|
Post by Horace on Jul 17, 2021 10:05:12 GMT
I agree, it is clear. You pick your army, then you select your general from the pool of eligible characters. Certain models can't be general due to xyz. You may not make these the general Also you are purposely ignoring chunks of what he said which make clear his intent
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 17, 2021 11:02:47 GMT
That, however, is not what the BRB actually says on the matter. And I am not ignoring what Matt ward said earlier, I was pointing out that according to Mat Ward himself he has not checked the rules, and that "the intent was always that the BRB can never be the general" - which is not and cannot be the case according to the BRB either.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jul 17, 2021 11:21:01 GMT
I mean you always go on about a rule must be workable yet you are arguing the case that no model may have higher leadership than the general, even when they have rules stopping them being general, thus making considerable sections of multiple armies unselectable. This in the face of the rules author saying this was not how it was intended and agreeing with my (not just mine) assessment. If after all this you still want to hold that position go ahead, no point flogging a dead horse.
Trying to water down his opinion which was perfectly clear on this matter because he didn't quote the rulebook is laughable
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Jul 17, 2021 11:48:40 GMT
I mean you always go on about a rule must be workable yet you are arguing the case that no model may have higher leadership than the general, even when they have rules stopping them being general, thus making considerable sections of multiple armies unselectable. This in the face of the rules author saying this was not how it was intended and agreeing with my (not just mine) assessment. If after all this you still want to hold that position go ahead, no point flogging a dead horse. Trying to water down his opinion which was perfectly clear on this matter because he didn't quote the rulebook is laughable I am not saying and have never said that he is not allowed to have an opinion, of course he is! He is also allowed to state his intent and RAI. I still find it bad that he didn’t even look at the rules before making a statement. And it does obviously water down his statement.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 17, 2021 11:50:55 GMT
He did not just not quote them - he had not looked them up at all. As quite a number of WD comment sections and battle reports can testify, the rules writers themselves can and do make mistakes - in particular if earlier editions deviated from present rules. Case in point: "You pick your army, then you select your general from the pool of eligible characters." is straight from the 6th edition, not the 8th. If he had looked all the 8th edition rules up, and still came to the same conclusion, that would be a different matter.
That considerable sections of multiple armies would be unselectable is a laughable assertion: the only AB which can be said to face odd restrictions in this respect is the Skaven AB. Otherwise, the rule is perfectly playable; it just limits the possible combinations of General/BSB, just like other rules put other limits on the selection of available choices.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Jul 17, 2021 11:54:31 GMT
No need to google: the colophon on p. 512 mentions for Games Development: Alessio Cavatore, Robin Cruddace, Graham Davey, Andy Hoare, Jervis Johnson, Phil Kelly, Andrew Kenrick, Jeremy Vetock, and...Matthew Ward. I only have the digital edition with me and they have removed authors in it for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jul 17, 2021 12:09:20 GMT
That considerable sections of multiple armies would be unselectable is a laughable assertion: the only AB which can be said to face odd restrictions in this respect is the Skaven AB. Otherwise, the rule is perfectly playable; it just limits the possible combinations of General/BSB, just like other rules put other limits on the selection of available choices. Incorrect As quite a number of WD comment sections and battle reports can testify, the rules writers themselves can and do make mistakes - in particular if earlier editions deviated from present rules Not at all relevant
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Jul 18, 2021 1:20:18 GMT
Is rehashing this debate yet again worth doing?
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Jul 20, 2021 11:44:35 GMT
Wait, am I understanding this correctly...? Are you saying that according to RAW, if I have a BSB with Ld 8, and may then not have a general with Ld 7?
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Jul 20, 2021 19:19:39 GMT
No you can have a BSB whose leadership is higher than your general because being the BSB simply excludes him/her from the pool of eligible candidates.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 20, 2021 21:15:49 GMT
Since anechrome asked RAW, the answer is clearly not.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Jul 21, 2021 2:10:14 GMT
Wait, am I understanding this correctly...? Are you saying that according to RAW, if I have a BSB with Ld 8, and may then not have a general with Ld 7? That is one interpretation of the rules. Another is that the Ld of the BSB doesn't matter, because he can't be the general. Which of those two interpretations is correct is what the whole thread is about. Both sides whichever argument benefits their army more.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 21, 2021 5:14:39 GMT
vulcan : It is RAW=RAI versus RAW=/=RAI and RAI>RAW. anechrome specifically asked for RAW, so oldmandan giving him a RAI argument does not answer his question. Those arguing RAW=RAI do it on principle, since there is no extra benefit to their army. That said, all possible arguments have been made here and, as you said, there is no need to rehash them.
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Jul 21, 2021 15:36:57 GMT
I've had an extra look at that section on p.107 and I'd like to put my 2 cents in, but bear in mind this is how that text sounds to me and I'm usually in minority when it comes to reading (at least in this forum). That text, "The general is the character in your army with the highest Ld" is sort of negated by the following sentence "If more than one character share share the highest Ld...". Clearly, the general doesn't have to have the HIGHEST leadership of every other character, he just can't have a lower Ld than anyone else. Otherwise the second sentence wouldn't be needed. This is a bit poorly written and a prime example of what happens when we're trying to read the BRB as if it is a legal document when the authors were more of happy amatures when it came to writing rules. With that said, I'll disagree that the first sentence means that a bsb cannot have the same Ld as the general when read in conjunction with the second sentence. I will however agree that RAW says that the BSB cannot have a HIGHER Ld than the general. And finally, in any game I'd play I'd happily ignore the hell out of RAW and go with the interpretation Horace (and perhaps Matt Ward?) stated where the BSB is excluded from the comparison, perhaps if there is a fluffy reason to do so. For example, I'd never have a Black Orc BSB in an all goblin army, but I'd rather play an opponent that wants to do this than not play at all.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Jul 21, 2021 19:13:10 GMT
This is not only about BSBs it also affect other characters with limitations to be general like dark elves assassins and some dwarf dork and a rat with by vermin standards pretty high LD.
|
|