Lad's Got Talent (Two Questions)

1. I've seen several post asking about what to do when you roll LGT and you already have 6 heroes and everyone seems to universally say you need to have a slot open before rolling to get the LGT henchman hero. It clearly states in the manual under 'Dismissing a Warband' that you may dismiss a warrior at any time. Since rolling a dice and applying its results are clearly two separate and distinct actions (not to mention several instances of modifying a die roll before applying its result) then you can, by the rules written in the manual, dismiss an existing hero as soon as LGT is rolled, and therefore keep the henchman hero.

Why are people house ruling something that is already allowed in the rules? Did another edition come out that refuted this? Or maybe one of the expansions cover this and say you can't do it?

2. Are you forced to take a LGT? Seems like you would be, but we had a situation come up where someone lost their caster and would easily had enough gold to replace it, but got LGT and didn't want the results. We ended up saying he technically had to accept the result, because the result doesn't even imply that you have the option of rejecting it. He ended up dismissing one of his weaker heroes and kept the henchman hero (who is probably a better hero anyway) and then buying his caster. Still, with limited gold you may end up not being able to get all your units replaced (assuming some dead models after a fight) and having that happen is almost like 'losing' a hero in addition to your other battle losses. You'd think you should be able to say "Look, I don't care if you're special, get your butt back in line with the rest of the privates!" Though I guess you could argue that if you didn't treat him as he deserved he'd leave and find a warband that would...


Edit: Because after re-reading the FAQ I'm not sure that was what Tuomas was saying.

1. We handle it the way you do. If all slots are full and you roll LGT, you can just kick out an old hero. Can't give you a RB-Page though. We just turn to one of our group when it gets to non-everyday rulesquestions.

2. If I'm correct, you can just refuse to accept tallented lad. He just stays part of his old henchmengroup. But if this group rolls LGT ever again, on of the group will leave, no matter what.

1. I think that the reason why people "house rule" it is because the wording is wonky and people want to make sure that everyone is on the same page

2. You can refuse the LGT. Otherwise your upgrade turns into auto kill on one of you Henchmen or heroes.

@Eagle5--By your logic ANY roll of a LGT results in a new hero becasue
1) the player must accept all rolls of LGT
2) even if the player's roster contains 6 heroes when the LGT is rolled this has no bearing becasue a hero may be released at anytime and becaue of #1 a hero must be released.

I would suggest a house rule.

Von Kurst wrote:

@Eagle5--By your logic ANY roll of a LGT results in a new hero becasue
1) the player must accept all rolls of LGT
2) even if the player's roster contains 6 heroes when the LGT is rolled this has no bearing becasue a hero may be released at anytime and becaue of #1 a hero must be released.

I would suggest a house rule.

I see what you're saying, but the LGT says if you already have six you roll again, so it would not result in an auto kill (nothing says you must dismiss a hero to make room). This came up because he had lost a hero in the serious inuries stage, and did have an empty slot, but he was already planning on filling it during the recruit phase of post game sequence.

Rudeboy wrote:

@1. I think that the reason why people "house rule" it is because the wording is wonky and people want to make sure that everyone is on the same page

That makes sense. Although the rules do say 'at any time' , many people view the link between seeing a die roll and applying its result as sacred and you can't make a decision after seeing the results. Though in the explore phase you get to reroll dice you want (if you have those abilities) or +/- to a die after seeing all the rolls. But yeah, that is a good point.

I'm starting to notice a trend in this game about wonky rules...

Wouldn't be so bad except my family is full of powergamers.

Nothing wrong with power-gamers, most of my best friends are power-gamers. Trust me, your games will be the better for them in the long run.

Granted, there will be the initial period where you are smoothing out all the kinks, but once you have house-ruled them all away your games will go a lot smoother.

Something that might make your life easier: Every time you make a house rule, write it down. If possible write it down on both a piece of paper that you fit into the book *and* on a postit that is stuck into the book itself.

Are you using a pdf of the rules or a hardcopy rulebook?

Although, the important thing to remember: if you kick a hero out, he leaves with his stuff! It's only fair that if you give him the sack, he's going to fill that sack up with all he can carry.

