Strength of corruption: no dead models come back to life, that's saved for the healing spell As for countering, it will only counter one spell. A spell for a spell. You could always say that a roll of a one is a failed counter and a roll of a 6 double counters (or does one counter and gives the benefits of the 2-5 result), but that is a house rule. One spell negates one other.

The Courage value of the Hero is adopted by the formation (unless it is lower), thusly it counts as their defence.

Overlord: You sure can. The rules says that the formation may use it as if it were there own. As if, not instead of. Not to mention, the fact that GW's articles often have problems is irrelevant when it is confirmed in multiple sources (battle reports and an article specifically on special rules like this).

As long as it can see them and reach them, it can charge them (unlike WH Fantasy). A different tactic is fly over the unit you wish to charge and then charge them in the rear.


[quote= "Azrothan2"]No terror immune/not immune to terror answer?

(although I haven't really been following any discussions about it, is there a concensus on it?)[/quote]

It states in the FAQ that Terror still affects those that cause Terror and the only rules that would suggest otherwise are WH Fantasy ones. Nothing in WotR indicates otherwise.

Please. Read the rule as written. "can use the Overlod's Might to call a Heroic action, rather than their own"
The definition of "rather than" according to google dictionary = instead.
Therefore you can use Overlord's Might instead of your own. If you don't have any, the rule's requirements cannot be satisfied. The articles on GW site are not official rules or the official errata, so as long as this doesn't get FAQ'd (and it clearly needs to be) the text as written is pretty clear to me.

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League

You realise applying your interpretation strictly would mean that as soon as the formation ran out of might then a character with Overlord can no longer affect it?

I can't help but feel that the rule did not intend this, and it certainly drastically limits the value of the rule.



On a separate note, I am also not certain that Spirit Grasp attacks a hero's courage rather than the base courage of the formation. I consider the instruction to use 'an opponent's courage, rather than its defence' to be ambiguous. As I can point see arguments either way I plan to ask before building my spirit army, since I think the ghost units are radically overpriced if they have to strike against a hero's courage.

_________________
Michael

Thanks for the responses to my questions. I kind of meant them to be rhetorical, as I think that the rules are somewhat ambiguous in these circumstances. The variety of answers supports this contention. Fortunately they are minor points.

Good catch on the might being capped at 10. This being said, if all of the opponent's characters have 10 might, it is still very scary. The rules as written still allow a counselor to elect to spend more might than he currently has, as it says "...may choose to expend any number of might points..." The timing of the expenditure of the might is not clear, as it does not specify when the might is spent. (At the beginning of the turn you could choose to expend the might, but not actually spend it until slightly later in the turn.) The people who abuse the rule have one counselor spend a might point, and then another counselor spends a might point, and the process continues until they have as much might at they want.

All of this being said, I am very happy with the FAQ. It clarifies most of the rules. I think the biggest issue which has yet to be addressed is the timing of stuff.

Il admit that it was User:Osbad that first posted this info in the news section, i just revived the topic in this section.

It seems these answers have just developed more questions,

Like HTF is the witch king's ability supposed to be used ??

GW's answer: No ??? WTF?!

In all honesty, I haven't the book to hand, which I probably should've mentioned, so my apologies. However, you have negated the fact that they essentially have 0 Might, so it isn't worth putting it in the profile. Thusly, they are replacing their own. The rules requirements are satisfied. Read the rule as it says, well, you quoted it already, but it points out that they may use the Overlord's Might rather than their own, meaning instead of using their 0 Might they can use his 3 or whatever.

The articles on GW's website ARE official rules, unless stated as being unofficial, otherwise, what is the point in having them? It's like saying: here's WotR and now we'll show you how to use a rule from Magic: The Gathering, even though it has no relevance. Not to mention, it is the repeated use of it across their mediums that cements it as fact, rather than interpretation. They have had no ambiguity with it and have stated how it is to be used and didn't think it was necessary to go in the FAQ.

Unfortunately, the text is clear to you, but it seems the meaning isn't quite so much. I agree that it should be put into an errata or FAQ and if they suddenly go against what they have been saying, I will certainly apologise and admit being wrong, but currently you are taking an interpretation that is contrary to all evidence, which is what makes its meaning clear, rather than simply the words clear.



arcade81: That was the rule that I meant that just said no to. I'd already forgotten what it was and had closed the FAQ (after saving it ). They can see that their is a need for the question to have arisen, otherwise it wouldn't be in there, but to then just say no to a question of "is it meant this way?" without clarification is stupid. If it had been "does it work this or does it work that way?" they would've said no and then yes or something, which is more understandable. I would presume that as long as the front of the base is behind the line of the back of the formation, then it counts? But in battle reports, they used the ability, then moved the Witch King to the other side of the board to allow others to benefit from it, which is probably where the question had even come from, lol Guess it just needs to be agreed with the opponent beforehand how it's worked out, since it's left to us to decide

Good point. Also, why does "own" have to be interpreted as "not zero"? If a formation has zero Might, that zero Might is still its own.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

