FAQ Time: Unpacking the July 2026 FAQ

Good morning gamers,

We usually have to wait until August for a balance update, but we got the update a month early (maybe because the new Dunland banner/war horn models wouldn't be legal without it?) - and I for one am not complaining. :-) There's a lot that saw change and I think most of them are pretty positive.

Photo Credit: Reddit

What Worked Like We Thought It Did

Due to the wide nature of players who play the game (from brand new to grizzled veterans), there's always going to be a few questions that you read in an FAQ and say, "yeah, that makes sense" or "yeah, that's how we've always played it." As is usually the case, there were a few of these for us here at TMAT - most of these are extensions of existing rules or previous FAQs, catching some minor nuances that may have been left as open doors:

Q: Can Beast models try to uncover Artefacts? A: No.

Q: If a Cavalry model had charged, fought and became Unengaged, and is subsequently Charged, does it maintain the Cavalry Charge Bonuses? A: Yes, so long as they still meet all of the conditions listed under Cavalry Charge on page 72. 

Q: If a model forgoes its Activation as part of a Heroic Move, does it skip taking a Courage Test for being part of a Broken Army? A: No.

Q: If a Hero is involved in a Heroic Challenge against a Hero with the Survival Instinct special rule and causes a Wound that results in the Hero being removed as a casualty due to a failed Courage test as per the Survival Instinct special rule, does the Hero gain 1 Might Point for slaying their target? A: Yes, as the other Hero involved in the Heroic Challenge caused the Wound that forced the Hero with Survival Instincts to flee – a sure sign of victory!

Q: Can a Monster choose to make a Brutal Power Attack if there is no possibility of making Strikes? For example: if a Monster was prone and wins a Combat, normally they would not be allowed to make Strikes as they have stood up, but could they make a Brutal Power Attack? Or, if the Monster is Transfixed and wins a Combat? A: No. A Monster may only perform a Brutal Power Attack if they would be able to make Strikes.

Q: How many Heavy Objects can a Monster model or a model with the Burly special rule carry at one time? A: Only one at a time.

Q: If a single model is within range of multiple Objective Markers, can it control more than one at once? A: Yes.

Q: In Scenarios where Objective Markers can be carried, how do you measure from the Objective Marker for any special rules that come into play for being within X" of an Objective Marker, such as the Besiegers of the Hornburg Army’s The Promise of Wealth special rule? A: Measure from the base of the model carrying the Objective Marker instead of the Objective Marker.

Q: If Beorn the Bear uses the Barge Brutal Power Attack, does he have to charge if able to because of the Berserk special rule? A: Yes 

Q: Can Boromir use the Protect the Little Ones! special rule if Frodo is wearing the One Ring and is the only friendly Hobbit model within 3"? A: Yes.

Q: Can a Spectre’s “A fell light is in them”, or the King of the Dead’s Visions of Terror, or a similar special rule be used to Move a model that is already engaged in combat? A: No.

Q: Does Brôrgir regain Will from his Sorcerous Adept special rule when using Heroic Channeling? A: No, a Hero that declares a Heroic Channeling will count the result of their next Casting Test that turn as a 6, not a Natural 6.

These are good clarifications and they follow the direct reading of the rules or formalize the way things have worked in past editions, so that's good. Now on to the new things . . .

What Actually Changed

Extra Profiles

We're going to start with profiles that were added to army lists - in the current version of the game, we haven't been given a "faction" that we can borrow profiles from like we had last edition, but have distinct lists that borrow from a common faction list. This means that some army lists have access to profiles that others don't . . . and sometimes we're left wondering why we can't have the nice things that are in other army lists. I for one have felt this to be true in most of the Mordor lists (which lacked the standard Mordor Orc Warrior profile) and in Lurtz's Scouts (where I've long argued that Uruk-Hai Shamans should appear, as the statement from Saruman that they "do not know pain, you do not know fear" is patently untrue without a shaman). Other lists lacked options for their units in some lists to be more "thematic", but why certain pieces of wargear did or didn't appear in a list didn't always make sense.

