Pages

Thursday, February 22, 2024

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!

19 comments:

  1. Great job avoiding the whining about Suladan (as you are welcome to infer, I have some definite thoughts about that discourse ;-) ).

    I think I agree that the general sense of this round of FAQs is "most everything is great, or at least fine." To be frank, there's not really anything in the game that makes me upset or angry that it exists, or that seems broken. Even the Dragon Emperor change--I'm not mad they did it, but if they hadn't changed it I could have lived with it. He's a great hero, and the legion is very competitive--but he's hardly the best hero, and his legion is hardly the only competitive one, so whatever. :)

    P.S. As a pseudo-professional rhetorician, I will note that "not unexpected" is also an example of understatement (which definitely has its place for rhetorical effect). ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have strong feelings about Suladan - he's been used in our gaming group from the very beginning . . . plan for him, perhaps? I still lose to him, but he's fine. Never had a complaint, still don't.

      And I don't fear the use of double negatives as rhetorical effects or not. :-)

      Delete
    2. Personally, I feel like Black Nums have always been 1pt too cheap - running the price comparison to Orc Warriors, Morannon Orcs, and Mordor Uruk-Hai, they're getting 2 Courage (or 1 Courage and Terror) for free. Elves get 2 Courage for free as well, so that's not unheard of - and they have always shaken up the meta (current soup usually involves Galadriel, Isildur, and Gwaihir), but I have always thought they were 1pt too cheap as well.

      Suladan and Halbarad are pretty cheap 6" banners - and perhaps the reason no one complains about Halbarad's banner is that his allies are either weak or expensive . . . or maybe it's that he's Fortitude and would require Arathorn or Aragorn to ally into things . . . but I think a price hike on these two models would need to be really judicious - it seems to me like a fine line between being undercosted and overcosted.

      Delete
    3. I absolutely agree, and I think historically the Elves have only been held back by how limited their listbuilding is: it's much harder for them to make a well-rounded list with good numbers and flexibility than it is for Mordor with its Black Nums.

      I think Halbarad is probably fine, as you say, because he's not worthwhile allying in anywhere crazy, and his army list is otherwise fairly balanced. He's also more expensive than Suladan for less combat punch, which probably supports his case.

      As far as nerfs to Suladan, I think simply making the banner Serpent-Horde-only would largely solve the problem. It forces him to bring along his slightly-overcosted troops to get any benefit, which is both more thematic and more balanced. Suladan leading the Serpent Horde is fine, it's Suladan leading his single Serpent Rider that I find problematic. I'll still abuse it, but I think it's what ought to change.

      To also note: the Witch King probably needs a little something too. The Crown of Morgul makes him singelhandedly better at casting than most Wizards and much better in combat than them, all while remaining many less points. Some kind of nerf to it (a points increase, requiring him to have a certain amount of stats purchased, or just depowering it a little) really would open up a lot of alternative options for Mordor. When was the last time you saw the Undying, or Khamul, or the Dark Marshal? All of them are perfectly fine models, they just suffer from being unable to take the Crown of Morgul

      Delete
  2. I'm sad - but not surprised - that GW nerfed the Dragon Emperor directly instead of tuning the LL; basically they ended up nerfing non-LL Easterlings without giving them any kind of compensation. I still hope that at some point GW actually buffs Easterlings in a more interesting way than just making new ultra-efficient models and/or making a new ultra-efficient LL... the former tends to limit viable profile options (why would anyone take the overcosted older Heroes anymore?) while the latter often brings severe limits to list building (since LLs tend to have less options than the normal army lists and crucially can't ally).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharbie had a similar thought in his hot takes - making the Dragon Emperor more expensive instead of making Legion changes (like Black Dragon upgrades cost 1pt per model instead of being a free upgrade) really hit his playability outside the Legion. Still, at only 40pts more than Imrahil, I think there's a case for running the Dragon Emperor at 200pts with allies outside the Legion (he's still giving you a big banner radius and boosted FV, which can support a Black Num front line in an open phalanx if you ally with Shagrat/Mordor or Dalamyr/Corsairs).

      The older heroes have been well evlipsed - Captains and Dragon Knights are still viable, but they're also available in the Legion . . . Amdur is more mobile than the Dragon Emperor, but at 55pts less, there are a lot of allies that just look better. :-(

      Delete
    2. I think the Dragon Emperor has more similarities with Boromir than Imrahil. Imrahil's FV buff is only 3" unlike the other two and Minas Tirith lends itself more easily to the "high defence shieldwall grind" way of playing (compared to the Fiefdoms).

      Delete
    3. True - both have banner and FV buffs. I focused more on the 12" banner rather than the 6" FV, but Boromir's a great point of comparison too.

