|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 24, 2017 17:02:14 GMT
Why is it a fallacy when Ld can seemingly be ignored for certain models? There is a specific rule for BSB that they can not be generals in the same way other models are excluded from being a general. The general can only be selected to be general from the list of eligible characters. By this reasoning any character with the "can't be general rule" would be unselectable if it had higher Ld than the general. I think the way the rule is written it is unclear either way and nothing posted in this thread has convinced me 100% either way is correct. You keep forgetting: selecting the General is part of building your Army List. You do not build your list first and then select the General. As I have pointed out several times before, that ambiguity from the 6th edition has been removed. So, it is up to the player to ensure his Army List fulfils all the requirements, including the requirement that the General is the character in his Army with the highest Ld. Only if your Army List has several characters sharing the highest Ld, you still have a choice among those.. |
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Sept 24, 2017 17:02:26 GMT
Why is it a fallacy when Ld can seemingly be ignored for certain models? There is a specific rule for BSB that they can not be generals in the same way other models are excluded from being a general. The general can only be selected to be general from the list of eligible characters. By this reasoning any character with the "can't be general rule" would be unselectable if it had higher Ld than the general. I think the way the rule is written it is unclear either way and nothing posted in this thread has convinced me 100% either way is correct. Yes this is what we imply. If you bring a ld 9 char then you general must have at least ld 9. But I am not sure about that we all agree on how the rules should be interpreted. It then makes it hard to agree. Those that think the rules is a general guidelines to make assumptions about (because gw makes a lot of errors) and then those that the rules have to state it other wise not legal until an faq or errata changes it. |
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Sept 24, 2017 17:06:41 GMT
I don't see anywhere where selecting the general is done before any other model. It is simply listed first in that section. If you go by the order in that section you would have to build your list thus:
Select general.
Minimum 3 units (although it doesn't get onto core etc until later)
Lords
Heroes
Select spell lores
Core units
Special units
Rare units
I don't think anyone ever has selected a list in such a way or is it intended
Imo that is a list of parameters you must fulfil (hence the minimum 3 units bit). The General is selected from the pool of eligible characters. A BSB is non-eleigible in the same way other characters are, such as Slayer characters.
That is my take on it anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Sept 24, 2017 17:14:29 GMT
Who wrote the 8th rules btw? Might send them a message  |
|
|
|
Post by frozenfood on Sept 24, 2017 17:43:02 GMT
Or pay them a visit...with flowers, chocolate and an axe.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 24, 2017 21:21:15 GMT
I don't see anywhere where selecting the general is done before any other model. It is simply listed first in that section. If you go by the order in that section you would have to build your list thus: Select general. Minimum 3 units (although it doesn't get onto core etc until later) Lords Heroes Select spell lores Core units Special units Rare units I don't think anyone ever has selected a list in such a way or is it intended Imo that is a list of parameters you must fulfil (hence the minimum 3 units bit). The General is selected from the pool of eligible characters. A BSB is non-eleigible in the same way other characters are, such as Slayer characters. That is my take on it anyway I have already clearly stated that the specific order of building your AL is not the issue. But at the end of building your AL, you must have fulfilled all the requirements. In the case of the General, that means that he is the character of your army with the highest Leadership. You keep saying "the General is selected from the pool of eligible characters." That is only true in the sense that the Army Book gives you a range of characters to choose from. Out of those, you must have a General, which is the character in your Army with the highest Leadership. All the other characters are optional. If there is a BSB, he is only there because you have made it so, when building your Army List. But that still does not remove the requirement that the General is the character in your army with the highest Leadership. It is really not that difficult: is or isn't the General the character in your army with the highest Leadership. If he is not, redraw your list. Your argument boils down to the argument of avatarofbugman: because the BSB cannot be the General, therefore we can ignore his Leadership value. Would you then buy into this? - You must have minimum 25% points Core. Characters cannot be Core. Special Units cannot be Core. Rare Units cannot be Core. Therefore, we can ignore their points value from the total to establish the percentage of Core. It is implied in the rules. Lo and behold, whatever points value of Core units I choose automatically fullfils the minimum Core requirement.