The best part which you guys aren't seeing is that it is irrelevant whether you can use the might if you have 0 or not. The important thing is that in heroic moves section it says "During the Move, Shoot, Charge or Fight phase, any individual Hero can override the normal sequence..." -> even assuming that you can use Overlord's Might to call a heroic move if you have 0, a formation that doesn't have a hero cannot call a heroic action, because only a hero is allowed to call an action. Only a hero in the formation is capable of using the Overlord's Might and is priviliged to use any heroic abilities. Otherwise going strictly by your interpretation, a Cave Troll can call a heroic duel, just like a Giant could (oooh, my Giant would love to hear that) - oh and check this out: Giant calls a heroic move and moves 30" - that's even better. Also a formation of Goblins without a hero would be able to call a heroic duel... If you take into account all the ridiculous examples, you'll see that you have to have a hero in the formation.

I have nothing else to say, the rulebook could not be clearer on this matter, do with it what you will.

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League

I read it that same way, Blackmist.

I think the contention comes from the convoluted way one must go about in actually getting the rule interpreted.

I am frustrated by their response on the WK special rule as well. "It's usually obvious" leaves a wee bit more room for interpretation than I'd like. I mean, if the WK is 3" directly behind a Formation, great. What if he's 6" behind. Is he still close enough to have an effect? What about 12" directly behind?

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

I think they are trying to make it as simple as possible and people who think its complicated make it more complicated than need be. There is never mention of measurable distance, just if it is behind a formation. Its pretty straightforward when you think about.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost. ... stcount=41

that might help.

If the witch king is anywhere behind that formation they can benefit from his rule as it does not list a maximum distance for the effect, the range is infinite. If you think about the rule in context it makes perfect sense. In the books the orcs would quail at even the rumor of his coming...if they even thought he was anywhere nearby they would throw themselves towards the foe. His reputation was almost as fearsome as his presence

back to the subject of overlord. This really does seem like a tedious argument, are we not encouraged to fill in the gaps where necessary when the rules are ambiguous? sometimes you have to use common sense to make sense of rubbish wording and contradictory summaries in the back of books. To me it seems evident that the rule can be interpreted ' formations without might may use the overlords might points to call heroic actions' and furthermore outside articles from games workshop indicate thats the way it was meant to be used and thats good enought for me.
Thats ridiculous, a formation without a hero cannot fight a heroic duel, there is no one to call out the challenge! a hero needs to fight the duel and because there is no hero and heroic duel cannot be fought. Once again we have to use our common sense to make the game flow in situations like this. You guys do what you like with your games and your opponents but I have better things to do then just debate the finer points of RAW until my beards turn grey. In the end I care not whether the rules ambiguity causes contention with nitty gritty rules pickers. my opponents and I play for fun and when the rules cause conflict we alter them to suit our play and improve our enjoyment. After all, in the end this is a game and it is meant to be fun, not every answer can be found in the rules and in times like that a little common sense and ingenuity will solve the rest.

_________________
"Thou fool! No living man may hinder me!"
Witch King, RoTK

Interesting about the Heroic Duel, I never thought about that.

_________________
Better, though difficult, the right way to go, than wrong, though easy, where the end is woe. John Bunyan - Pilgrim's Progress

Spot on with the Common Sense Card.

Heroic Move, Heroic Shooting, Heroic Charge...that all makes sense with the Overlord rule for the "no hero needed" interpretation. Think about it like the Overlord character burning his might to get his maggoty troops to do something exceptional for a change. Now if someone tried to use Overlord to have a common warrior in a Formation of Goblins call an Heroic Duel... Uh...where's the Hero? It doesn't allow you to get past other rules, just that you don't need a Might

No Hero? No Heroic Duel
No Archers? No Heroic Shooting

Etc.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

It obviously could be clearer or this argument about the Overlord rule wouldn't exist.

Despite that, I think your reasoning has convinced me that you do need a hero for the Overlord rule.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

I concede that because of that wording (as I mentioned before, I've not got my book with me: it's 350 miles away) it reads as being that only other heroes can use it.

Having said that, the formations may still increase or decrease rolls using Might because that wording is directly relating to heroic actions. If that wording wasn't there, then they could do (as all evidence outside of that rule points to and no evidence points towards the "hero necessary" ruling), but wouldn't be able to use Heroic Duelling, not because there is no Hero but because there isn't and it specifies the Hero rolls and adds his might etc. But, it's moot since there is the heroic actions wording.

So, the Overlord rule isn't very well written, due to its correct application being mentioned via another ruling (although rolls may be affected by might as nothing disagrees with that), but it is now known that a Hero is necessary for the Heroic actions, but Overlord allows roll editing.


Beowulf: it mentions no distance, so that doesn't affect it, the contention is what is classed as behind? Does all of him have to be behind (I'd say yes)? Behind the front of the unit (as it's behind)? Behind any models in the unit? Behind the whole unit? Even if it's at the other side of the boardand in line with the backfoot?