      Delete
  3. Some of those clarifications about control zones seemed unnecessary, but having it clarified is always good. I have definitely been guilty of playing Fog of War wrong. Our group was doing all the objectives before setup, so that will change all the strategy around it (best scenario, prove me wrong!)

    The way GW approaches balance is always frustrating to see. They can't just tweek points costs like most other games, because it would invalidate the printed points in their overpriced books.

    It's been clear since the new edition, that the easterling black dragon upgrade is not worth 2pts per model, and limited the effectiveness of the Easterling faction. The simplest, best adjustment would have been errata-ing it to 1pt. Instead they opted to release a 'fix' with the dragon Emperor LL, which caused further balance issues.

    I'm glad they've finally bit the bullet, and addressed the Emperor's cost, but they really love to overcomplicate everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's definitely a place for both points rebalancing and rule alterations - but points rebalancing should always be done relative to similar units (the Dragon Emperor is probably most similar to Imrahil, but has a lot of points of departure), while rules altering fixes things that are "just wrong". In the main, point rebalancing hasn't been the default in MESBG (and it certainly appears to be less of a default than it is in Star Wars Legion, where some units could benefit from a rule change instead of points reductions - Rebel Troopers won't suddenly become viable by making them cost 4-8pts less per squad).

      Delete
  4. It's not the points!

    F5 easterlings grunts are morally wrong. Give the buff to normal easterlings but not to black dragons. And FFS get someone to read the rules for the Cheese Chair so it doesn't have so many bad interactions.

    Now what needs a productive is the crown of morgul. And not a points tweek. It needs to cost an extra point of will to use a reroll, and just add one attack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The F5 Eomer/Faramir debate always comes up when you get grunts who hit F5 (or F6) just because they happen to be within a radius of someone . . . so if F5 Easterlings are morally wrong, we probably need to hit Boromir's banner, most of the Arise, Riders of Theoden profiles, and the Dol Amroth profiles . . . would those profiles suddenly be nerfed into oblivion without the FV buffs? Or do more units need to have these buffs (Eomer, Faramir, Rangers of the North/Dunedain)? I don't know what the right answer is . . . except that the F7 club probably needs to be less exclusive.

      Delete
    2. The +1f buffs could be time limited, similar to that of the master of laketown.

      Boz banner giving fountsin court fight 5 is silly when theynjustvstabdvthere with a spear. F5 Rohan on the charge are at least "doing" something rohanny, and tbh when they dont chwtge they do die.

      F5 easterlings warriors? Nah, that needs reigning in. Or cost a point of might or will to enable. The Cheese Chair resisting magic is silly, and needing to spend will to activate the F5 would at least weaken him to magical powers.

      Delete
  5. I havent played with the emperor, but i think the point increase is justified.
    He potentially brings army wide buffs (Black dragons), 6 Black dragons if the palanquin is destroyed, the banner and FV buff, is a good combat profile (when flanked by a phalanx) and is overall more useful than Boromir or Imrahil on their own

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the points increase is a good move as well - though whether it's appropriate on its own remains to be seen. I'd be okay paying 200pts for him (that's knocking on how much you pay for Boromir with his banner - and you get 6" extra on your banner radius), but it's unclear to me whether that alone balances out how points efficient the Legion is with its 8-9pt F5 Black Dragons.

      Delete
  6. I know that you have played as the Dwaves a fair bit. Out of curiousity, are there any changes that you would make to Kingdom of Khazad Dum if you could? Or if there was a LL, how you think it should look? I like the idea of their being a supplement on the War of the Dwarves and Orcs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. aplogies for the spelling!

      Delete
    2. I expect that they'll redo the old Khazad-Dum and Shadow and Flame supplements. I think a Durin-era Legion will need to solve the mobility issue with Durin (it's hard for him to get his points in because he's slow), so I would give him free Heroic Combats. Beyond that, army-wide Sworn Protector and maybe increases banner ranges would be helpful.

      I think the Kingdom of Moria would be far more interesting - make it have Balin, Floi, Oin, Ori, maybe some of the other named Dwarves from Ori's record in the book, and a mix of Khazad Guards, Iron Guards, Dwarf Rangers, Iron Hills Captains, and Iron Hills Dwarves/Goat Riders (since this army left Erebor and we know Dain's force still has these guys during the War of the Ring thanks to Defence of the North). No King's Champion though or Dwarf Kings, so it would feel different from the Durin era.

      Ori's Chronicler would benefit all the named heroes in the list, you could run Floi with the other non-Balin named heroes, and Sworn Protector would transfer to Balin/be added to everyone. I feel like it would be a fun list. :-)

      Delete
    3. I believe you might already be able to use Floi with the Champions of Erebor named heroes, because they are not from the same army list, nor are they counted as being from it.

      Delete