Well, the rules team appears to have listened to the community (and me in particular), as we got the following updates:

• Several Angmar lists picked up the option for a Warg for their Angmar Orc Shamans (I didn't need this, but maybe someone else did)
• Ugluk's Scouts and Lurtz's Scouts added Uruk-Hai Shamans as Minor Heroes (THANKS GW!)
• The Depths of Moria added the Moria Goblin Drum (they previously had the Blackshield Drum, but not the one I liked - thanks again GW!)
• Wild Men of Dunland and Hill Tribesmen picked up the option for a banner/war horn (optional light shield - never take that) to align with the new command blister that released on the same weekend as the FAQ
• Several Mordor lists picked up the option to get Mordor Orc Captains and Mordor Orc Warriors (thanks GW!)

Tied to this vein was something very unexpected (and a change that I'm sure makes Damian O'Byrne happy): the Usurpers of Edoras list can now take a War Mumak of Harad and Haradrim Warriors! Here's the stipulations for doing so:

• If you want to take a Mumak, you can't take Freca ('cuz he's dead in the film, eh?);
• The Mumak Commander is a Minor Hero, so he can only lead 6 warriors and they all have to be in the howdah;
• The Mumak can be equipped with the three most important upgrades (Rappelling Lines, Tusk Weapons, and Sigils of Defiance) as well as two others (Rocks and Foul Temperament) but cannot be upgraded with the Far Harad Chieftain upgrade or the Tough Hide upgrade (which is nice to have, if you have the points for it); and
• The Haradrim can only be equipped with bows or spears (no banners/war horns) - so they're probably all getting bows.

All in all, I wouldn't mind seeing more of these adjustments in the future - I think most of the lists are fine, but tweaks like the Mumak in Usurpers introduces a completely different way to play the list. Things like a "deeping wall only Defenders of Helm's Deep list" or allowing for multiple levels of Ringwraiths in the Ringwraith-centric lists would be really nice. As it is, I'm happy with these changes and think they're all good for the game.

Points and Profile Adjustments

We had a few adjustments to the costs of both units and upgrades - all of which are probably healthy changes:

• Gwaihir went from 150pts to 200pts, which puts him on-par with other monsters like Gulavhar, Beorn, and Treebeard (and most Ringwraiths on Fell Beasts are in the same ballpark) - this is probably about right;
• Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth went from 170pts to 140pts, which puts him on par with . . . not a lot of heroes, actually, but he's cheaper and worse than Aragorn and Boromir, so this is probably about right as well (I will note that foot Imrahil is still bad, so he's still going to be brought at 170pts with all his gear . . . just better than taking him at 200pts like . . . you know . . . all the monsters we looked at above);
• Easterling War Drums for Kataphracts went from 15pts to 25pts - this is STILL worth taking in any list, by the way, but a 10pt increase is good for tuning lists ever so slightly.

Points adjustments are useful tools in any competitive wargame and I'm pleased with these three adjustments. There's definitely still some heroes and warriors that feel too overcosted (I'm a bit surprised the Swan Knights of Dol Amroth escaped the points bat?), but Gwaihir and Imrahil both needed adjustments for sure.

While not a points change, there was a critical change to the Crebain profile - one that will make many players very happy:

Page 173 – Crebain – Profile
Change Defence to 2 and Wounds to 3.

While I know that this makes Crebain killable by 3-Attack heroes (many of whom will wound the Crebain on 3s - and possibly 2s if they have lances or two-handed weapons), it is important to note that while Crebain can still be killed in one fell swoop by a hero/hero-with-a-friend, heroes/friends who do not reroll 1s To Wound may find that random luck makes them blank out against a fully-healthy Crebain. Yes, I think the number of Crebain on the board will go down - and yes, I think that's a good thing - but I would be very surprised if Crebain disappear entirely (they're still perfectly good at fulfilling most of the jobs that they used to do and can still blunt a 2 Attack hero or an isolated 3 Attack hero who has no wounding bonuses).

