Welcome views on this.
The proposal would be restricted to certain armies from India and South-East Asia that maintained large stables of elephants. It would not be available to other armies (such as Hellenistic armies). Yes I know Ptolemy Keraunos was supposed to have been killed when on an elephant, but you could restrict that to scenario games.
Basically this would be identified in the list notes as a special rule. It would permit generals in the army to be mounted on elephants. When not attached to UGs, they would be restricted to moving at elephant move distances. It would permit them to fight in elephant TuGs, adding +1 (even if a legendary general).
Richard
with an aditionnal color added for the kab if killed?
Quote from: Jilu on November 17, 2023, 01:08:09 PM
with an aditionnal color added for the kab if killed?
No. I would prefer to keep things simple.
That seems fine.
Would it prevent them from fighting with cavalry?
I wouldnt bother with the speed restriction. Loads of what should be pedestrian generals seem to zip about the battlefield.
L.
Quote from: Lanceflint on November 17, 2023, 03:56:02 PM
Would it prevent them from fighting with cavalry?
L.
No, I assume they could get off the elephant and mount a horse. In which case your point about keeping it simple and not bothering with a speed restriction seems reasonable.
Richard
I doubt any general in a culture where it was the norm to be seen on a prestigious elephant would be getting off onto a horse.
However, I don't see that as an issue and just go with the simple approach and not worry about any rationalisation.
Armies that would benefit from this change would be:
2604 - Classical Indian
4702 - Tamil Indian
4703 - Gupta Indian
4704 - Late Classical Indian (except Kingdom of Balur)
4705 - Empire of Harsha
4708 - Chola Empire
4711 - Vijayanagar
4803 - Champa
4808 - Angkor Empire
4809 - Kingdom of Pagan (from 1044 CE)
4814 - Thai Kingdoms
4815 - Barmarised Shan Kingdoms
4816 - Hanthawaddy Kingdom
Including allied contingents taken from them I assume.
I also assume that the general must be modelled on an elephant ;)
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 17, 2023, 06:25:32 PM
Including allied contingents taken from them I assume.
I also assume that the general must be modelled on an elephant ;)
Yes.
Any general trying to claim a +1 for a model not on an elephant should be ridiculed....
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 17, 2023, 06:42:58 PM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 17, 2023, 06:25:32 PM
Including allied contingents taken from them I assume.
I also assume that the general must be modelled on an elephant ;)
Yes.
Any general trying to claim a +1 for a model not on an elephant should be ridiculed....
why not a general on elephant and why not " no recover possible for elephant "( of course at cost downgraded )
Happy with the slight change about movement distances, bring it on.
I also think it will encourage the use of more elephants, which due to their cost is only a good thing.
Lance.
As a fan of pachyderms, I am enthusiastic about this change.
To me only problem is that it gives an advantage to some armies at no cost . I know keep it simple so simply if he is on a nellie, he can help his Nelleis not his cavalry, infantry ..it's simple isn't it
Any limitations on how many generals could be mounted on elephants or do you just assume that all generals in a qualifying army are on eles?
Quote from: badhabum on November 20, 2023, 08:48:26 PM
To me only problem is that it gives an advantage to some armies at no cost . I know keep it simple so simply if he is on a nellie, he can help his Nelleis not his cavalry, infantry ..it's simple isn't it
Look at it another way, some armies are currently disadvantaged because their generals do not have an opportunity to fight with their main shock troops.
You can dismount from an elephant.
Richard
Quote from: SimonStokes on November 21, 2023, 01:51:20 PM
Any limitations on how many generals could be mounted on elephants or do you just assume that all generals in a qualifying army are on eles?
No restrictions other than the elephants must be in their command. No losing your own command and then fighting with the elephants in another command.
Richard
Will an elephant general be able to fight in the front rank of a cavalry unit (or do the horses get nervous)?
The general is just a general - he is not an "elephant general". Certain lists have the ability for their generals to fight with Elephant TuGs.
