Hazard rules

[Azaghal8]

Also, those failure consequences that prompt you to "lose Endurance equal to Success die result", what do they mean?

Is the "success die result" the total sum of the success dice rolled for that test? But why is the wording the singular "die" then? Or is it only one of the success dice? If so, which one? Highest, lowest or player's choice?

That isn't clear. But I would have each player roll a success die and take that much Endurance loss, as otherwise being more skilled means more likely to hurt your Companions.

In fact, I think it would be better as a Feat die, and have a Wound scored on a Sauron's Eye result for each PC.

Yes, I agree that that would have been a better way to go and that the heroes should not suffer more if they are more skilled.

[skywalker]

But several of the samples also seem to indicate the opposite

The old LMG is clearer on this point. Every example is consistent on this point. As far as I am aware this didn't shift with the updated rules. As you say, otherwise the idea of failing the test where there is no one assigned to that role makes no sense.

[skywalker]

Looking at that again, maybe there was a transition to just the PC making the test suffering the consequence.

In that case, you could simply have the consequences apply to random PC if the role is not filled.

[Azaghal8]

This is interesting though, because it almost seems as if they weren't certain themselves. I agree that the old rules are quite clear on this point, but I am almost leaning towards that they have changed it judging by the wording in the passages that I have quoted (and in the table of Consequences).

...and in this sentence too:

"If the rolling player passes the test, then the companion
endures the difficulties encountered, and the journey may
continue. If the roll fails, the hero faces the consequences
of his shortcoming."

Maybe one solution could be that if no-one took on the role, then the automatic failure applied to everyone, but not if there is someone filling the role?

[Azaghal8]

Looking at that again, maybe there was a transition to just the PC making the test suffering the consequence.

In that case, you could simply have the consequences apply to random PC if the role is not filled.

Yes, either to a random PC or to everyone, as I wrote in my previous post.

Anyway, thanks again for the help and for the discussion!

[skywalker]

Personally, I like the consequence applying to everyone as it invests the whole group into the roll. But I agree that the wording does seem to have shifted to suggest that it only effects the companion making the roll.

[Wbweather]

I think that the nature of the hazard is important in determining whether all companions or just the character taking the test are affected. So if the huntsman is not successful in bringing back food, everyone would be affected. But in the case of a scout getting lost, only that player might suffer the consequences of a failed roll.

In the case of no member of the company filling a roll, I would apply the affects to everyone. That way there is more incentive for one player to spend the point of hope to aid the rest of the party. That seems more heroic. One individual sacrifices hope and takes the risk for the rest of the party.

As far as the ruling of losing endurance equal to the roll of a success dice, I just have the player roll a d6 (after the failed roll) and lose that many points of endurance.

Also, keep in mind, the tables for rolling the nature and target of the hazard is just one option. You can hand pick or make up a hazard on the fly. I would suggest having a list of possible hazards at the ready, one for each journey role. That way you can choose to penalize the player who rolled the eye, if you wanted to play it out that way. To me, that makes more sense. If the scout fails his travel test with an eye, it makes sense that he should be the one who faces the hazard. Also, if you have access to the Hobbit Tales game, it can be fun to draw a card and use it to create a hazard per the optional rules, or even let the players come up with an appropriate hazard.

[Falenthal]

I'd have to re-read all the chapter again, as it seems that the wording isn't that clear from what you're saying, but this is how I've always understood it (although I might be wrong somewhere):

1) When a Hazard affects one role, everyone that fills that role has to check. If everyone in that role fails, then everyone in the role suffers the consequences. But not the whole company.

[Example: a Hazard affects the Scout role. The company has 2 heroes assigned to the Scout role.
Situation 1: one fails the test, the other one succeeds -> The Hazard is succeeded and no one suffers any consequence.
Situation 2: both fail their test -> The Hazard is failed and both Scouts suffer the consequences.]

2) For an All Companions, each hero makes his own test and each one fails or succeeds individually. So, it might be that some companions suffer the consequences and some don't.

3) If a role is empty, and no one steps in spending a Hope point, the test is considered failed and all companions suffer the consequences.
If someone steps in spending a Hope point, proceed as with the first situation ["When a Hazard affects one role,..."].

As for the "losing Endurance equal to the roll of a Success die", as WBweather said, just roll 1d6 and apply the result as damage to Endurance.

I agree this was also confusing to me at first, but this is how I've played it after multiple re-readings of the section, and I think that's how the RAW works. I mean, I think there are no personal interpretations or house-rulings in the mechanics I've described, but is how Hazards work by the book. Let me be corrected if it's not.

[skywalker]

I think the only remaining confusion is over 3. If no one filling a role equals an auto fail on the roll and a fail is stated to mean a consequence to only those in the role, then no one can suffer the consequence.

Your change from a strict reading of that wording to being all companions suffering the consequence if no one is in the role instead seems like the best way to go and I expect that is what was intended.

[Falenthal]

I think the only remaining confusion is over 3.

That's right, the Revised Core doesn't state anywhere that a "vaccant role" Hazard does affect the whole company.
As you stated before, the slipcase rules seem to show, from the examples, that every failure had a negative effect on the whole company. Therefore, if a role was vaccant and noone stepped in, the consequence of failing was the same.

In the new Revised, only those in the affected role do suffer the consequences if all fail. Therefore, an additional clarification is needed to explain what happens if a role is vaccant and A) No one spends a Hope point to fill in / B) a hero or heroes spend Hope points, fill in, and fail.

I'd say the intention is, as you mention skywalker, that:
A) if no one takes care of the Hazard, it affects the whole company
B) if someone steps in, but fails, the Hazard only affects the hero(es) that did and failed the test [their Hope point managed to, at least, protect the other companions from the negative effects].

I think I'll mail Jon with this, as it is important and seems like an overlooked effect of the changes in the rules.