Our final "changes" topic affects the Fords of Isen army list (e.g. the old Theodred's Guard list): this list (and no other Rohan list) can take 50% throwing weapons:

Page 81 – Fords of Isen – Additional Rules
Add the following:
A Fords of Isen army may have up to 50% of its Warrior models armed with throwing spears rather than the usual 33%.

Mounts (Especially Those with the Hero Keyword) . . . and Bill the Not-Mount-Pony

There were a lot of clarifications about mounts - particularly of the Hero variety. These FAQs basically state that mounts with the Hero keyword cannot be selected as models that you protect or target in Fog of War or Assassination and they don't award VPs in other scenarios where you get bonuses for killing hero models or get heroes off the board:

Q: Will a Mount with the Hero keyword that has been slain give up Victory Points in Scenarios that award Victory Points for killing enemy Hero models? A: No.

Q: In the Reconnoitre Scenario, does a Mount with the Hero keyword count towards the number of Hero models that have escaped the board when determining Victory Points for bullet point 2 under Scoring Victory Points? A: No.

Q: Can a Mount with the Hero keyword be nominated in Scenarios like Fog of War or Assassination? A: No.

There was another FAQ related to Wargs/Fell Wargs who are taken as mounts - in a move that doesn't surprise me (but that I had never thought about), they will pick up the Beast keyword if they become separated mounts (which is good, because otherwise you'd have to keep track of which ones had the Beast keyword and which ones didn't . . . and you might try to dig up/carry objectives with separated Warg mounts when you couldn't do it with wild Wargs):

Q: Do Wargs and Fell Wargs that become separated Mounts gain the Beast keyword? A: Yes

Taking strays in this FAQ are mounts who are targeted by the Breathe Fire upgrade for Dragons: the initial hit (and insta-kill) will affect whatever part of the model gets hit (the rider or the mount or the passenger, but not all elements), while the others suffer the secondary effect of being Set Ablaze:

Q: What happens when a Dragon’s Fire Breath hits a Cavalry model? A: The Dragon treats their Breathe Fire as a bow; when shooting at a Cavalry model, they would randomise between the Mount, the rider and any passengers. Any other parts of the model not struck by the initial hit would then be Set Ablaze. 

Finally, while he is not a mount (or a Beast, for that matter - he's smart, okay?) Bill the Pony cannot give Arwen a banner bonus in the Road to Rivendell Army List if Frodo is a passenger on Asfaloth . . . I assume this also means that Frodo can't try to regain Might points from Bill's Second Breakfast rule, but that's an assumption on my part:

Q: In the Road to Rivendell Army List, can Arwen use Bill the Pony as a Banner when Frodo is riding as a passenger on Asfaloth? A: No.

Monsters (Especially Shelob) and War Beasts

While the profile updates (and the new profiles available to evil factions) will certainly draw most of the attention of players, this FAQ also did a lot to clarify how monsters worked - specifically rules like Monstrous Charge and brutal power attacks (there were a few monster-related FAQs in the that's-how-we-always-played-it section above too). Monstrous Charge got two clarifications that I think make a huge difference to the way the game is played - monsters with Monstrous Charge who Charge into combat will keep their Extra Attacks and Knock to the Ground rules even if they're later knocked Prone and their targets will still be knocked Prone if the monster chooses to use a Brutal Power Attack instead of making strikes normally (with the clarification that you don't Rend with doubled-dice because you're not making Strikes):

Q: If a Monster with the Monstrous Charge special rule Charges into Combat and is later Knocked Prone, by the Sorcerous Blast Magical Power for example, does it still increase its Attacks and knock enemy models prone if it wins the Combat? A: Yes.

Q: Do models with Monstrous Charge still knock to the ground if they are using a Brutal Power Attack? A: Yes. Note that while a Monster that uses the Rend Brutal Power Attack makes a number of To Wound Rolls equal to its Attacks characteristic (including any modifiers to its Attacks) against a nominated model, they do not make Strikes so will not double the number of Strikes they make against a Prone target.