I would hope not.
|
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 24, 2017 22:46:40 GMT
The only AB which can be said to face odd restrictions in this respect is the Skaven AB. ---------Exactly, which shows the intent of the designers. The Skaven book is evidence that characters that cannot be the general do not matter when selecting a general asper highest LD. |
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 24, 2017 22:47:14 GMT
Who wrote the 8th rules btw? Might send them a message Matt Ward is the lead author of 8th edition. |
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Sept 24, 2017 23:11:22 GMT
Is it really just a house rule if people all over the world play it that way? Well, that assumption is not quite correct, because otherwise this discussion would not pop up every once and a while at least since 2001. Most lists are legal, and thus do not even give rise to the discussion. That also means that most players are actually following the rules (consciously or not). The main offenders are currently the Dwarfs, and, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, that is because, in 2014, their 8th edition AB increased the Thane Ld to 10, bringing them in line with the other ABs. That made the combo Runesmith-General/Thane-BSB they had been playing at least since 2001 invalid. Sure, but those discussions always devolve into one person insisting that the way you see it to be right, and the rest of us saying 'meh, we'll keep doing it the same way we've always done it.' |
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Sept 25, 2017 5:35:54 GMT
But to be honest the only one actually quoting and eplaining rules is FvonSigmaringen the reast has been just more; I do not like it because if I follow the rules I can’t do this or that AL. Unless someone can point to a rule or faq that the intent is diffrent then the wording on this one, the rule is pretty clear now |
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Sept 25, 2017 10:15:56 GMT
But to be honest the only one actually quoting and eplaining rules is FvonSigmaringen the reast has been just more; I do not like it because if I follow the rules I can’t do this or that AL. Unless someone can point to a rule or faq that the intent is diffrent then the wording on this one, the rule is pretty clear now Not really. The only relevant things that have so far been quoted are pictured below. The question is whether something can be excluded from being the general if it has the highest leadership. I.E does the text at the end of the BSB section exclude it from being the general. I have seen nowhere which gives one precedence over the other. In fact if one was to build a list it would most likely in reality involve having already selected a BSB before you select your general, because you have to have already selected ALL your characters to name the highest Ld one general. It even mentions telling your opponent of your choice during deployment..   If we follow FvonSigmaringen logic then this obviously has other repercussions for various races, namely: Vermin Lords & Deathmaster Snikch can only be selected when Queek is the General. Dwarven Runelord lists must include a second Thane or other Ld10 Lord in order to run a BSB. Likewise they can not include any Slayer characters. This applies to Master Engineer or hero level Runesmith lists too. Various races can not select Wizards to be their general if they are taking a BSB in low point games. Necromancer Lords may not take Wight Kings BSBs without taking another character to be a general. |
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Sept 25, 2017 12:44:33 GMT
Here you go, this is about as much of an FAQ as we will ever get:  Many thanks to Matt Ward for actually answering It seems like the most common sense solution |
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Sept 25, 2017 13:06:34 GMT
The Great Matt Ward has spoken! Thank you!!
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Sept 25, 2017 14:36:39 GMT
Awesome source!
|
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Sept 25, 2017 15:14:36 GMT
I think that would be the definitive decision in regards to this debate!
Also - I don't have my BRB with me at the moment, but I think I recall reading somewhere in there that if a rule is unclear, use your best judgement. That might've been in regards to something like "closing the door" or movement, but I assume that way of thinking would translate to the entire book, not just one specific case since it would become tedious reading that over and over after every rule in the book and would give the reader the impression that the writers really had no clue as to what they were doing. An assumption, I know, but it is awfully harsh to require the writers to think of and include a rule for every single instance that may arise in a game this complicated. Thus, assumptions are necessary using the RAW as a guide to playing the game. The more definitive the rule, the fewer assumptions need to be made.
|
|
