Fallen Realms Book errata and FAQ questions only

All questions or things you think are wrong about the new book to be posted here. Will collate into a long list and get it sent off after a while!

Moderators: Rangers, Leaders

User avatar
Standard Bearer
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:29 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Fallen Realms Book errata and FAQ questions only

Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:13 am

adragonsfang wrote:t since it says Gondor and that no longer exists


There never was a Gondor army list. The rules for Boromir's banner in Gondor in Flames referred to "Warriors of the Realm of Gondor" without ever defining what they were. Since, RAW, there never was a profile named "Warrior of the Realm of Gondor", would this mean that the banner was useless back in the GiF-era? After all, the profiles are listed under Defenders of Gondor in the same book, with sub-entries for "Good Heroes" and "Good Warriors". Never is any model ever referred to as a "Warrior of the Realm of Gondor". How do we know which models are affected by the banner? Because we know the background.

I also don't see why you're referring to the notes of Grima's profile and that of the Golden King. Those notes, as far as I can see, have nothing to do with the issue.
Armies:
Kingdoms of Men(Minas Tirith, Fiefdoms, Arnor), The Free Peoples(Durin's Folk, The Fellowship, The Wanderers in the Wild, The White Council), Mordor, The Fallen Realms(Isengard, Harad and Umbar, The Eastern Kingdoms), Moria & Angmar

User avatar
Istari
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Fallen Realms Book errata and FAQ questions only

Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:07 pm

There seems to be a lot of debate over nothing here :? Can you all call it a day please.

Villager
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Fallen Realms Book errata and FAQ questions only

Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:59 pm

GrashnarTheSecond wrote:In fact, the best example of this is the Spider Queen. She has two different profiles, one in Mordor, one in Moria & Angmar. The one in Mordor is a named hero and can lead a warband, the one in Moria & Angmar is unnamed and independent. They also have different descriptions in their profiles. The Mordor profile specifically refers to her as being the Queen of Mirkwood.
However, the Mordor profile mentions her under the movement rules as the Spider Queen and in the Moria rules as Spider Queens. While this is directly contradicted in the Progeny rule, where the Mordor profile says a Spider Queen and the Moria profile says the Spider Queen, it is clear from the description that the Mordor Queen is named whereas the Moria Queen is not.

I think the spider queen profile in the Mordor book is meant to be called "The Spider Queen" and they just made a huge set of mistakes like you said because they were unaware which profile they were trying to make as they wrote them. Im not sure on the fluff behind it though. Is there really only one spider that can claim to be queen in mirkwood? Same question posed backwords to moria, are there really many spiders that have queen like stature?

But the logical answer is that the Mordor one is meant to be a "named individual" called "The Spider Queen" whilst the Moria one is meant to be a generic hero profile for "Spider Queen". This kind of links in with "The Balrog" whilst there are many Balrogs in the history of middle earth there is only one "The Balrog" that the profile refers to (Durin's Bane).

hithero wrote:There seems to be a lot of debate over nothing here :? Can you all call it a day please.

If you wish me to stop then I shall, you saw where I'm comming from atleast though?

Back to the Fallen Realms, does anybody know what happened to the khandish mercenaries? I thought they were quite cool with their bribed special rule, reminds me of the golden kings rule idea.

User avatar
Standard Bearer
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:07 pm
Location: Lisboa, Portugal

Re: Fallen Realms Book errata and FAQ questions only

Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:40 pm

adragonsfang wrote:Actually it says just that on page 5. It says "Aragorns" not "Aragorn - Strider" not "Aragorn, King Elessar", but "Aragorns". This is telling us that a "named individual" is defined by his name. Aragorn, Haldir, Elrond, Gandalf, these are all names. The grey, the white, defender of helms deep, Master of Rivendell, these are all titles.
"...you may only have one of any named individual in your army. You can't have an army made up entirely of Aragorns."
This is here to cover including duplicates of heroes AND different titled heroes.

