|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 23, 2017 8:40:31 GMT
@ vintageof79: Yes, it does mean you have to make choices, when building your Army List. For me that makes List building more interesting and varied.
On a more general note: blame it on me being more of a chess than Warhammer player. The idea that the players themselves can fiddle around with the rules is rather anathema there. Sure, even in Chess there are some alternative systems, but these too are strictly regulated.
@ gjnoronh: As already pointed out (rules in hand) above, selecting the General is part of building your Army List - indeed, it is listed as the very first step. And the ONLY requirement for the General is that he must be the character with the highest Leadership. If, at the end of building your Army List, your General does not have the highest Ld, you have an illegal list, just as when you do not fulfil the 25% Core requirement. Only if more than one character share the highest Leadership value, you get to choose which one is the General before deploying your army. The assertion that the Leadership of characters that cannot be the General is ignored has no basis whatsoever in the rules. One cannot even claim that it was intended, because the ambiguity of the 6th edition was removed in subsequent editions.
To repeat:
The General is the character in your army with the highest Leadership.
The BSB (Assassin...) cannot be the General.
Therefore, the BSB (Assassin...) cannot be the character in your Army with the highest Leadership.
But as I have said already numerous times: if you and your opponent agree to play a house rule, feel free to do so - but that is what it will be: a house rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Sept 23, 2017 9:32:59 GMT
I feel this is more a mistake than an intended rule. It makes some Lord choices basically unusable
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Sept 23, 2017 9:37:49 GMT
I feel this is more a mistake than an intended rule. It makes some Lord choices basically unusable I am very interested in examples  |
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Sept 23, 2017 9:38:54 GMT
Unusable it's perhaps a little strong but i will supply some when out of the bath |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 23, 2017 11:18:45 GMT
But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater...
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Sept 23, 2017 12:01:25 GMT
The two obvious ones have already been mentioned. I don't have all the books to check. You can not take a Wight King BSB if you are running a Necro list. Which is stupid. You can not take a BSB if you are running a Rune Lord. And that is without going into all the obvious difficulties you would have if you didn't want to take a lord and run a hero general instead, in lower point games for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 23, 2017 13:22:53 GMT
Stupid is in the eye of the beholder. I think the 8th edition Line of Sight, overpowered magic, or the 25% Core (should be 40%) is stupid. Still the rules, though. The Wight King btw is a Hero not a Lord.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Sept 23, 2017 14:07:13 GMT
I was referring to a Necromancer Lord. 40% core would be harsh on armies like Vampires and O&G. The painting would be never ending
|
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 23, 2017 15:16:44 GMT
overpowered magic, or the 25% Core (should be 40%) is stupid. -------------Not to get off topic, but the overpowered magic in 8th edition is simply not true. 6th & 7th edition magic was overpowered. Players could, and would, rig the number of power dice they would receive in the magic phase - it was a rigged system. Magic defense was also a big deal, if you didn't have enough, you lost! 8th edition might have some really potent spells, but it's the random Winds of Magic which balances it all out. I hated magic in 6 and 7 edition. I would argue that 8th edition magic seems overpowered, especially on paper and "what if" scenarios. But in practice, I find it to be extremely balanced. As opposed to magic in 6/7th edition that would just ruin a game for me - if you didn't have enough magic protection, you'd just get hosed. My above statements come from experience of playing the game, including hundreds of games in each of the named editions. That's not to say you can't have another opinion but I was ask that you reflect on the other systems and remember what they were like. Vampire Counts could not lose in those additions if you have any clue about what you were doing. |
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 23, 2017 15:28:14 GMT
Regarding the BSB and general thing, I'm not too concerned about that. There are only a few incidents where this can actually happen.
Even so, it's open to interpretation. I read it as the BSB be is ignored when determining the general because the rules state a BSB cannot be the general. Why would I be considering models to be the general when their rules state that they can't be the general?