Speaking of Rend, it turns out that Olwyn's you-only-wound-me-on-a-6 nonsense only affects "strikes", not Rend . . . so call Heroic Defense against monsters, ayuh?

Q: If a Monster model uses the Rend Brutal Power Attack against Olwyn, who has the Stalwart Fighter special rule, what happens? A: As the Monster is not making Strikes, the special rule will have no effect. 

While we're on topic of generic BPAs, Hurl had a text modification where the model that is Hurled into someone else isn't Knocked Flying if the rider (rarely) or the mount (more often) is Strength 6 or higher - this has very little application in the game, but yaye for Fell Beasts and Radagast's Eagle:

Page 91 – Hurl
Change the first sentence in bullet point 4 to:
The Hurled model suffers two Strength 6 hits (if it is a Cavalry model then both rider and Mount will suffer these hits), and if it was a Cavalry model then it is also Knocked Flying unless either the rider and/or Mount have a Strength of 6 or higher.

The final FAQ we have on monsters proper is the She is Always Hungry special rule in Shelob's profile. For those of you who haven't used Shelob, this special rule allows her to "eat" a friendly model within 1" of her (removed as a casualty) in order to reroll a single dueling die (this basically gives her a banner-like reroll, but stacks with a banner that might be nearby). Apparently, if Shelob is moving AFTER your opponent has moved, you can choose to eat a friendly model who is Engaged in combat already, which is super nifty, since you can a) charge an enemy power hero who wanted to Heroic Combat off of one of your grunts, b) can kill off a model who is fighting a hero that you want to engage, or c) work towards quartering yourself when you're in a winning position and need the game to end, but all your friends have been tagged already:

Q: Can Shelob use her She is Always Hungry special rule on a model that is Engaged in Combat? A: Yes.

Our final three things in this section relate to war beasts (who are "monsters" but don't benefit from most of the "monster" rules). The first question is whether or not models that charge a War Beast but are killed before a War Beast gets to go (I think this is limited to being killed by Impact Hits, killed by magic, or killed by throwing weapons - drop a note in the comments if you have another way to do this since you can't Compel someone out of combat) count towards locking it down . . . and the answer is, "no, they're no longer there":

Q: If a model charges a War Beast and is subsequently slain, or otherwise removed from Combat, before the War Beast Activates, do they count towards the total Strength needed to prevent the War Beast from Trampling? A: No, only models who have Charged and are still Engaged in Combat with the War Beast when it would Activate count towards the total Strength. Note that models are not paired off into Combats until the Fight Phase. So, charging models that are Engaged in Combat with a War Beast will not remove them from that Combat during the Activation Phase, and therefore the Strength of these models is still taken into account when determining if a War Beast can Trample. 

Before moving on, I'd like to point out that a discussion I had in the comments of a previous post is addressed here: models that are "paired off" because they've been charged by other models (e.g. charged by Haradrim coming out of the Howdah via rappelling lines, charged by nearby friendly models, etc.) don't actually separate the charging models from the Mumak. There is no clarity here on whether or not a Heroic Combat on the Mumak (once per game ability for each Mumak in the Harad list) would allow the Mumak to keep moving once fights are paired off or whether he immediately joins one a fight from an engaged model, but it's pretty clear that the models charging the Mumak are still touching, so . . . that's a thing.

In other news, if a war beast Tramples a Nazgul of Dol Guldur and kills him, the War Beast can continue Trampling even though there's an Unholy Resurrection Marker . . . I assume the text that says, "models may not overlap these Markers for any reason" from the Unholy Resurrection rule would mean that they can't end their movement on the marker?

Q: After successfully Trampling a Nazgûl of Dol Guldur, does a War Beast continue to Trample or stop at the Unholy Resurrection marker? A: In this example, although the Nazgûl would not be removed as a casualty, they are still slain – therefore the War Beast would continue to Trample.

