make sure you don't have a two-on-two engagement), so the rule that you have to break off into one-on-one fights where possible has been removed, giving the player with Priority the final say in how many people are fighting each combatant:

The Main Rulebook, Page 28 – Pairing Off Fights: Delete the third sentence of the second paragraph which reads: At the end of the Move phase, opponents are always paired off into one-on-one Fights where possible.

This still might mean that Aragorn and Boromir only get into one guy (if the opponent has priority), but it might not (they can, in fact, fight two people). This clarification caused a huge rift in the GBHL (apparently - I stayed away from the FB groups for a reason when this dropped) and has clearly had a far greater impact on perceptions of the game than on how your weapon swaps work - on the whole, I'm glad we got this one.

Okay, let's look at the clarifications for scenarios and deployments . . .

Scenarios and Terrain

I don't know what crazy shenanigan was used to prompt this FAQ, but apparently someone was trying to be squirrelly (literally putting a model high up in a tree or something) and putting an important model in an unreachable, unchargeable area . . . this is, in fact, poor form and not allowed anymore:

Q: Can a model be deployed in or on a piece of terrain that would make it impossible for other models to reach them during the course of a game, such as on top of a pillar, sheer cliff or building with no way to climb? (p.142) A: No.

Moving on (and away from the Main Rulebook and into the Matched Play Guide) - there were two FAQs related to models getting off a board edge in the scenarios where that's a thing (Seize the Prize, Retrieval, and Reconnoitre): first, it's been clarified that you can't use "other means" to get off a board edge besides moving. I don't know who tried to Hurl a model off the board edge or Command/Compelled an enemy model off a board edge (since you can't do that to a friend), used the Knock Back rule to send someone flying for the board edge (which you CAN do with friendly models if you're Evil - wish I'd thought of that . . . kinda . . . not really . . . clearly . . . okay, this is awkward) - you have to do it the old fashioned way and walk off when it's your turn to move:

Q: In Scenarios that allow models to exit the board, can a model exit the board via means other than their own movement, such as Backing Away, being Commanded/ Compelled, being Hurled/ flung back by a Siege Engine, or any other such instance? (p.15, 17 & 25) A: No. A model can only leave the board in these Scenarios via their own movement.

But you can't move through a hostile model's control zone to get off the board - which makes total sense, if you've read our post on control zones (where we covered that entering a hostile model's control zone requires you to charge them or not enter it):

Q: In Scenarios that allow models to exit the board, can a model enter the Control Zone of an enemy model and then move within that enemy model’s Control Zone in order to exit the board? (p.15, 17 & 25) A: No. Once a model enters the Control Zone of an enemy model then it must Charge that model; it cannot exit the board as part of that Charge as then it would no longer be Charging that enemy model.

Finally, in Fog of War (and I assume Assassination), players write down their secret objectives after both sides have deployed - this is great, since you might accidentally give away your intended terrain piece (or target hero) with your deployment if you picked it before . . . and now, you can have a better idea of the initial lay of the land before you commit to up to 6 of your possible Victory Points:

Q: In the Fog of War Scenario, do players secretly write their objectives down before or after deployment? (p.22) A: After both sides have been deployed.

Alright, only a few more things to update on - and it has to do with Ents and Emperors . . .

Ents and Emperors (well, an Emperor)

Besides having large base sizes (though not the same base sizes), there isn't much in common between Ents and the Dragon Emperor of Rhun (well, you're a bit daunted if you see either of them on the other side of the table, but whatever). Apparently, the rules for Bludgeon lead to some very interesting questions - and as usual, the rules for the Dragon Emperor also lead to some very interesting rules questions. Put these two things together, and you get a totally understandable (but for me at least, totally unexpected) FAQ. 