So just using Aragorn's name in the text saying you can't have an army made entirely out him means that all equally named guys must obviously be the same fellow..
Are you even trying to imagine what it would be like to know nothing about LOTR?
Here's a funny fact, that Aragorn quote was copied from LOME. When that quote was written it was obviously not considered as automatic fact inside the rules that it was enough to mean that all named heroes were the same. Probably because it doesn't mean that. In the previous version of the rules they kept including the notes even with that quote.
In the new version they must have realised that the game is inevitably associated with the background, so there is no real need to point out who is the same guy in the rules.

adragonsfang wrote: "The same is true if there are several different versions of the same Hero - Sauron and the Necromancer, fir example."
This is here to try and cover individuals who are the same character but with different names. Hense the example. And we can notice that in practice this rule currently only applies to 3 individuals, Sauron/The Necromancer Saruman/ Sharkey and Wormtongue/Worm, the latter two being in a dual profile!

Are you seriously trying to say that there aren't several different versions of Gandalf or Aragorn or all the others?
The words mean what they mean "different versions of the same Hero" means versions of the same Hero that are not equal, and last time I checked Gandalf the Grey was not the same as Gandalf the White. All the others also have different profiles
What I just said should be obvious to any native english speaker but if you still persist go check page 5 of LOME. In that book their example for "several different versions of the same Hero" is the two Glorfindels that previously existed

adragonsfang wrote:And we've established this is an error that needs to be changed as RAW the banner has NO ingame effect because there isnt a Gondor list. We interperet it to be both Minas tirith and Fiefdoms but since it says Gondor and that no longer exists the banner strictly has no effect with RAW. Thus why its been reported in the first place.

My point with this one was that if they had written realms of Gondor like it was before we'd know which lists covered it because we know the fluff

adragonsfang wrote:And i would have you realise that the notes for the golden king and Grima Wormtongue still exist aswell as the necromancer and that the text has been edited not just copy and pasted from the necromancers last print.

I erased the text written above this quote because the reply to that is the reply to the second quote.
The Necromancer is in the Mordor book, oversight doesn't mean copy paste necessarily.
I have no idea why you brought up the Golden King and Grima, those rules don't really fit the one we are discussing.
They did however point out how much the Mordor Sourcebook sticks out as inconsistent.
There's a font for fluff and a font for rules in the profiles, that's how you know what's rules and what you should disregard.
All sourcebooks besides Mordor are consistent in that, but in Mordor both the Necromancers note and the Ringwraiths note are in the wrong font. I don't find it that relevant but someone could make the argument that the fluff is all things in that font in the profiles and that they should be disregarded. It's quite a basic oversight but it does point to a different person putting this book together.

Don't counter argue this last point, I'm just pointing out that the Mordor book is inconsistent with the others. Not discussing rules in this last point, it's not really relevant. Just a hint that the book may have had a different person copying those profiles in there.
Even the Great Beast of Gorgoroth has the wrong title in COMPOSITION :? all caps..

Ranger
 
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Fallen Realms Book errata and FAQ questions only

Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:50 pm

I see both your arguments and I'm surprised it's gone on this long.

The argument reads like this:
1 - an orange is called an orange because it is the colour orange.
2- NUH UH! the colour orange is called orange because it's named after an orange.
repeat.

LK - yes we know that Sharkey and Saruman are the same guy. But Adam Stott who walks in off the street with no knowledge of LotR wouldn't. There is no clear rule saying that they can't be fielded together, besides 'fluff'. Fluff is not to be taken as 'rule', if 'fluff' was to be interpreted we couldn't have half the alliances that exist. Fluff has no part in influencing the rules.

(NB. Adam Stott is a friend of mine who knows nothing on lotr).
Last edited by The Newbie on Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Warrior
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 2:57 pm
Location: Kirkby In Ashfield

Re: Fallen Realms Book errata and FAQ questions only

Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:52 pm

An orange was originally named
A norange

True fact. So an orange is the same as a norange but an orange came later.
We can't simultaneously have both or there would be anarchy of the vegatarian kind!

User avatar
Standard Bearer
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:29 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Fallen Realms Book errata and FAQ questions only

Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:35 pm

The Newbie wrote:I see both your arguments and I'm surprised it's gone on this long.

The argument reads like this:
1 - an orange is called an orange because it is the colour orange.
2- NUH UH! the colour orange is called orange because it's named after an orange.
repeat.

LK - yes we know that Sharkey and Saruman are the same guy. But Adam Stott who walks in off the street with no knowledge of LotR wouldn't. There is no clear rule saying that they can't be fielded together, besides 'fluff'. Fluff is not to be taken as 'rule', if 'fluff' was to be interpreted we couldn't have half the alliances that exist. Fluff has no part in influencing the rules.

(NB. Adam Stott is a friend of mine who knows nothing on lotr).