Richard
Hy to all
Frankly I'll make a comment and present my point of view as positively as possible but this discussion really pisses me off. We have had that discussion a few years ago and decisions were reached. Now that same discussion starts again so are the rules stable or not ? Yes everyone can have a change of heart but this debate has been solved, should be closed but in MEG nothing is ever closed sand that is annoying.
Now should we have generals mounted on Nellies to encourage their Nellies to fight ? My answer is negative. Whatever language the general speaks he does not speak Nelly. he speaks to the human beings that drives the Nelly, that fights from the Howdah or sitting on the nelly .
All type of generals, on foot (beware he may get trampled) on donkey, in a cart, a chariot, a horse or a camel may upgrade cards, heal "wounds" which is basically restoring order in the TUG and convincing the boys that all is OK . The only thing they may not do is give a bonus in the fight by showing the exemple which is something that can be done from the ground, on a horse, a chariot and so on as the Nelly will not care but the soldiers will be encouraged by the presence of their leader be he on foot or on a nelly.
So the simple solution is : every general can upgrade the coulour of the die of a nelly file . Make it easy it is all a game.
After all we threat all generals the same, they all move as light cavalry even in full armour, on foot on CH on nelly so be simple. Same for everyone otherwise we might open the can : a foot general moves as a SUG, a CH must pay more attention to terrain and if your leader is in full armour he will be slow ..That's not what we want do we ?
Can on foot generals upgrade battle dice from a TUG of CL ...yes so what's the specific problem for Nellies ?
Generals can upgrade the dice for BWG, even if he is on a camel !
So KISS solution, OK let the leaders, ALL of them upgrade Nellie's dice . If the main force of a specific army is not Nellies, the player might be better using his general with his good units.
Indians might choose to have their leaders with Nellies
But a general does not need to be on a nelly to be heard by his soldiers . That's my resume .
NB : what about the famous case during the battle of Beth Zacharia during which the Nelly of a Seleucid "high ranking" officer was killed, no sub generals with the nellies :D ok I'll flee
Quote from: badhabum on November 21, 2023, 04:06:54 PM
What about the famous case during the battle of Beth Zacharia during which the Nelly of a Seleucid "high ranking" officer was killed, no sub generals with the nellies :D ok I'll flee
Actually it was the brother of the Judah Maccabee, Eleazar Avaran, who died in combat with a Seleucid war elephant!
Richard
Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall "Mr. Stability" bahdahbum spends quite a bit of time in these forums arguing for lists to be changed ;)
Quote from: ShrubMiK on November 21, 2023, 06:51:46 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall "Mr. Stability" bahdahbum spends quite a bit of time in these forums arguing for lists to be changed ;)
I think he just spends quite a bit of time arguing..... ::)
Quote from: ShrubMiK on November 21, 2023, 06:51:46 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall "Mr. Stability" bahdahbum spends quite a bit of time in these forums arguing for lists to be changed ;)
Well, you should not mix "list changes" and "Rules modification"
Two very different concepts
Rules are now more or less stable.
Army lists are nowhere considered stable as the angry reactions from Belgium, France and Greece should have shown you.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 21, 2023, 06:56:57 PM
Quote from: ShrubMiK on November 21, 2023, 06:51:46 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall "Mr. Stability" bahdahbum spends quite a bit of time in these forums arguing for lists to be changed ;)
I think he just spends quite a bit of time arguing..... ::)
So can you develop before I take offense
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 21, 2023, 05:55:05 PM
Quote from: badhabum on November 21, 2023, 04:06:54 PM
What about the famous case during the battle of Beth Zacharia during which the Nelly of a Seleucid "high ranking" officer was killed, no sub generals with the nellies :D ok I'll flee
Actually it was the brother of the Judah Maccabee, Eleazar Avaran, who died in combat with a Seleucid war elephant!
