2/16/2024 - February 2024 FAQs

Hey everyone!

Its finally here! 2024 February FAQ! A lot of us were expecting it two weeks ago, but late is better than never. 

1) 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? A. Yes

This one came up at the Nova open, and apparently other places as well. The argument to my knowledge was that the moving away bullet did not explicitly state you could charge something else, preventing you from doing so. I know that this was not a favored ruling there, and got some larger community members to reach out directly about this specific situation to get this FAQ. Good to have it here, because I definitely feel it would make heroic combats and flying models be absolutely terrible if control zones prevented them from going elsewhere and charging.

2) 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 one for the new weapon? 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.

This one hits corsairs pretty hard. It was very common to axe swap one of their swords to be able to pierce or feint/stab where it was beneficial. Now you have to choose between strength or rerolls while building/modeling, rather than double dipping.

3) 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? A. Yes

Pretty easy one. Lots of us have known this to be true, since Fortify Spirit specifies that the model itself is effected, which for Cavalry means rider and mount.

4) 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? Yes, as it has no melee weapons.

Another easy one. Ranged weapons are not hand weapons, thus cannot be used in melee. Erestor's daggers are the opposite: they are melee weapons that can be used to throw/shoot.

5) 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? A. No

I love this one. No more Legolas in the tower, sniping as he pleases. I know in a lot of ways this is more on the fault of the terrain being a bit crazy, but the simple solution to both problems is toss a ladder. I don't think enough ladders are used, they provide a cool element to play. Just no ladders more than 6" please, as its pretty hard to keep models on them (even the Isengard ones from the siege set).

6) Errata: 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.

Ok. This is the big one. I know people had differing interpretations. What I had always read and heard was that this sentence made it so that if you had a line of models fighting a line of models, where one is in the divot of the other, such that all models (except the edge ones) are in base contact with two, it made it so that you did 1v1s across the board, and because of the other parts of the rule, you then assigned stragglers (floaters) to fights based on priority player's decision. What the FAQ article post indicates they were attempting to do, was deal with issues where people believe you had to dogpile models. As in if you had 2 floating models that could both fight one or the other, who already had 1v1s, you'd have to assign those 2 to the same fight, making a 1v1 and a 3v1, when in reality, you would be able to do 2v1 and 2v1, since the minimum 1v1s exist. Removing this sentence however, now results in the line fighting changing. Say there are three models against 3 models in two lines, offset in the divots. Before, you would have to do three 1v1s. Now, the priority player can make it a 2v1 and a 1v2, taking the disadvantage on one fight to get an advantage on another. I personally think this strengthens hordes and elite armies the most. Some on the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game Discord (https://discord.gg/MZfUgRtV56) also believe that this strengthens flails (whirl special strike), since now you can more often get into two models to get use out of whirl (assuming the drop to fight 1 doesn't lose you the duel). I know this whole text description might be confusing, but I plan on doing a further article with a bunch of examples and implications of this as a follow up, because I see a few applications on strategy I want to cover with my Isengard.

7) 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? A. Yes

As I expected on this one, and am surprised it was answered to be honest, the Emperor and Palanquin are not picked up together, then gently placed back down afterwards. This just goes to show, that each time they rule on the Emperor when a rule mentions Cavalry, he is treated as such, just without the keyword, when it comes to rider versus mount situations that Cavalry face.

8) Errata: The Dragon Emperor of Rhun: Change the Dragon Emperor of Rhun's points value to 200, both on his profile and in the Host of the Dragon Emperor Legendary Legion.

The second big change. I had a feeling that something was going to happen with the ole Emp, but I was expecting changes to the legion itself, since historically, GW has preferred to change rules rather than adjust points. There is not a whole lot to say on this one outside the obvious that he loses a few models in his lists, reducing his crazy value to a more reasonable level in my opinion. Others will do more in depth analysis of this impact on list building, I am not experienced enough with him to really comment.

9) 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? A. No. A model can only leave the board in these scenarios via their own movement.

Pretty simple. Makes sense. You have to leave the board willingly. Although I will admit it would be funny to command a Balrog to leave the table in Reconnoitre via a compel.

10) 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? 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.

Another simple one. If you enter the zone, you must charge.

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

I've always said this. You literally cannot write it down if you don't have your side picked, and it does not say to stop and write down after picking sides. You deploy, then you mark down. This should be the same as assassination.

That is the 11 we got this time! A number of cool ones were answered. For those that do not know, I organize a FAQ submission list for the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game Discord, that I send in about a month in advance. It is a list of all questions I or others would like answered that have some shred of ambiguity in the rules, although some are just straight devil's advocate questions, or even a few suggestions formed as questions. A lot of the above were on my list, and while I am sure a number sent in on several of them, I find it interesting that a bunch of those were in the "top 10" part of the list sent in. After a few rounds of doing this, this being the third time I submitted in this manner, I am fairly confident that my efforts are working, and the list was read. One day I hope that GW answers all the questions, but understand that it takes time and that it isn't necessary to get them all done, since so many are niche cases.

I hope you all enjoyed my breakdown, and I hope you stick around to read my fight pairing breakdown that I will go into next time. I also plan to get back on the horse about writing my Isengard articles, so more should come soon. I also have some quite interesting news on the army I am bringing to Adepticon, along with the hobbying relating to it coming. 

See you all next time!

-Scott