It is VERY unclear to me how that text from the Unholy Resurrection rule squares with this FAQ if the Nazgul has a friendly model behind him, because if the Mumak keeps moving (it can't turn after all) and fails to kill the friendly model, the Mumak would end its move . . . on the marker . . . which he cannot overlap "for any reason" . . . very strange. In other news, War Beasts can't pick up objects (presumably because none of the war beasts in the game have opposable thumbs . . . though Bill the Pony lacks opposable thumbs and he's not prohibited from doing this #rockstar):

Page 134 – Carrying Objects
Add the following after the first paragraph:
A War Beast cannot pick up Light or Heavy objects. 

Banners and the One Ring

As we turn to war gear, we actually have to talk about an FAQ that goes back to the way the rules were written WAY back when I got started playing the game in 2011 (and earlier than that really): because MESBG is a "true line of sight" game, there will be times when parts of a model block the view of other models (e.g. some Uruk-Hai Warrior and Warrior of Minas Tirith poses have their shield-arms splayed to the side while others have their shields tucked in close). When you're looking at the model's eye view and determining what "you can see" and what is "in the way," you need to ignore weapons, banner, wargear of any kind . . . and wings:

Q: Do wings, weapons, banners and other wargear count as part of a model for the purposes of determining if an In The Way Test is required? A: No. Just as those same elements do not count for the purposes of Line of Sight, they do not count when determining if an In the Way Test is required.

For models that are basically all-wings (like Gulavhar, the Balrog, and Bat Swarms), this means that most of the model is going to be ignored for both whether you can see them (nothing new) and whether the model is in-the-way (this is what's actually being clarified here).

There were two questions about banners being passed on to other models that I think are very helpful for clarity (though both are also legislating new laws in the form of answering mail): you can hand a banner off to a supporting model but not a model that was engaged in the same fight as you and you can pass a banner off if the banner-bearer was Paralyzed:

Q: Can a banner be passed to a model that was Engaged in the same Combat as the model equipped with the banner? A: No. However, it would be able to be passed to a model that was Supporting, as they were not Engaged in the Combat.

Q: Can a model under the effects of the Paralyse Magical Power pass on a banner when they are slain? A: Yes. Think of it as a friendly model reaching down to snatch up the banner to keep it aloft, rather than the paralysed model passing it along.

I'm good with both of these, though rescuing banner-bearers is going to get a lot harder, because your opponent just needs to tag both models that are touching each other and make sure no one else can be backed into by the banner and you're good. Being able to hand off a banner while Paralyzed was always how we played it (I think), but I can definitely see the other side of the coin where you're like, "But he's paralyzed . . . he can't do anything . . . including handing off his stuff."

Finally, if you have the One Ring on and fail your "ring check", the opposing player can ignore compulsory placement rules, like having to finish within 6" of a hero who declared a Heroic Move/March:

Q: If a model wearing the One Ring is Moving as a part of a friendly Hero model’s Heroic Move or Heroic March and rolls a 1 or 2 for Sauron’s Will, meaning they will Move under the control of the opposing player, do they still need to finish within 6" of the Hero that declared the heroic action? A: No.

Special Rules

There were technically a lot of special rules changes, but functionally there were two big ones. One element of the current edition of the game is the insistence that to use certain rules, you have to be on the board. I'm greatly appreciative of the fact that they edited the movement-related special rules (Cave Dweller, Fly, Mountain Dweller, Spectral Walk, Swift Movement, and Woodland Creature) to clarify that they can be used by models that have yet to enter the table . . . it avoids the awkward "We forgot how to walk carefully through trees/rocks/water" conundrum:

Page 125-26, 128-29, 131 – Cave Dweller/Fly/Mountain Dweller/Spectral Walk/Swift Movement/Woodland Creature
Add the following to the end of the paragraph:
This special rule may be used by models that are not yet on the battlefield.