It's been ruled that if an Ent targets the Dragon Emperor with the Bludgeon Brutal Power Attack, the Dragon Emperor will be automatically dismounted and will be whacked into his friends per the usual:

Q: If an Ent model targets the Dragon Emperor with the Bludgeon Brutal Power Attack whilst he is riding his Royal Palanquin, will the Dragon Emperor automatically be dismounted as per the rules for Bludgeon? (p.73) A: Yes.

While this might look like a red-letter day for Ent players everywhere (all, like, seven of them), because a dismounted Dragon Emperor results in 1-6 Black Dragons popping up (based on the number of wounds the Royal Palanquin has left), one should be careful about your positioning if you're going to use this tactic. Yes, dismounting the Dragon Emperor removes a lot of power from the list (like the 12" banner and the 6" +1 FV buff), so I'd certainly be tempted to just dismount him - but if the scenario rewards you for controlling objectives or getting models off the board, you might be in a better place by making strikes at the Emperor or knocking some wounds off the Palanquin instead (like if you outnumber the Dragon Emperor and a friend 3-to-2 with Treebeard on an objective and you don't want that to become 3-to-7). Though even as I write this, I'd probably Bludgeon if I was fighting more than just the Dragon Emperor . . .

Anyway, Bludgeon got another FAQ: you can't target a model that's riding on a Monster with it, since the whole model counts as a Monster . . . which I think I knew before, but I'm not sure that I knew that. Here's the specific wording of the FAQ:

Q: Can an Ent model use the Bludgeon Brutal Power Attack to target a model riding a Monster (such as a Ringwraith on a Fell Beast)? (p.91) A: No, as it is a Monster model.

This got me wondering just how many Monsters there are that can be ridden . . . and the answer is two: Ringwraiths on Fell Beasts and Radagast with a Great Eagle. You'd think that war beasts would fall into this category, but since the models riding on the war beast don't count as being in the same fight (and are, in fact, totally different models), you can't target any of the riders with Bludgeon. So . . . yeah, Ringwraiths (and possibly Radagast) get off easy.

The final change - and probably the most expected change in this release - was that the points cost went up for the Dragon Emperor, both in his Legion and in the normal Easterling army list:

Defence of the North, Page 72 – The Dragon Emperor of Rhûn: Change the Dragon Emperor of Rhûn’s points value to 200, both on his profile and in the Host of the Dragon Emperor Legendary Legion on page 93.

Is a 30pt difference a big change? I don't know - I don't run the Dragon Emperor, nor have I had to fight him yet. Will this dramatically change Easterling lists? I don't think so - yes, a drop in 3-4 models could have a big impact, but it's likely to have less of an impact as the points level gets higher. Since you're already saving 36pts on Black Dragon upgrades on Easterling Warriors and Easterling Kataphrakts in the Legion, you're basically just making the increase in points back by running the Host of the Dragon Emperor Legion (and I would expect to see less of the Dragon Emperor in pure Easterling lists/Easterling alliances now that he costs more points). 

I'll leave it to Easterling players (of which, I am not a member) to weigh in on whether this was a fair change or not, but as for me, if I look back at the lists I wrote for the Host of the Dragon Emperor Legion back in October 2022, you might need to swap Rutabi for a mounted Dragon Knight (which will give you free upgrades to Black Dragons for all the Easterling Warriors) - and that might be a big change. At 700pts, you'd go from 40 models to 36 models if you dropped four 8pt Easterling Warriors (at least 2 bows, but probably 4 bows - and at that point, you probably don't run any bows and just swap your bows for shields). The 350pt list that I presented in that article probably doesn't work anymore - unless you just drop the war drum (which, honestly, you probably can at that points level if you know you don't need to travel far).

Conclusion

I'm happy we got another FAQ, though I am sad that we didn't see boosts to Legions that have been relegated to the "meme tier" by many competitive circles to make them more appealing. Honestly, I think MESBG is in a pretty good place overall, but just a few tweaks would go a long way to adding some variety to unloved list options (but I've written about this before and don't need to go into it all again now). If you have thoughts on this round of FAQs, let us know in the comments below! Until next time, happy hobbying!