Also, I don't believe the opposing argument is the intent of the rules because not only is it not clear, but I'd never, and have never, considered the argument FvonSigmaringen is arguing in nearing 30 years of playing WFB. It's extremely unintuitive, even if it might be RAW.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Sept 23, 2017 16:47:30 GMT
I agree on all points. I will gladly face magic heavy lists every game. If people want to put all their points into gambling/ ensuring they get number 6 spells, then getting the right winds, then casting (whilst not blowing their point sink up), and then finally actually wiping out something so crucial it ends the game they can be my guest. I've literally never experienced overpowered magic (in 8th). The whole purple sun thing is an internet fallacy imo
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 23, 2017 16:52:50 GMT
@ KevinC:
With all due respect, it is not open to interpretation. A rule does not become unclear, because it does not say what one wants it to say. This particular rule is, in fact, of mathematical clarity:
The General is the character in your army with the highest Leadership.
The BSB cannot be the General.
Therefore, the BSB cannot be the character in your Army with the highest Leadership.
There is nothing in the rules allowing you to ignore the Leadership of the BSB. Indeed, THAT would be unintuitive, as the ONLY requirement for the General is to be the character in your army with the highest Leadership. And as pointed out a couple of times before, the ambiguity in the 6th edition was removed in later editions. If that does not indicate clear intent, what does?
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Sept 23, 2017 17:12:02 GMT
But conversely you could say:
The battle standard can not be the general.
The general is the character with the highest leadership
From looking at the book you obviously need to have already selected a list (to make a choice between like ld values). I see nothing which says you must select a general before a bsb which would exclude it from the reckoning.
Also, there is another requirement for a model to be the general, it must be eligible. I.e Slayers are not. BSBs are not. Assassins are not. etc
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 23, 2017 17:37:13 GMT
The battle standard can not be the general.
The general is the character with the highest leadership.
And therefore the BSB still cannot be the character with the highest leadership.
For the umpteenth time (see the various posts with verbatim quotes above):
- Selecting the General is NOT done at the end of the list: it is part of building your list (BRB p. 134 ff.). Indeed, it is listed as the first step of building your list. The ambiguity of the 6th edition was removed more than 10 years ago. It was open for interpretation before, but not since the 7th edition.
- If there is only one character with the highest Ld, it is clear who is the General. if several share the highest Leadership, it is not. Therefore, the BRB points out on p. 107: "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." Otherwise, there is no choice.
The fact that some characters cannot be the General means exactly that: they cannot be the General. In no way, shape or form does it remove the requirement that the General must be the character in your army with the highest Leadership.
It is rather simple: when your list is ready, is your General the character in your army with the (possibly shared) highest Leadership or not? If he is not, you do not have a legal list. Again, feel free to play it differently, but that will be a house rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 23, 2017 20:14:43 GMT
@ KevinC: With all due respect, it is not open to interpretation. A rule does not become unclear, because it does not say what one wants it to say. This particular rule is, in fact, of mathematical clarity: The General is the character in your army with the highest Leadership. The BSB cannot be the General. Therefore, the BSB cannot be the character in your Army with the highest Leadership. There is nothing in the rules allowing you to ignore the Leadership of the BSB. Indeed, THAT would be unintuitive, as the ONLY requirement for the General is to be the character in your army with the highest Leadership. And as pointed out a couple of times before, the ambiguity in the 6th edition was removed in later editions. If that does not indicate clear intent, what does? ------I understand the argument. I suppose you are correct by RAW. I'm saying it's not intuitive because I believe what you are saying would never occur to the average player that the wording means your general MUST have a higher Leadership value than the BSB. In general, the Warhammer rules describe exemptions all the time from the main body of rules. So I would argue that it's more intuitive to interpret if a character cannot be the army general, than the army general does not need to have a higher (or equal) Leadership value than the character who cannot be the general. Also, in order to prove that your reading of the rule is not the intent, merely look at the Skaven army list. A Vermin Lord is a character with Leadership 8 and Deathmaster Snitch is also Leadership 8. Both of their rules state they may not be the army general. Under your reading of the rules, that means, the only legal way to include a Vermin Lord or Deathmaster Snitch in a Skaven army is to also include Queek Headtaker who is also Leadership 8 and may be the general. All other Skaven characters are LD 7 or lower. This is proof enough that the rule for choosing a general clearly means to exempt characters that cannot be the general in the first place. |
|