Lord 0 wrote:

Nothing wrong with power-gamers, most of my best friends are power-gamers. Trust me, your games will be the better for them in the long run.

Granted, there will be the initial period where you are smoothing out all the kinks, but once you have house-ruled them all away your games will go a lot smoother.

Something that might make your life easier: Every time you make a house rule, write it down. If possible write it down on both a piece of paper that you fit into the book *and* on a postit that is stuck into the book itself.

Are you using a pdf of the rules or a hardcopy rulebook?

Of course there's nothing wrong with power gamers. I'm tied with my cousin for our groups most vicious gamer. I think he might get a nudge ahead because if he thinks his odds aren't good, he has no problem actively messing with those still in the running (kingmaking and/or otherwise griefing remaining players by being a buttmunch, and I cleaned that up a lot, btw), whereas I attempt to play the leaders against each other to try to buy time and squeak ahead, at least keeping in the spirit of competition.

Anyway, we are using the actual rulebook. I had bought a copy of Mordheim way back in the day (over eight years ago) but had never really played it.

The rules here are not particularly wonky. They just don't say what most of us want them to say.

With the rules as written, the reason you cannot dismiss the sixth hero to make room for the LGT person is that at the moment you rolled the 10+ you had six, heroes, and the rules say you must roll again. Nothing ambiguous about that statement.

You can dismiss a hero, sure, but you had not done so before you made the roll so (literally following the rules) you have to roll again. Allowing you to react to the roll by rushing to sack someone is not allowed by a strict/literal interpretation of the rules - you needed to sack someone before making the roll.

mweaver wrote:

The rules here are not particularly wonky. They just don't say what most of us want them to say.

With the rules as written, the reason you cannot dismiss the sixth hero to make room for the LGT person is that at the moment you rolled the 10+ you had six, heroes, and the rules say you must roll again. Nothing ambiguous about that statement.

You can dismiss a hero, sure, but you had not done so before you made the roll so (literally following the rules) you have to roll again. Allowing you to react to the roll by rushing to sack someone is not allowed by a strict/literal interpretation of the rules - you needed to sack someone before making the roll.

Actually, it's not the moment you roll a 10+ you get the result. This game is full of situations where you make decisions after seeing the roll of the die, but before applying the result, and these decisions affect what that result will be. For example: exploration, combat, and rout rolls, to name a few. Why is this roll any different? If there is a precedent for there being a time between seeing the roll result and being able to make decisions that affect the outcome (and there are many of them) then you have to have a reason why this one particular die roll is different and why the rulebook statement 'at any time' now means 'at any time except this one moment right here.'

Now, maybe this wasn't their intent, and I haven't read all the Town Cryers and supplementals and such, so if they ammended this then fine. But the rules as written in the original rulebook do allow this decision.

For you it is not this moment. In your games you can ignore the rule's statement that if you have 6 heroes you re-roll the die. This is known as a house rule.

Your assertion that you can fire a hero between rolling the die and applying the result is merely that, an assertion. Not something that is unquestionalbly clear to all as a strict or even lax reading of rule. In your examples of other instances when a roll may be altered, exploration, combat etc., the die may be re-rolled or modified because of skills or items which is not the case with LGT.

There are rules that allow you to make a decision after rolling the dice, but they specify you can make the decision after you roll the dice (and I am not sure about your generic "exploration, combat, and rout rolls" examples - you specify who you are attacking before you roll the dice, not after, etc.). In this case, it says if you roll TLGT and have six heroes roll again. It does not say roll again or sack an existing hero. It does not indicate you have any option.

If you want to allow sacking the hero, fine. We do. Perhaps the designer did not meant to exclude the possibility. But with the rules as written, sacking the hero after the roll is (technically) a house rule.

I think you can make a fair interpretation either way, some people will read it one, others another. Personally I agree with being able to can the hero, partly because I see the argument for "Dissmiss at anytime" (the time between rolling the dice and counting heroes is time, beardy I know). Mostly I agree cause it makes sense.

Leader to another hero: "You know Jimmy really hasn't been pulling his weight I'd get rid of him if I could"

Hero: "Did you see Greg out there today, he's probably twice the fighter Jimmy is."

Leader: "You're right. Jimmy! Pack your bags and be outta here in an hour. Greg how'd you like a raise?"