Richard
Details, shmetails ;)
Quote from: badhabum on November 21, 2023, 04:06:54 PM
Hy to all
Frankly I'll make a comment and present my point of view as positively as possible but this discussion really pisses me off. We have had that discussion a few years ago and decisions were reached. Now that same discussion starts again so are the rules stable or not ? Yes everyone can have a change of heart but this debate has been solved, should be closed but in MEG nothing is ever closed sand that is annoying.
Now should we have generals mounted on Nellies to encourage their Nellies to fight ? My answer is negative. Whatever language the general speaks he does not speak Nelly. he speaks to the human beings that drives the Nelly, that fights from the Howdah or sitting on the nelly .
All type of generals, on foot (beware he may get trampled) on donkey, in a cart, a chariot, a horse or a camel may upgrade cards, heal "wounds" which is basically restoring order in the TUG and convincing the boys that all is OK . The only thing they may not do is give a bonus in the fight by showing the exemple which is something that can be done from the ground, on a horse, a chariot and so on as the Nelly will not care but the soldiers will be encouraged by the presence of their leader be he on foot or on a nelly.
So the simple solution is : every general can upgrade the coulour of the die of a nelly file . Make it easy it is all a game.
After all we threat all generals the same, they all move as light cavalry even in full armour, on foot on CH on nelly so be simple. Same for everyone otherwise we might open the can : a foot general moves as a SUG, a CH must pay more attention to terrain and if your leader is in full armour he will be slow ..That's not what we want do we ?
Can on foot generals upgrade battle dice from a TUG of CL ...yes so what's the specific problem for Nellies ?
Generals can upgrade the dice for BWG, even if he is on a camel !
So KISS solution, OK let the leaders, ALL of them upgrade Nellie's dice . If the main force of a specific army is not Nellies, the player might be better using his general with his good units.
Indians might choose to have their leaders with Nellies
But a general does not need to be on a nelly to be heard by his soldiers . That's my resume .
NB : what about the famous case during the battle of Beth Zacharia during which the Nelly of a Seleucid "high ranking" officer was killed, no sub generals with the nellies :D ok I'll flee
shockingly I'm with the Kiss crowd here, crazy crazy nights!
either any/all Generals gets to add to elephant combats or none. list agnostic.
or to put it another way only armies that have elephants may add the general bonus to an elephant combat :) or not.
mmm it appears to be raining frogs
regards
Matt
Hello,
First, the topic : personally I do not feel Elephants need a boost with a General, and the (as yet uncountered) arguments of Badhabum strike me as common sense : a human can not lead an elephant by example. Pics or it did not happen.
Now, if players of Nellies (which, for full disclosure, I am not) feel cheated, which would be perfectly legitimate, and therefore it is considered that things should be modified and rules destabilized, then KISS seems the only common sense approach.
Second the discussion : Holy Mother of whatever, what is wrong with some of you people? Here I thought we could have a constructive, argued for, respectful discussion between adults, in your language mind you ... Is this the best that can be produced, snide remarks, deformed comments and veiled insults?
Now some of you might not be aware of the full extent of the discontent on the continent, but for the sake of transparency let's air all of this : the proposed modifications did not, as should be clear enough from what has been written here for the past month, go down easily on the continent, and the constructive remarks were taken into account, it has to be noted.
That was fortunate, given that we were (and in many ways still are) on the verge of irremediable dissensions, the main culprit for this being the perceived arrogance, passive agression and all-around nastiness of some people, a highly controversial topic that the last few comments do nothing to rebuke. Now, being a perception, it might of course be subjective, but saying that does not make it wrong, only actions can change a perception. At some point, anyone will be fed up with the kind of reception presently displayed.
What was already said to some and that I feel should be clear to everyone is this :
The reality we face is not the same as in the UK : less players willing to invest in 15mm armies, paint them and then learn that the army they gathered is now modified beyond what they wanted to play. Our community is small, and although some instrumental people permit it to thrive thanks to their commitment to organize, incentive and communicate, we have seen an haemorrhage of players for the past few years (20 to 30%) who, when asked, mentioned rules instability as the primary, if not sole, reason for quitting.