The other substantive change (besides all the notes about Monstrous Charge and A Fell Light is in Them rules above) is that models with the Sworn Protector (Thorin) will get it if any model with the name "Thorin" is in their list . . . which is exactly how we've been playing it here at TMAT (a Thorin's a Thorin, no matter how small):

Q: The Champions of Erebor have the Sworn Protector (Thorin) Special Rule, does this apply to both Thorin Oakenshield and Thorin III Stonehelm, depending on the Army they have been included in? A: Yes.

Scenarios

There were a few scenario-specific interactions that were clarified (besides the Hero mount question we already viewed) - the first is that Dwarven Mirrors, like Siege Weapons, are deployed before the first priority roll in scenarios where players don't have deployment zones:

Q: When are the Dwarven Mirrors in the Khazad-dûm Army List deployed in Scenarios that do not have deployment zones? A: Before players roll for the Initial Priority.

We've had this issue come up in some of our TMAT events, but when you have two models that are your highest-cost models (Assault Upon Helm's Deep has this easily), the controlling player picks which one of their heroes counts as the "most expensive" - and if they only have one hero (like all good Barad-Dur lists?), then that hero counts as the most expensive hero:

Q: In Scenarios that require you to know which model has the highest points cost, how do you determine which model that is if you have multiple models that are tied for highest cost? What happens if they only have one model who is their General? A: If a player’s army contains two or more models that tie for the highest points cost, then they must select one of those models before the game begins to be the ‘most expensive’ for the duration of the Scenario and ensure that choice is clear and obvious for their opponent. If a player only has a single model in their army, meaning the model with the highest points cost within the army would also be its General, the General will count as the ‘most expensive’ for the purposes of Victory Points.

I think this is better than trying to protect them all, but it also gives a lot of play to the controlling player . . . which I guess is the way it normally works? I don't know how I feel about this one, but whatever. There was another question about how many VPs a models worth in certain scenarios when they cross the line into different scoring categories - turns out, he counts for whatever is the highest scoring zone, unless the scenario requires the model to be "wholly within" the area:

Q: In Scenarios where the amount of Victory Points varies depending on a model’s position, what happens if a model would meet the conditions for multiple scoring conditions? For example: in Seize the Prizes, if a model holding treasure is in between both halves of the board, how many VPs does it score? Or, in the Retrieval Scenario, if the model carrying the Objective is only partially within my Deployment Zone, how many Victory Points would I score? A: When determining Victory Points, you always score the most points that you are eligible for. Using Seize the Prizes as an example, if a model was holding an Objective Marker and their base was overlapping both your and your opponent’s board halves, they are within your opponent’s half of the board, meaning you would score 3 Victory Points rather than 2 Victory Points. Similarly, in Retrieval, if a model carrying the Objective was partially within your deployment zone, you would score 9 Victory Points. However, if a Scenario requires a model to be wholly within an area, such as in Storm the Camp, then that model’s base must be wholly within the specified area in order to score.

Shagrat doesn't see a lot of play these days, but he got two clarifications on his "Hands off" rule - apparently he can steal a carried objective from a friendly model who is engaged in combat and he can do it whenever he moves (in the Move Phase or as part of a successful Heroic Combat):

Q: Can Shagrat use his “Hands off the shiny shirt; that’s mine!” special rule to gain possession of an Objective from a friendly model that is Engaged in Combat? A: Yes.

Q: Can Shagrat use his “Hands off the shiny shirt; that’s mine!” special rule to gain possession of an Objective whilst Moving after a successful Heroic Combat? A: Yes.

Finally, if you have a Dragon with Breathe Fire and you're playing with the Dark of Night special rule, the hit against the initial target (the only person affected by a shooting attack) gets +1 To Wound, but the other affected models (who are being hit by the Set Ablaze special rule) suffer hits normally:

Q: When playing a Scenario using the Dark of Night special rule, does a Dragon’s Breathe Fire only gain the +1 To Wound against the initial target, or everyone that is hit by the attack? A: Only the initial target. Other affected models are then Set Ablaze, so if they were wounded it would not be by a shooting attack, but by the Set Ablaze special rule.

