FAQ Time: Reviewing the February 2025 FAQ

Good morning gamers,

On Valentine's Day, we got some love from the GW team in the form of an FAQ drop - the first of the new edition (and really the first in a year)! There weren't a lot of changes, but I thought the clarifications were good and nothing really changed. You can view the updated PDFs here (which have been periodically updated since the drop of the new books - and the Armies of the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings actually had their drops the day before, but without the date change). I have included the relevant FAQ text for context (but not the errata text - we'll be summing that up instead).

Photo Credit: Reddit 
I submitted a few things - but I was mostly happy with the changes in the actual books, so . . . yeah, I wasn't digging furiously this time through.

What Didn't Have Changes

There was quite a bit that hasn't changed - most notably that we still don't have a release date for the next supplement (Armies of Middle-Earth) or the Legacies document. Most of the rules sections were unaffected - there were individual profiles that had weapon/stat changes, some profiles/profile options were added to army lists for completeness, and some rules that had sentences that were present in past editions have snuck back in for clarity. Most of the errata were "tidying up" changes, not mega changes.

Most of the rules clarifications fall into one of three categories: to what extent does new text for old rules change the way things have always been, how powerful are cavalry (and what are my options in lists that have new cavalry mechanics), and how do objective markers work? Let's start off with the errata and then we'll dive into the FAQs.

FAQ Time: Reviewing the August 2024 FAQs

Good morning gamers,

Well, a lot has happened in the MESBG community since Aradcon a few weeks ago - and it's got us here at the TMAT blog excited on a number of levels. February and August have been the FAQ drop months, which have been good for shaking up the meta a bit (sometimes more drastically than other times) and as usual, as July turned to August, I was anxious to see what was new for the game (especially with a new edition coming out and a new sourcebook to boot)!

Photo Credit: Reddit 
I didn't submit anything this time . . . they have my previous correspondence if they wish to know my thoughts on certain Legendary Legion fixes and scenario quandaries for the new edition . . .

Then the GW team threw us a curve ball - in their August 15th Warhammer Community post talking about the new edition, they wrapped up a smashing article with the following:

With the next edition so close, we have made the decision not to release our usual FAQ and Designer’s Commentary document in August. Don’t worry, we will be back on schedule in February with our usual updates – the first of the new edition!

So . . . that makes summarizing the FAQ for August easy, right? Not exactly . . .

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).

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 . . .

New FAQs hit... RIP Gamling?

Did you free-hand yours yet? Are you wondering if you wasted your life?

Photo Credit: The Hooded Goblin

How's that title for click-bait?

In case you missed it, the latest round of erratas and FAQs dropped over on Warhammer Community yesterday. Apparently the game state is much more balanced than it was last time around, so there are much fewer big-impact changes to report (at least we think so at this point). Here are some of the highlights (or lowlights):

• Gamling's Royal Standard of Rohan now only gives one Rohan hero within 3" a point of Might if they have none, as opposed to all Rohan heroes within 3". My own opinion is that this is definitely a nerf, since it was generally easy to get at least 2 free Might points out of the banner (Gamling + one random hero within 3", which is not hard to do, especially since heroes like the option of banner rerolls). Now it's just one, which means Gamling can still spam Heroic Moves, Marches, and Defense, but only if you're good with him consuming your free Might per turn. The banner is still good (any chance you can replenish heroic stats is good), but the question moving forward will be exactly how good? Is 50 points too much for a 3" banner and one Might per turn, especially when there are other 6" banners that confer bonus effects, which cost less? Time will tell.
• The other highlighted change involves Isengard Demo teams, which now have to have at least two enemy models within 2" of them before you can detonate them (to prevent players from intentionally blowing up half their army to achieve end-game in scenarios that end when one force is quartered). I'm indifferent to this personally, since Isengard is evil and evil has a reputation for killing itself with chariots, war beasts, and other shenanigans for precisely this purpose. But if it's posed enough of a problem in the competitive scene elsewhere to merit a specific call-out from the game developers, I'm not going to complain about it.In smaller FAQs, they also clarified that you cannot place a demo charge in a way that overlaps a model's base, you must drop it so that it touches both bomb carriers, you measure the 2" range from the edges of the demo charge, and you do in fact need one point of Fate for each wound dealt by a Demo charge (not sure why that was ever a question). Again, all this seems eminently reasonable to me.
• A sneaky small clarification that could end up being bigger (in the long term) than either of the above: you can no longer shield if you've been Immobilized or Transfixed (the same would be true of Commanded and Compelled, too, since you suffer the effects of Immobilize / Transfix at the end of being Commanded or Compelled). Transfix was already good against big heroes since it prevents them from making strikes if they win combats, so this makes it even more devastating against big heroes with shields.

The last FAQ I'll highlight is the only one that I'm not sure is quite as clear as it needs to be. Here's the question and answer:

Q: How are models that cannot normally be directly affected by Magical Powers that would prevent them from moving (such as Smaug or the Mumâk) affected by Special Rules that would make them suffer the effects of the Paralyse Magical Power, but that technically aren’t Magical Powers (such as a Mirkwood Spider’s Spider Web or Shelob’s Caught in a Web Brutal Power Attack)? (p. 194)

A: Models that cannot be prevented from moving (such as Smaug or a Mûmak) will be unaffected by Special Rules that make them suffer the effects of the Paralyse Magical Power.

