|
Post by vintageof79 on Sept 21, 2017 21:49:35 GMT
And hence, if the general has the highest leadership then you cannot play certain characters if they have a higher leadership than your proposed general. For example with Ogres you would not be able to play a hunter with a Slaughtermaster - you would need a Tyrant, Skaven would not be able to take Snitch without another character with LD8, Skinks could only be generals for all Skink character armies, level 2 mages in most cases would have to be the only character(s)... I am sure you can find other examples.
Interestingly here though, Boneripper is LD10, Thanquol LD7, so Boneripper (in theory) is actually the general!
As I stated in my first post, I will continue to play ignoring this rule, with the BSB and others exempt from leading being able to have a higher LD than the general given the restrictions it places on many armies. It does make me question as to whether they intentionally meant to limit armies in this way. It was not faq'd in the 8th Editions lifetime but still...
With regards to Brets, perhaps they do have a slight disadvantage as they HAVE to take a BSB, meaning if they adhered to this rule, and wanted to field a mage, they have to take 3 characters. Other armies, at lower points levels, could just take a mage.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 21, 2017 21:56:04 GMT
As I pointed out before: the 7th edition deleted the ambiguity in the 6th edition, and the 8th edition is even more adamant in the rules on building your Army list. With every edition, the wording gets more strict - that would seem intentional to me.
|
|
|
Post by vintageof79 on Sept 21, 2017 22:00:34 GMT
At the beginning, absolutely. Did the developers keep it in mind when designing the army books however, that is where some of my doubt lies.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 21, 2017 22:22:41 GMT
Well, the only AB which can be said to be abnormally restricted is the Skaven AB. But do we have to blame the BRB or the Skaven Army Book for that? Where the other AB need on average 2-3 pages of Errata & FAQ, the Skaven AB needs 9, suggesting to me that the fault lies with the Skaven AB.
The main point is: in all AB, you can use all available characters in legal lists. And I were so morally depraved to play Skaven, I would take Queek Headtaker in any case, as he is arguably the most cost efficient Lord there is.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 22, 2017 8:58:50 GMT
To delve a bit into the rules history: The General: - 6th edition: BRB p. 102:
The General of your army is always the character with the highest Leadership value. If several characters have the same value then choose one to be the General at the start of the battle.
- 7th edition BRB p. 82:
The character with the highest Leadership value is the General of your Army. If several characters have the same (and highest) Ld value, choose one to be the General at the start of the battle and announce it to your opponent.
- 8th edition p. 107:
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.
The BSB: - 6th edition: not addressed in BRB, but in AB
- 7th edition BRB p. 83:
An army’s battle standard is usually carried by a character model who cannot normally be the General model itself.
- 8th edition p. 107:
The battle standard is carried by a character model and, unless specified otherwise, the model that carries the battle standard cannot be the General.
In the 6th and 7th editions, Army List building was not covered in the BRB, but in each AB (the exact wording may vary depending on the AB): - 6th edition:
However, an army must always include at least one character: the General. (…) At the beginning of the battle, choose one of the characters in your army to be the General and make sure that you let your opponent know which one it is.
- 7th edition:
An army must always include at least one character to act as the General. If you include more than one character, then the one with the highest Leadership value is the General. When one or more characters have the same (and highest) Leadership, choose one to be the General at the start of the battle. Make sure that your opponent knows which character is your General when you deploy your army.
In the 8th edition, Army List building is covered by the BRB itself (p. 134 ff.), and the first step in building your Army is choosing the General.
In 6th and 7th edition, the BSB entry in the Army Books alos specified that the BSB cannot be the General (the exact wording may vary depending on the AB):
- 6th edition:
The Battle Standard Bearer cannot be the Army General, even if he has the highest Leadership value in the army.
- 7th edition:
An army’s battle standard is usually carried by a character model who cannot normally be the General model itself.
