PDA

View Full Version : Multiple generals in large games



Malorian
01-04-2009, 14:56
So I'm hoping to get a large game in (large means in the 8000 range) and I'm thinking it makes sense to have multiple generals (maybe even BSBs too).

With an army that size the 12 inch bubble just doesn't cut it and it might make sense to allow 2 or even 3 generals.

Maybe the 'extra' generals would only have a 6 inch bubble.

They all would be worth the extra 100 VPs if killed.


So what do you think of this idea? Does multiple generals make sense in very large games?

IcedCrow
01-04-2009, 15:06
Couple ways you can run this. In the general's compendium they have a rule where the overall general has an 18" overall reach in bigger games.

The alternative that I have used is to divide your force into seperate armies. So for 8000 points, have say 4 2000 point armies, and each army has it's own general and BSB.

Mercules
01-04-2009, 15:34
Funny... I was actually considering doing something like this in a smaller sized game. One thing I had noticed about Throgg was his nice leadership for Trolls, Ogres, DragonOgres and such. So I was thinking, on one flank I would drop some US 3 troops. On the other flank drop some Knights followed up by Infantry.

In this case I would have two "general" bubbles on each flank.

EndlessBug
01-04-2009, 15:36
firstly, is this 8000 point army a single race? If it isn't then you can simply have a general/BSB for each race as per the normal rules, where each race can only be effected by it's own general/BSB.

If not then I'd suggest you go for the 1 general 12" bubble and 2 sub generals with a 6" bubble, likewise with the BSBs.

enyoss
01-04-2009, 15:41
I think it's best to split the 8000pts up into two 4000pt armies. I would advise against taking four 2000pt armies as then virtually every unit will be within 12" of one of the generals or BSBs, which is a bit too generous.

The question remains as to whether units from both armies can test on each general's leadership, but that's something you can hammer our with your opponent.

When my group plays large games, we usually play with 4000-5000pts each, 2-3 players per side, and only allow each player's units to test on their own general and BSB. It seems to work fine.

Malorian
01-04-2009, 15:42
firstly, is this 8000 point army a single race? If it isn't then you can simply have a general/BSB for each race as per the normal rules, where each race can only be effected by it's own general/BSB.

If not then I'd suggest you go for the 1 general 12" bubble and 2 sub generals with a 6" bubble, likewise with the BSBs.

It's all one race yes (fear the lizardmen :D ).

Iziuth
01-04-2009, 15:50
like icedcrow said in the generals compendium there are house rules covering large battles, it also holds some interesing scenario's. Nominate one characters to be the supreme commander. He is worth an extra 300 vp's but his range for leadership is 18''.

Don't now if the book is still been printed but I can definately it is one of the better ooks ever put out by GW. It also holds campaign rules for various types and rules for sieges etc.

W0lf
01-04-2009, 16:32
Id say allow for 1 general per 3K-ish.

However at 8K size with multiple generals id make each count for +200 VPs.

Braad
01-04-2009, 16:48
When we play larger games with allied sides, we give each army its own BSB and general, though these only influence their own army, so not the allies.
Works fine, and I think its balanced as long as each side has the same amount.

N810
01-04-2009, 17:15
It's all one race yes (fear the lizardmen :D ).

Oh man I hope those aren't Skink heavy armies.
(please tell me that it isn't just 1600 Skinks)

Ps. please say you have pictures. :D

O&G'sRule
01-04-2009, 17:33
Personally I would keep just 1 general. The limitations are the same for both sides so its no weakness. It adds a tactical side too in trying to keep certain units within range

The Red Scourge
01-04-2009, 18:01
Personally I would keep just 1 general. The limitations are the same for both sides so its no weakness. It adds a tactical side too in trying to keep certain units within range

In principle this would be true, but on the table top things will look mighty different. E.G. My WoC and WE would both prefer not to be burdened by a meddling general, while my VC would hate to be without and really would prefer to have a couple of extras ;)

I'll join the choir and suggest to look at the Generals Compendium, its got lots of nice suggestions to make battles much more than just pitched :)

Malorian
01-04-2009, 19:57
Oh man I hope those aren't Skink heavy armies.
(please tell me that it isn't just 1600 Skinks)

Ps. please say you have pictures. :D

Saurus heavy.

If/when this happens you can bet there will be pictures ;)

kyussinchains
01-04-2009, 20:13
I think it depends on table size as much as anything else.... if you're playing on a long, thin table then it makes sense to have multiple generals/BSB, but on a shorter deeper table you can probably get a useful number of units into range where it counts....

I agree that it's probably best to pick two seperate armies and have them only use their own General/BSB

The Clairvoyant
01-04-2009, 20:25
i've played many 8000pt games. If i take a single 8000pt army vs 2 4000pt armies, i still take the single general whilst the two 4000pt armies can each take theirs. Although they can get 2 BSBs and 2 generals, the single 8000pt army does get one more lord choice and in my experience it balances.
And I'm a vamps player where getting an 8000pt army into a 12" march bubble was impossible. With the 7th ed vamps book it is less of a problem as each vamp creates a 6" bubble.

Malorian
01-04-2009, 20:27
I guess other than marching though the general/Ld issue doesn't really matter to VC.

In a way it doesn't matter as much for lizardmen, how ever I can see it's going to be hard to keep things like stegs/salamanders/razordons in range if I only have the one general.

N810
01-04-2009, 20:33
Stegs are stuburn (sp?) so it doesn't mater any way...
so you rally only hace the salies and razors to wory about.
(also skinks, those guys are allways runing away)

Charistoph
01-04-2009, 21:06
I guess other than marching though the general/Ld issue doesn't really matter to VC.


Not quite true, when the general falls, the army starts crumbling. If you have your 8000 point army segmented into multiple sub-armies, with their own Generals, defeat by crumbling won't be as easy (also fewer of these rolls, and thus a faster game).

Either go with the above mentioned book, or agree before hand with your opponents on what to do. If it's part of a campaign, it should have already been set by the organizer, or they would be the best answer to this. If you are the organizer, barring any other official book, put a limit on how many points can be under Brigadiers so it isn't to far over board.

Desert Rain
01-04-2009, 21:08
I would suggest that you either split it intp 2 4000pts armies as enyoss suggested. Otherwise the "mini generals" with a Ld bubble of 6" sounds good too. It is probably best to discuss it with your opponent prior to the game.

Malorian
01-04-2009, 22:29
I just posted the list ;) http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3429373&postcount=1 I would like each of the slann to act as a general...

I'll talk to the guys today, tell them the ideas you and I had, and see what they would rather do.

Breaking them into different armies makes it a bit more complicated, but at least we wouldn't be making up our own rules. I like the idea of that master general though with the 18 inch bubble.