I have some questions about this one, and I'm not sure what the answers are:

1. The question and answer reference Smaug and the Mumak as "models that cannot be prevented from moving." As far as I can tell, this is referring to the Immovable Object special rule for War Beasts (Rules p. 81) and Smaug (Armies of the Hobbit p. 129), but that's not exactly what Immovable Object says. Models with Immovable Object can't be knocked Prone, Hurled, be trapped, or back away (unless to another model with Immovable Object with a larger base size), but the rule doesn't say they "cannot be prevented from moving." In fact, we know that War Beasts can in fact be prevented from moving--if they're charged, for example (Rules p. 80). We also know that War Beasts can in fact be moved against their will--Stampede! may or may not be an example of this (depending on whether you think this is the war beast moving "against its will," or willing itself to run roughshod in the direction chosen by your enemy), but a Command or Transfix that is successfully cast on the driver certainly is. In fact, the language on Rules p. 81 describes these powers as "imped[ing] a War Beast model's movement (thereby causing it to remain stationary or take a move as described by the Magical Power)."
2. Where this could matter--and where I think the ambiguity may cause problem--is with models that don't have the Immovable Object rule, but do have rules that explicitly grant them immunity to magical powers that prevent them from moving or force them to move against their will. In other words, Ents with the Fangorn army bonus (Armies of the Lord of the Rings p. 90). Perhaps it was always understood that you couldn't Paralyze Treebeard, and I just missed it. Maybe that's a change. Either way, I think the FAQ as written would render Ents completely unaffected by Paralyze, which means Tiberius was right after all: Treebeard by far the best good Monster model in the game. 

Other random changes / clarifications that may interest only me:

Erratas Continue?

Good morning readers,

If you haven't seen it already, there are some new changes that have crept into the errata files - mostly related to Elven heroes (and some of the Designer commentaries are missing). Check them out here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/#middle-earth-strategy-battle-game. Some of the changes that you'll see:

• Armies of the Lord of the Rings
• Arwen is a Minor Hero (not a Hero of Fortitude)
• Cirdan is a Minor Hero (not a Hero of Fortitude)
• Arwen can be included in a Fellowship army if you also include Aragorn
• Haldir is a Hero of Valor
• If you want the Easterling bonus, you need at least 25% of your army to be Easterlings
• Armies of the Hobbit
• Alfrid requires you to take the Master or Bard in your army
• Arwen is a Minor Hero (not a Hero of Fortitude)
• Cirdan is a Minor Hero (not a Hero of Fortitude)
• Arwen can be included in a Fellowship army if you also include Aragorn

Additionally, the FAQs now clarify that if you have a historic alliance, each allied contingent only needs to have a Hero of Fortitude. Convenient and Impossible alliances still require a Hero of Valour, but given that all generic captains are Heroes of Fortitude, it should be possible to get back 90-95% of the thematic lists that were "lost" with the first round of FAQs as long as you bring along, say, a Rivendell Captain with Cirdan.

My initial take: the primary heroes that were targeted by the "must have a Hero of Valor" hero have been targeted here - maybe we'll see that disappear? Alternatively, making Haldir a Hero of Valor allows him to ally with the Fellowship for more thematic play (though Gildor received no such bonus). We'll see what comes of it...

Tiberius

Armies of Middle-Earth: Updated Errata and Rules Summaries (February 2020)

Photo Credit: Now for Wrath, Now for Ruin

We interrupt our regularly-scheduled lull in programming for a quick discussion of the new Errata and Designer Commentaries that dropped earlier today. While most models remain unchanged, there were several clarifications (and, in some cases, changes) that seemed worth highlighting, including some that may impact the Rivendell faction we spotlighted yesterday.

You can access the official list of changes by clicking the link above, or by checking out our all-in-one-place summary at the end of this post if you don't feel like piecing together the various pdfs on Warhammer Community. But we might as well start with the obvious one: 

• The End of Shades (as allies)!!!!!(?) Ah, the dreaded shade. -1 duel penalties are always rough, but most of the time you have a choice whether you can suffer one (you take an Unarmed hero in your list, or choose to use a two-handed weapon) or have some way to challenge it (in theory, you can always save your Will to resist a Shatter). But not the Shade (beyond staying more than 6" away from him at all times which... you can't always choose to do). That's a great feature in a niche list like Angmar, which has tons of crazy buffs but also pretty non-descript troop options to deal with (Strength 3, Fight 3, Defense 5 orcs, spectres, and warg riders, with the occasional Fight 6 Might-less Cave Troll), and only a couple combat-oriented heroes (the Witch-King, Burdur, and Gulavhar... everyone else is pretty meh when it comes to fighting, so long as a Barrow Wight hasn't cast Paralyze). It's not great if you're trying to fight Fight 5 Half-Trolls from the South or 100 Goblintown grunts, while taking mandatory -1 penalties to your duel rolls because someone allied in a Shade. The recent changes to Red Alliances were probably adopted with this synergy in mind, but the new errata takes the bull by the horns. Now, the Shade inflicts a -1 penalty to all models within 6" of it, friend or foe, with the exception of friendly Angmar models. So you can still take a Shade in an allied evil list if you like, but it won't help (and will, in fact, hurt) your allied contingent significantly. Will some players still ally-in a Shade? Sure. But I think it probably becomes much less niche, which is a good thing. Especially since...
• Each allied contingent now has to include at least one Hero of Valour. ...