Post by vintageof79 on Sept 19, 2017 21:29:55 GMT
An earlier post by fvonsigmaringen made me think:
A common occurrence. I would guess that one of the most frequent left-overs (in casu from the 6th edition) is to have a General with a lower Leadership than another character. Once the various ABs had been updated to 7th edition (starting from 2006), that was not possible anymore (and still is not), but not everyone seems to have noticed.
How do others play? I know that our group, rightly or wrongly, allow the BSB to be an exception to this rule, and to be honest I cannot see this changing (so potentially house ruled).
Now the Rule Book states on p107:
The General is the character in your army with the highest leadership. If more than one character share the highest Leadership value, you must choose which one is the General and tell your opponent before deploying your army.
A few paragraphs below this, again on p107 it goes onto state:
A Battle Standard Bearer is a heroic model carrying a particularly impressive banner, and it will be presented as an option in your Warhammer Armies book. The battle standard is carried by a character model, and unless specified otherwise, the model that carries the battle standard cannot be the General.
It seemed to be generally accepted (is generally accepted?) by the Warhammer community that a BSB could have a higher leadership than the general. Examples of this would be a Dwarf Runepriest General and Thane BSB, or a Skink Priest/Chief general and a Saurus Scar-Veteran BSB. I will leave the Bretonnia out of the discussion given it was published in 2003. But the rules categorically state that the General must have the highest leadership; it would appear that these examples are not officially allowed.
Some people argued, however, that by designating a character as your BSB, it was then not eligible to be the General, thus by-passing the rule the General had to have the highest leadership. In this vein Slayer characters, Ogre Hunters and Skaven Assassins (for example) all have specific rules that forbid them to be the general.
So my question is this: if the General has to have the highest leadership, does that mean that, even though the above examples cannot be generals, there must be another character (Dwarf Lord/2nd Thane, Ogre Tyrant, Vermin Lord or SC) that has equal leadership in order to be the general and therefore these choices are restricted by your choice of general? If this is the case then many lower point games where people often took a hero mage with their BSB (HElfs, DElfs, Empire, OK to name but a few), then these lists were illegal and the players should perhaps have had a second non-mage hero as the general (or no BSB!). As a final point to ponder, we only had 50% Lords and Heroes towards the end of 8th Editions life, which meant that in a 1000 point game your would only have 250 points to try and fit in three characters (a HElf Noble, BSB and Mage total 250 points without any additional equipment - perhaps just the two nobles should be taken?).
Any way good people, your thoughts please.
A common occurrence. I would guess that one of the most frequent left-overs (in casu from the 6th edition) is to have a General with a lower Leadership than another character. Once the various ABs had been updated to 7th edition (starting from 2006), that was not possible anymore (and still is not), but not everyone seems to have noticed.
How do others play? I know that our group, rightly or wrongly, allow the BSB to be an exception to this rule, and to be honest I cannot see this changing (so potentially house ruled).
Now the Rule Book states on p107:
The General is the character in your army with the highest leadership. If more than one character share the highest Leadership value, you must choose which one is the General and tell your opponent before deploying your army.
A few paragraphs below this, again on p107 it goes onto state:
A Battle Standard Bearer is a heroic model carrying a particularly impressive banner, and it will be presented as an option in your Warhammer Armies book. The battle standard is carried by a character model, and unless specified otherwise, the model that carries the battle standard cannot be the General.
It seemed to be generally accepted (is generally accepted?) by the Warhammer community that a BSB could have a higher leadership than the general. Examples of this would be a Dwarf Runepriest General and Thane BSB, or a Skink Priest/Chief general and a Saurus Scar-Veteran BSB. I will leave the Bretonnia out of the discussion given it was published in 2003. But the rules categorically state that the General must have the highest leadership; it would appear that these examples are not officially allowed.
Some people argued, however, that by designating a character as your BSB, it was then not eligible to be the General, thus by-passing the rule the General had to have the highest leadership. In this vein Slayer characters, Ogre Hunters and Skaven Assassins (for example) all have specific rules that forbid them to be the general.
So my question is this: if the General has to have the highest leadership, does that mean that, even though the above examples cannot be generals, there must be another character (Dwarf Lord/2nd Thane, Ogre Tyrant, Vermin Lord or SC) that has equal leadership in order to be the general and therefore these choices are restricted by your choice of general? If this is the case then many lower point games where people often took a hero mage with their BSB (HElfs, DElfs, Empire, OK to name but a few), then these lists were illegal and the players should perhaps have had a second non-mage hero as the general (or no BSB!). As a final point to ponder, we only had 50% Lords and Heroes towards the end of 8th Editions life, which meant that in a 1000 point game your would only have 250 points to try and fit in three characters (a HElf Noble, BSB and Mage total 250 points without any additional equipment - perhaps just the two nobles should be taken?).
Any way good people, your thoughts please.