As one can see, the BRB rules for the General and the BSB have not really changed. However, the 6th edition rules in the ABs can be read as contradicting the BRB, because the wording seems to give the impression that you are allowed to freely choose your General at the beginning of the Battle, and that the BSB can have the single (instead of shared) highest Leadership. However, these ambiguities were already removed in the 7th edition, but 10 years on, we are still haunted by the ghost of an edition past.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 22, 2017 14:38:35 GMT
Yeah, this was debated A LOOOOOOOOT over at Bugman's when the Dwarf AB came out. My general (pun intended) consensus is that the BSB is exempt. Otherwise, it's just a rule intended to screw people over. At the very least, discuss it with your opponent. Most BatReps that I see featuring Dwarf players usually play as the BSB's exempt as well. It is not the rule that got the Dwarfs by their long and curlies. Dwarfs could play lists with Runesmith General & Thane BSB at least since 2001, because in the two 6th edition Army Books both Thane and Runesmith had Ld 9. Dwarfs had no 7th edition AB, but the 8th edition AB increased the Thane Ld to 10, which brought them in line with the other AB (Ld Warrior Hero being higher than Ld Wizard Hero). Their grudging and stubborn resistance (they are Dwarfs, after all) is another poignant example "We have always played it like that" used to trump the actual rules.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Sept 22, 2017 14:45:11 GMT
I think that this is one of those rules most everyone simply ignores. In the end, does it really matter that your opponent want to make his Ld bubble a point less than the BSB's Ld? If anything, that's helping you out, so who really cares?
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 22, 2017 16:23:55 GMT
Hmm, the vast majority of the lists I have encountered are legal. The only consistent offenders in this respect seem to be the Dwarfs. Dwarfs are going to take a Runelord/Runesmith anyway. So, they save at least 65 points by not taking a second Thane as their General.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Sept 22, 2017 16:57:49 GMT
Well, I just think that with most armies it's not an issue because their BSB isn't the highest Ld value they were going to take anyway. But whenever it is, most people overlook it. Seriously though. What's the harm in your opponent's army having a lower overall Ld value? So he might've had to change up a few points here and there. For Dwarves, that means approximately 4 Ironbreakers and a champ, but you pick up an even harder character to kill.
|
|
|
Post by Naitsabes on Sept 22, 2017 22:31:57 GMT
This old chestnut is only a problem if you play certain armies in Belgium. so, really not a problem for most of us, we can just happily ignore the BSB when determining who is general and carry on. (admittedly it's also always a good thing to bring up if forum traffic is too low)
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 22, 2017 23:40:35 GMT
I always suspected that this kind of attitude was one of the reasons GW stopped releasing Update Versions. We players continuously moaned about GW not being able to write clear and concise rules, but our reading skills were more than a match for their writing skills. And if they did manage to write clear and concise rules, they got ignored anyway, so why bother with Update Versions?
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 23, 2017 5:22:52 GMT
Interestingly here though, Boneripper is LD10, Thanquol LD7, so Boneripper (in theory) is actually the general! I forgot to answer this one before: Boneripper is not a character, and thus cannot be the General.
|
|
|
Post by vintageof79 on Sept 23, 2017 7:43:26 GMT
I knew I should have put an emoji of some description in that post, as I know Boneripper is essentially a mount 😀. Just one of the many peculiarities of the Skaven AB.
What GW forgot is that rules not only need to be clear and concise, but ones that players agreed with! 😉 Then we would not have to change them to how we want to play the game. I do wonder that if GW had Rowntree as CEO for the 8th Edition, whether the development and balancing process would have been more open and that perhaps players would have been involved in the feedback process. I also really like the idea of the General's Handbook for AoS, even if I am not keen on that particular system.
What frustrates me in particular with regards to the rule is how it forces Ogre hunters even more to the periphery and the fact Master Necromancers cannot essentially command Wight Kings. Hunters have a higher leadership than Slaughtermasters, and would need a Tyrant to run along side. Now, this is not so much a problem in 50% L&H, but if you play 25% L&H, then the Hunters are fourth in terms of (character) priority after Tyrant, BSB and magic defence (in this case probably best running 2 firebellys).
I can see that in low points games, if played consistently, it makes a player commit to either having a mage without BSB, or a BSB and general without a mage, especially for the more elite armies. This is a good conundrum to make players face.
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Sept 23, 2017 8:04:10 GMT
Seems very strange and not the way I had seen in played in dozens of GT games If a character (BSB, assassin, etc) has an exception that says they can not be your general then they cannot and are ignored when picking general. Similarly if a character (Archaon, Karl Franz iirc) has an exception that they must be your general then they must be even if another character with the same leadership is present.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Sept 23, 2017 8:11:00 GMT
Seems very strange and not the way I had seen in played in dozens of GT games If a character (BSB, assassin, etc) has an exception that says they can not be your general then they cannot and are ignored when picking general. Similarly if a character (Archaon, Karl Franz iirc) has an exception that they must be your general then they must be even if another character with the same leadership is present. Last part in your sentences is not in the rules though. If it was, it would be easy and we would not have this amazing discussion. All it says it that the bsb can’t be the general and nothing about igoring other rules.
|
|