In this context, some (fortunately still few) are clamoring for a definitive freeze on the 2023 lists! Let us call it as it is : we are facing a schism of biblical proportions, and only the selfless dedication of these aforementioned players, including coming to explain that on this forum, keeps it at bay.
So now let me ask you this: do you really feel that these circumstances call for the kind of talking we have witnessed, towards mind you one the 3 pillars of continental MeG?
I think it would behoove us all to raise above this kind of pettiness and keep with civil discourse between adults respectful of each other.
Best,
Antoine
Think there probably is a case that elephants don't need anything to boost them, but equally I do offer hear and read that quite a few players think they don't quite work. Not me though.
In respect of your other point I have removed a post that was ill advised.
I hope my comment wasn't taken as arrogant, passive aggressive, snide etc. If so, apologies. It was intended as a teasing way of expressing a disagreement and a bit of frustration.
So let me just say, very plainly and hopefully politely, I am quite happy for there to be a period of list stability in lists... but can we please be consistent with what we are asking for?
If the points cost of elephants is based on them not being able to be helped by generals, is allowing some generals to help them going to imbalance things?
Just mentioning it to ensure it gets considered by the people best qualified to make a judgement.
Quote from: LawrenceG on November 22, 2023, 06:20:39 AM
If the points cost of elephants is based on them not being able to be helped by generals, is allowing some generals to help them going to imbalance things?
Just mentioning it to ensure it gets considered by the people best qualified to make a judgement.
The points cost is the points cost of elephants. It is not calculated on some magic formula that takes into account them not being able to be helped by generals.
The judgement is whether the change will make the current points cost is over-beneficial to existing armies that have a lot of elephants. Adding a general to a combat with elephants is likely to be risky as they are small UGs and prone to breaking, particularly if overlapped.
Richard
Général leading superior elephant ?
The answer is likely.
Explaining an increase of the cost of all elephant because they can now be leaded by general will affect the balance of numerous armies.
I tend to believe it is better not to try to fix something something that is not broken.
It seems to me that it's working and not needing to be fixed.
I've read the vast majority of recent posts on a number of list related topics with both interest and a growing sense of frustration. These rules and lists are at their core outstanding in my view. And my hat off to the people who work to keep them so, and to those who play often enough to see little things that need tweaking. Many others would have had more opportunities to play them more often than I (there is at this point no other player I know of within 100s of kilometers of me) and so they may have come across things to fix. But let's be sure it needs fixing first. I am in agreement with Mr Badhabum, a general is a general. Walking, riding a donkey, riding a horse, carried in a litter or sitting on an elephant! It's a nice little visual representation of a focus of command amongst a whole lot of toy soldiers. End of story. Let's not make it any more complex than it needs to be.
Hi,
Not sure why or how the proposal for Elephant Mounted Generals surfaced again but
as I stated a few years ago, a General as a person will have little impact on the performance of other elephants (besides inspiring the other mahouts to control their pachyderms better). However, Generals in South East Asian 'Elephant' Armies, did ride on a special selected huge dominant male elephant which musk and behavior (steered by the General's mahout) did have an effect on performance of the rest of the hurdle of elephants. So making the case that (only) a General on a leading elephant can have a positive effect on other elephants in combat seems historic... ;)
Quote from: Wizard of Oz on November 22, 2023, 10:08:46 PMI am in agreement with Mr Badhabum, a general is a general. Walking, riding a donkey, riding a horse, carried in a litter or sitting on an elephant! It's a nice little visual representation of a focus of command amongst a whole lot of toy soldiers. End of story. Let's not make it any more complex than it needs to be.
Hi,
the Wizard of Oz is right ;)
Best regards.
Punch the Jester :)
I plus on this . General is general.
i second this