Seems pretty reasonable to me, but like I said I see both points, it's just up to the group to decide and stick with it, cause lawyers could argue this until the end of time.

I agree that is is a reasonable way to play. It is, I think, a fairly common way - whether you see it as a house rule or just interpret it that way.

I think the confusion stems from fact that both rules seem absolute. The classic problem of the irresistable force (at any time) meeting the immovable object (reroll if you already have six heroes). One of them has to give.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the LGT conditions were intended to keep you from going above the 6 hero maximum and silmutaneously from losing your henchman skill up. Adding in this additional restriciton is silly and adds a lottery feel that is artificial, pointless, unrealistic, and most likely not intended.

Edit (because I'm a crazy philosopher, apparently): The funny thing is, that above anaology is one of the reasons for my intepretation. If you allow the '6 heroes you reroll' to stand, you have altered the 'at any time' to be 'at almost any time' and it is no longer the absolute as stated. But if you allow the dismissing of the hero you do not alter the 'immoveable object,' you simply go around it as it's conditions no longer apply. You still stay at or below the 6 hero limit and your henchmen will still get their skill up. Both rules remain intact, both absolutes remain intact. It's the only interpretation that keeps both rules without modifying either.

Edit #2: I hope I'm not making anyone angry by discussing. I see exercises like this as a way to sharpen logic skills and generally test your mind's ability to look t things at different angles.

This is from the Mordheimer FAQ. The source is credited as the Yahoo Mordheim group with the poster as Tuomas. Now, if that's the same Tuomas whose name is in the rulebook right under Mordheim, I'm going to say his word is probably final. The problem is, his clarification could also, ironically, be interpreted two ways. Maybe it's takes a special skill to remain consistantly unclear, lol.

From Mordheimer FAQ:
"Q: If you have the maximum number of heroes allowed by your warband list, how many "lads got talent" heroes can you accumulate from your Henchmen?
A: Your warband has maximum number of 6 heroes. Re-roll any results that would give you more -or dismiss existing heroes. [Tuomas, Mordheim Yahoo! eGroups' FAQ]"

@Eagle5... Unfortunately Tuomas' comments in FAQs can sometimes be the opposite of the official ruling. Example is...

Mordheimer FAQ:

Quote :

Q: If a spell does not specifically state that Line Of Sight is needed, do obstacles or buildings prevent a model within range from being hit?
A: No. [Tuomas, Mordheim Yahoo! eGroups' FAQ]

Mordheim 2002 Annual (official rules):

Quote :

Q: Can spells be cast at a model which is out of Line of Sight to the caster or which are hidden? What about spells which simple affect models within a certain radius of the caster?
A: Spells cannot be targeted at models which are out of sight. However models which are out of sight may still be affected by spells provided another model is targeted and they fall within the spells radius.

I do not recall any official FAQ / errata that clears up this discussion of TLGT though and the TBMF search seems half-broken so I cannot find existing threads where this has been discussed (as its been discussed lots before). Most (all?) experienced players say that by the strict official rules it is not possible to dismiss a Hero. My gaming group is one of those groups that has introduced (what we believe to be) a house rule to allow a Hero to be dropped to allow a Henchman to be promoted.

At the end of the day it really comes down to how your group wants to play. Whether it is official or not does not really matter. If your gaming group wants to interpret a 'grey' area in one way then that is fine. The ultimate goal is that you and your gaming group enjoy playing Mordheim!

RationalLemming wrote:

@Eagle5... Unfortunately Tuomas' comments in FAQs can sometimes be the opposite of the official ruling.

Wow, that's not cool. Does anybody anywhere know how this game is supposed to be played?

Anyway, we'll play it as you can dismiss just because there's no logical reason why you couldn't get rid of a hero if a more promising individual came along. It won't be the only rule we have to fix, so one more shouldn't be a problem either way.

I think this is a bit of a how many angels can dance on the head of a pen thingie. If your group (like mine) all cheerfully agree that you can dismiss an existing hero to make room for newly be-heroed lad, then does it really matter if it is a house rule or not?

Off hand, I can't think of any games I have played that haven't had this kind of ambiguities in the first edition rules - which is basically what we have with Mordheim.