Weird Interactions

So you know how one of the "this is how we always thought it worked" FAQs above was that Beorn has to charge people if he Barges? Well it turns out that he doesn't have to Charge if completing the charge would require him to perform a jump/leap/climb test . . . kind of unexpected, if I'm honest - though the second bit on having to spend Might/reroll those tests doesn't surprise me:

Q: If a model has a rule that means it must Charge, are they forced to attempt Jump, Leap, Climb or Swim tests in order to attempt to meet the necessary conditions of the rule that is causing them to do so? Additionally, are they required to spend Might or re-roll these tests if they are able to Charge and would otherwise be unable to? A: No to both. 

There was another FAQ that took me by surprise, but it makes sense: if you have a cavalry model in a list that has a special rule that gives all of its "models" Woodland Creature or Mountain Dwellers, then the mount and the rider both get the rule . . . which means you can have Knights of Minas Tirith in a Garrison of Ithilien list running through woods or rocky patches just as well as everyone else:

Q: If a special rule says that all models in the army gain the Woodland Creature or Mountain Dweller special rule, does this apply to both the Mount and the rider? A: Yes.

This rule respects the "model" distinctions that we see with spells like Fortify Spirit (which affect both rider and mount) and special rules like Resistant to Magic (which also affect both rider and mount). I didn't see this one coming, but I'm glad they ruled it like they did.

Legolas caught a LITTLE flak in this FAQ, specifically with regard to his Deadly Shot special rule. The errata says that it affects the second and third sentences, but it actually only affects the second (the third is still there for clarity):

Page 64 – Legolas Greenleaf, Prince of Mirkwood
– Deadly Shot
Replace the second and third sentences with the following:
Additionally, Legolas may still make shooting attacks whilst he is Engaged in Combat if there are no other friendly models engaged in the same combat, and does not suffer the -1 penalty To Hit for Moving and Shooting so long as he has the Infantry keyword. If Legolas shoots whilst he is Engaged in Combat, he may shoot at enemy models he is Engaged in Combat with, and does not need to make In The Way Tests for shooting at models he is Engaged in Combat with (though they may still block Line of Sight as normal).

What this change addresses, apparently, is the play where you charge Legolas and some friends (maybe Aragorn? Gwaihir? Gimli?) into the same big target, Legolas unloads into the hero before the fight begins with his bow, and THEN the collection of friends gronks the hero. Now, he can't shoot if a friend hops in with him . . . but he CAN shoot into something big if Legolas is the only one Engaged with the big nasty at the start of the Shoot Phase (and everyone else joins after successful Heroic Combats). Also, because the latter sentence doesn't say that Legolas "may only shoot at enemy models he is Engaged in Combat with," Legolas is still able to shoot out of combat at unengaged enemy models three times if he wants to . . . so for me, there isn't much of a change to how I use Legolas.

There was a clarification about Grima in this FAQ (because why not): if he's forced to charge an enemy model because of some odd reason, he will reveal himself (and probably die):

Q: If Gríma Wormtongue is forced to charge because of a Magical Power or special rule, whilst benefiting from his A Traitor Within special rule, is he revealed? A: Yes.

Finally, there was a weird rules clarification on how far units can move when Saruman casts his "snow magic" in the Army of the White Hand . . . and it turns out that "halving your Move Characteristic" is different than "half your movement":

Q: When Saruman uses the Summon Gale special rule in the Army of the White Hand, it halves the Move Value of enemy models until the end of the turn. How far would Gimli, who has a Move Value of 5" be able to Move that turn? A: Whenever a Characteristic is halved by a special rule, it is always rounded up. So, in the given example, Gimli would be able to Move 3".

So let's review a very, VERY important point of minutia here: the operative phrase that's in play is "whenever a characteristic is halved," which means this does not apply to Dwarves with 5" move who want to scoot-and-shoot - they still have to move less than half their Move Characteristic. Halving a Move value, apparently, requires that the end result be an integer instead of a float, so it gets the boost up to 3. 