Ah yes, but does Adam Stott play the game? :lol:

In all seriousness, and as LK pointed out: being familiar with the background is somewhat of a given when playing this game. I find that people tend to disregard 'fluff' here a little too easy. We're still playing "The Lord of the Rings", not "generic fantasy miniatures game". As for there being no clear rule saying they can't be fielded together... well, there is. That's what the whole discussion has been about. Page 5 of the books states that they can't be fielded together because they're two different versions of the same hero. Even if someone doesn't know this by not having read Tolkien's works, it's still there as 'fluff' in the profile.

Let's say, hypothetically, I would be playing Adam Stott, and Adam Stott would field both Saruman and Sharkey. I'd say it isn't possible and he'd ask why not. I'd explain to him it's the same guy, and I would actually point to the fluff in the profile entry, where it's stated twice that Sharkey is Saruman. ;)
Armies:
Kingdoms of Men(Minas Tirith, Fiefdoms, Arnor), The Free Peoples(Durin's Folk, The Fellowship, The Wanderers in the Wild, The White Council), Mordor, The Fallen Realms(Isengard, Harad and Umbar, The Eastern Kingdoms), Moria & Angmar

User avatar
Standard Bearer
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:07 pm
Location: Lisboa, Portugal

Re: Fallen Realms Book errata and FAQ questions only

Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:50 pm

My point is that if you can take Sharkey and Saruman you can take 3 Aragorns 2 Éomers etc

Basicly if you take the rule as meaning you should know from the fluff what profiles are "different versions of the same Hero" then you can't take Sharkey and Saruman or any of the other multiples together.

However if you choose to say that you cannot use the fluff to determine what profiles belong to the same guy then you have no way of determining that for either Sharkey/Saruman, the Aragorns or anyone else.
This second interpretation makes the rule concerning different versions of the same Hero apply only to the Necromancer since you have no other way of defining within the rules that both Éomers are the same guy.

That's pretty much it.

Adam Stott would also have no idea that in LOTR there are never 2 blokes with the same name

Ranger
 
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Fallen Realms Book errata and FAQ questions only

Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:21 pm

true, which is why the rules should be clearer for those who don't know the background or such mistakes will be made, especially in such a less obvious comparison. At least Eomer, knight of the pellenor and eomer, marshall of the riddermark have the same name, just different titles.

BUT I do understand your argument.

Villager
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Fallen Realms Book errata and FAQ questions only

Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:36 pm

GrashnarTheSecond wrote:Let's say, hypothetically, I would be playing Adam Stott, and Adam Stott would field both Saruman and Sharkey. I'd say it isn't possible and he'd ask why not. I'd explain to him it's the same guy, and I would actually point to the fluff in the profile entry, where it's stated twice that Sharkey is Saruman. ;)

The fluff actually only says once that he is, but does mention Saruman's name twice. "Sharkey was once a power in Middle-earth. As the Wizard Saruman the White, he betrayed...."

However it doesnt say Grima Wormtongue and Worm as being the same guy, infact it doesnt mention "Worm" at all. So even if i was going along with the opposing opinion on this matter, with the fluff given we can establish Sharkey is Saruman but NOT Worm is Grima Wormtongue. Therefore the state of being would be we could have "Sharkey and Worm" and "Grima Wormtongue" if we permitted fluff as a support for rules, because even the fluff given doesnt confirm everything. Therefore regardless we still need a firm note!

This whole discussion just highlights how poorly thought out and written these books are(as usual) not just this Sharkey/Saruman point but lots of example points people have mentioned. And the only way to show them is to read them RAW and notice how stupid the mistakes are. The sourcebooks should be self contained with fluff included at the very least, but ideally you shouldnt rely on fluff at all because rules are fair and clear and concrete.

GrashnarTheSecond, for this game to be accessable to all audiences, not just the ones who read the books and watch the movies, the rules should be totally inclussive (as humanly possible). Especially since the fluff can be totally unrelliable for the game depending where it came from. You can look at many parts of the story and they differ enormously from movie to book to other book. Tolkien is a great author but he made mistakes and rewrote lots of things, and then Peter Jackson changed things again to make them even more fluid. So whilst the fluff is good it comes from lots of sources and can contradict itself easily, thats why for a game we shouldnt rely on it because nothing is concrete except the rules themselves.

PreviousNext
Return to FAQ for the 2012 SBG Books

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest