The One Ring :: View topic

Even though the WotR rulebook looks like a high quality product, I'm sure the occasional error has slipped in. If we compile the ones found, maybe we can get official errata a little faster.

So far I've only found one but I'm sure there are more.

Galadhrim Knights - 4 attacks per company looks excessive for 50 points

How do you guys know soooo much already?

The WOTR rulebook hasn't even been realeased yet!

We have dark and mysterious powers...

... or accommodating GW staff.

Galadhrim Knights - 4 attacks per company looks excessive for 50 points

One to tree companies

Quote:

Galadhrim Knights - 4 attacks per company looks excessive for 50 points

But they have very few special rules (KoDA, who have the same points value, have one special rule, higher strength and defense).

My only hope is that Mad Wart's name isn't at the top of the list of credits - he was responsible for LoME and we know how error-prone that was!

The book has not been released yet... on the OR forum, however, folks are already finding errors and discussing them extensively...
Ok, what is wrong with this picture?

Matthew Ward and Jeremy Vetock are the "By" credit.

Gobbo wrote:

Matthew Ward and Jeremy Vetock are the "By" credit.

Ah well, I won't say any more since I don't want to turn this into a slagging-off session about the quality of Mat Ward's work (and I'll be buying the book anyway). Finding of holes and errors is ok since it can be constructive and will hopefully result in an official Errata being released sooner rather than later.

King Elessar the Uniter wrote:

How do you guys know soooo much already?

The WOTR rulebook hasn't even been realeased yet!

We have dark and mysterious powers...

... or accommodating GW staff.

Take your pick.

:-D

Pikes: +1FV
+ they cancel out all fight-bonusses on both sides
(according to quickstart)
isn't that strange?

Author:	Cosworth [ Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:07 am ]
Post subject:	WotR errors
Even though the WotR rulebook looks like a high quality product, I'm sure the occasional error has slipped in. If we compile the ones found, maybe we can get official errata a little faster. Here's the compiled list of problems so far Stat block errors or simply suspicious stats a.Royal banner of Rohan. Is it an army banner as p.60 suggests? b.Uglúk's Raiders have shields as wargear but this is not reflected in the stat block. c.Dunlending Huscarls may exchange their 2 handed weapons for shields, thus making them unarmed! Ironically this increases their FV. d.Gundabad Blackshields have no weapon entry in their profile. e.War Mûmak has 13 crew listed in formation box but only 12 attacks in crew stats. f.Paralysing Touch causes a casualty for each hit in close combat (p.209). This wording will allow Barrow-wights to wipe out e.g. an Ent very easily as it apparantly ignores the hard-to-kill tables. The intention was probably: "Paralysing Touch ignores the targets resilience". g.Glorfindel's movement is listed as 8 which seems low. Is it correct? (answered in GW FAQ. Movement is 12 not 8 ) h.Saruman the White has courage 7 is this correct? Also is his acces to Dismay spells intended? Confusing information or clarification needed: 1.Spell casting range. Is the spellcaster's company/formation within range of themselves? If yes, this would mean they are affected by the Tremor spell. 2.Spell duration. Is the standard duration of spells "the rest of the game" or just "the rest of the turn" unless otherwise specified? 3.Legendary formation cost of the first company is not explained anywhere. From the army examples it is assumed to cost both of the listed values . 4.Epic hero abilities. Please clarify the grey box on p.69. Do epic hero abilities transfer to the company they are in? If not what is the reasoning in some of the abilities if they cannot be used? 5.Boromir's Mighty Blow is different from Lurtz'. Which is correct? 6.Glaives/Pikes - These add one to the fight value but seem not to be included in the statblock as armor and shields are (see p.56 example). This takes high Elves to fight 7 though and High Elven captains equal Elrond in fight value. 7.Warmachines are not listed with the number of crew. It might be implicitly understood that when a dwarf ballista crew has 3 attacks there are also 3 crew, but only 2 are depicted. (Artillery rule explains there are always 3 crew) 8.Ringwraith's can be used in 3 army lists, but it's not specified if this goes for Ringwraith's on fell beasts. The witch-king on fell beast on p.207 suggests you can, but the wording on p.211 doesn't include winged Nazgul. 9.Dark Marshal When he is the leader in a Mordor army do Morgul knights count as common choices from the allied list of Fallen Realms? (Answered in GW FAQ) 10.Movement. Some people think you can turn a company 180 degrees without paying movement for it. Please confirm this is not so. (Answered in GW FAQ. This is in fact so) 11.The rules for Grima Wormtongue need clarification. He is assigned to an enemy formation and decreases their F and C values. However, does this also affect any heroes in the formation? Furthermore, since he falls into the category of an Epic Hero can he "jump" to different enemy formations in range? 12.On the Ridiculously hard to kill table do natural 6's stack for one combined result or are the applied individually? Also can a second natural 6 be followed by a third die roll? As the first natural 6 causes a wound does this wound count when calculating the effect of the second roll? (Answered in FAQ. The dice are indeed exploding!) 13. Overlord. Can the overlord rule also aid formations without heroes in them? 14. Artillery. Does accuracy bonus apply in any way to artillery? Typos: Castellans of Dol Goldur are listed with "One to tree companies" Grimbeorn is listed with a move value (p.148) which is redundant. Shagrat's Tower Guard has an Orc Drummer instead of Uruk-hai Drummer. The Necromancer apparantly lives in Dol Guldur!.

Author:	gaarew [ Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:32 am ]
Post subject:	Re: WotR errors
Cosworth wrote: Even though the WotR rulebook looks like a high quality product, I'm sure the occasional error has slipped in. If we compile the ones found, maybe we can get official errata a little faster. So far I've only found one but I'm sure there are more. Galadhrim Knights - 4 attacks per company looks excessive for 50 points One of the entries for an Evil army, possibly Mordor or Isengard states that they can take 'one to tree' companies...

Author:	Cosworth [ Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:11 pm ]
Post subject:
Found the "tree". It's the Castellans. Another one is the Glaives rule. p.56 says it gives +1 fight value "taking galadhrim from fight 5 to 6", but why isn't that factored into the stat block as armor and shields are then? High elf captains reach fight 8 with this rule beating almost every single elven hero except Elrond. Something is off here.

Author:	King Elessar the Uniter [ Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:
How do you guys know soooo much already? The WOTR rulebook hasn't even been realeased yet!

Author:	gaarew [ Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:
King Elessar the Uniter wrote: How do you guys know soooo much already? The WOTR rulebook hasn't even been realeased yet! We have dark and mysterious powers... ... or accommodating GW staff. Take your pick.

The One Ring http://test.one-ring.co.uk/

WotR errors http://test.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=14406	Page 1 of 5

Author:	Dagorlad [ Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:46 pm ]
Post subject:
A few errors here and there are perfectly normal and only to be expected with a work of this complexity and size. My only hope is that Mad Wart's name isn't at the top of the list of credits - he was responsible for LoME and we know how error-prone that was!

Author:	BrightLance [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:20 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Galadhrim Knights - 4 attacks per company looks excessive for 50 points But they have very few special rules (KoDA, who have the same points value, have one special rule, higher strength and defense). Quote: One to tree companies this is not an error, the writer is from Brooklyn, NY.

Author:	joris267 [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:13 am ]
Post subject:
three or tree what does is mater? as long as everyone knows it's after two and before four we're ok.

Author:	Cosworth [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:37 am ]
Post subject:
BrightLance wrote: Quote: Galadhrim Knights - 4 attacks per company looks excessive for 50 points But they have very few special rules (KoDA, who have the same points value, have one special rule, higher strength and defense). Let's have these to companies fight it out. Galdhrim exchange bows for shield giving them defense 5. Galadhrim charge KoDA (in the front): +2 charge bonus, +2 fight bonus, 4 base attacks = 8 Str 3 attacks vs D7 vs 2 base attacks at str 4 vs D5 with no lance bonus due to missing charge. Average # wounds Galadhrim: 1.36 (requiring 6+ to wound) KoDA: 0.66 (requiring 5+ to wound) KoDA charge Galadhrim (in the front) IF Terror test succeeds! +2 charge bonus, 2 base attacks = 4 attacks at Str4 vs D5 with lance bonus G: +2 fight bonus, 4 base attacks = 6 str 3 attacks vs D7. Average # wounds Galadhrim: 0.5 (requiring 6+ to wound) KoDA: 1 (requiring 4+ to wound) I Know the unstoppable charge is not factored in but it will pretty much cancel out the terror test required for charging. Edit: Fixed error in calculation. It would seem the Galadhrim's are not immensely overpowered

Author:	Cosworth [ Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:44 am ]
Post subject:
Another not so clear thing. Warmachines are not listed with the number of crew. It might be implicitly understood that when a dwarf ballista crew has 3 attacks there are also 3 crew, but only 2 are depicted.

Author:	Gobbo [ Sun Mar 08, 2009 6:05 am ]
Post subject:
Dagorlad wrote: My only hope is that Mad Wart's name isn't at the top of the list of credits - he was responsible for LoME and we know how error-prone that was! Matthew Ward and Jeremy Vetock are the "By" credit.

Author:	Krol [ Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:
The book has not been released yet... on the OR forum, however, folks are already finding errors and discussing them extensively... Ok, what is wrong with this picture?

Author:	gaarew [ Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:16 pm ]
Post subject:
Krol wrote: The book has not been released yet... on the OR forum, however, folks are already finding errors and discussing them extensively... Ok, what is wrong with this picture? Nothing, the preview day was Feb 28th and we obviously went down to the local GW and had a look at it then...

Author:	Krol [ Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm just jealous my closest GW is in NYC (more than 200 miles south) and I didn't have enough money for a trip there....

Page 1 of 5	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Dagorlad [ Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:47 pm ]
Post subject:
Gobbo wrote: Matthew Ward and Jeremy Vetock are the "By" credit. Ah well, I won't say any more since I don't want to turn this into a slagging-off session about the quality of Mat Ward's work (and I'll be buying the book anyway). Finding of holes and errors is ok since it can be constructive and will hopefully result in an official Errata being released sooner rather than later.

Author:	Gobbo [ Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:20 am ]
Post subject:
Dagorlad wrote: Gobbo wrote: Matthew Ward and Jeremy Vetock are the "By" credit. Ah well, I won't say any more since I don't want to turn this into a slagging-off session about the quality of Mat Ward's work (and I'll be buying the book anyway). Finding of holes and errors is ok since it can be constructive and will hopefully result in an official Errata being released sooner rather than later. It is put together a lot nicer and with less errors than LoME

Author:	Adanedhel [ Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Pikes: +1FV + they cancel out all fight-bonusses on both sides (according to quickstart) isn't that strange?

Author:	Angrok [ Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:22 pm ]
Post subject:
gaarew wrote: King Elessar the Uniter wrote: How do you guys know soooo much already? The WOTR rulebook hasn't even been realeased yet! We have dark and mysterious powers... ... or accommodating GW staff. Take your pick. In other words we have access to palantirs Adanedhel wrote: Pikes: +1FV + they cancel out all fight-bonusses on both sides (according to quickstart) isn't that strange? I think there are some deliberate discrepancies between the quickstart rules and the final book. I'll try to confirm but I believe pikes simply cancel all charge bonuses but Fight Values are still in effect.

Author:	Cosworth [ Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:22 pm ]
Post subject:
Adanedhel wrote: Pikes: +1FV + they cancel out all fight-bonusses on both sides (according to quickstart) isn't that strange? In the rulebook they cancel charge bonuses when charging a pike formation in the front. Makes more sense.