It's important to note that this FAQ is, in general, consistent with the way the game has always worked - last edition, there was a similar clarification that if your Fight Value was halved by things like the One Ring or Tom the Troll's Lingering Cold, you rounded up (so a F9 Gil-Galad became F5). Bat Swarms last edition had a note in their Blinding Swarm special rule that the Fight Value of their opponents rounded down, but this edition, the text simply says "Enemy models Engaged in Combat with a Bat Swarm halve their Fight Value". These changes also occur before positive modifiers (like Heroic Strike in the case of Fight Value, or Heroic March in the original case of Gimli's movement), which is a good thing.

Maybe The Thing They Got Wrong

Now I'm generally pretty positive on this platform - and you all have done well to tell me when I'm getting too salty, but the following FAQ has what I feel is the right answer in it, but would be a whole lot better if the last sentence (highlighted in red) was omitted:

Q: In the Reconnoitre Scenario, what happens if all of the models in my army gain the Dominant (X) special rule, but some of my models have already left the battlefield? Would those who have already left gain the Dominant (X) special rule, too? A: No, once a model has left the battlefield, it would no longer be affected by new rules introduced to the army. Using the Fords of Isen army as an example, the ‘Resolute Rohirrim’ special rule grants all models in the army the Dominant (2) special rule once the army becomes Broken. Any models that escaped the board before the army became Broken would not benefit from the special rule, whereas any models that escaped the board after the army became Broken would benefit from being Dominant (2). In the case of models gaining the Dominant (X) special rule, it is vitally important that you, and your opponent, are clearly aware of which models had Dominant (X) and which ones did not, to ensure that you are able to calculate Victory Points accurately. If there is any discrepancy as to how many models had the Dominant (X) special rule when determining Victory Points, it is best to assume the lesser amount.

The general idea here is simple: I'm getting guys off the board in Recon and some of them will benefit from Dominant and some of them won't. What we should do - and what I will do, if this very rare situation shows up at a table I'm on - is do our best to sort out which models we're pretty sure were benefitting from the special rule. What the last sentence suggests we do is default to whatever will score the controlling player the least number of possible points. I know, that's probably an unfair way to say it, but it's true: the last words of "it is best to assume the lesser amount" isn't the same as "do your best to find something that feels right". Instead, the opposing player can legitimately say, "yeah, but you broke like three turns ago and since you've been racing cavalry off the board like crazy all game, I have no idea which of these guys raced off in the last three turns and which ones raced off before then. This turn you got off two, so that's all you get." That's . . . technically what they would "suggest" you do, but it's not actually the right way to do it.

So what's the solution? Like anyone who plays the Master of Lake-town or Saruman knows, you need to write down an order of procedure to follow (for these two heroes, there's pre-game stuff you have to do) . . . and then follow it. If you want to play the Fords of Isen, you need to check every turn whether or not you're broken - and if you're playing Recon, you should have a piece of paper with a box labeled "models escaped" and another box labeled "models escaped with Dominant (2)" and put the models in the appropriate boxes as they exit the game (it doesn't have to be paper - it can be fancier than that). This is what I "suggest" you do - putting two minutes of effort into this simple thing not only tells your opponent that you care about how the game turns out, but also that you want to be as fair as possible. That's the right way to do it.

The good news is that a) the word they used is ""it is best to", which puts this solidly in the realm of "guidelines than actual rules," b) the only list that gets Dominant (X) mid-game that isn't tied to being near a hero is the Fords of Isen, and c) the only scenario where models escaping the board with Dominant (X) has any bearing is Reconnoitre . . . so this should remain an edge case. Still, be prepared and try to be understanding.

Conclusion

And that's it - I'm very happy with the changes overall (a few quibbles here and there, but what's new). I think the game is in a better place than it was and I'm excited to see what happens with some shake-ups to the army list options (and with some much-needed points rebalancing). We'll be back to cover the next round of FAQs next year and we'll be back with more "wild man" content on Monday. Until then, happy hobbying!