Does a general give a claim to a file that is not under his command?
In the Elephant Kings rule, the sentence says, "in their command".
Jai trouvé des restrictions pour les alliés, mais je n'ai rien trouvé d'autre.
j'ai peut-être oublié quelque chose.
So, an elephant general only supports a file of elephants under his command, but a non-elephant file for the entire army.
Reminder:
SPECIAL RULE: Elephant Kings. X generals can fight in a file of Elephants in their command giving a +1 claim (only +1 for legendary generals).
Quote from: philfigo on January 03, 2026, 09:42:35 AMDoes a general give a claim to a file that is not under his command?
Yes as long as he is not an allied general with a non-allied UG and vice versa.
QuoteSo, an elephant general only supports a file of elephants under his command, but a non-elephant file for the entire army.
Yes, with the allied caveat noted above.
thank you
Hy
Perhaps this should be clarified . The wording in the army books is
QuoteSPECIAL RULE: Elephant Kings. Late Classical Indian (except Kingdom of Balur) generals can fight in a file of Elephants in their command giving a +1 claim (only +1 for legendary generals
Pg 32 of the pdf rules explains that instinctive generals can only apply cards to troops in their own command.
So not being english native my reading of a command is the troops directly under the responsability of the general . See the difin,ition of a command pg 32
An instinctive general can always join an UG in another command to fight with it but the way the elephant king rule is written I understand is as : they can give the +1 only in their command which may make sens as not many have that rule and give nothing to elephants .
So what is the intend ?
My reading is : in it's own command and nowhere else as per command definition ( pg 32 ) ( the way it is written now )
The Elephant Kings special rule is in addition to the normal rules and not a replacement. It allows something that is not normally allowed.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 04, 2026, 06:02:16 PMThe Elephant Kings special rule is in addition to the normal rules and not a replacement. It allows something that is not normally allowed.
Okay, but that fails to answer Badhabbum's question: is the word "command" to be understood as the UGs designated as the area of authority of the General after deployment, or is there another intended meaning (which the first answer by Nik seems to hint at)?
Best,
Antoine
I am a bit at a loss to exactly what is being asked - partly as Jacques refers to the rule about applying cards and giving a claim in a fight is not applying a card. I feel that an inappropriate connection is being made.
Apologies if I'm missing an obvious point here.
Okay, I will try to be more clear.
The Elephant King special rule specifies that the general can go to the front only in an Elephant TUG in his
command (my emphasis).
What we wonder is whether the "command" is to be understood as defined in pg 32 (and also where it is said that Instinctive generals can only apply cards in their command, reinforcing the definition of "command"). We would incline to say yes.
However, we are puzzled by this sentence you wrote :
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 03, 2026, 09:53:18 AMQuote from: philfigo on January 03, 2026, 09:42:35 AMDoes a general give a claim to a file that is not under his command?
Yes as long as he is not an allied general with a non-allied UG and vice versa.
It could be interpreted as giving the green light to a sub-general using Elephant King for a TUG in the army commander"s command, or vice versa.
OK, lets see if I can help :)
As a command is defined in 2 C 1 as:
QuoteA command is a set of TuGs and SuGs allocated to be under the direct control of a general at the end of deployment.
I would hope what is a command is pretty clear - i.e. the troops you define as commanded by a specific general at deployment.
The Elephant King special rule is:
QuoteSPECIAL RULE: Elephant Kings. <<nation>> generals can fight in a file of Elephants in their command giving a +1 claim (only +1 for legendary generals).
There is no "only" in terms of the file of elephants limiting the claim to just elephant files - they can also fight in a file of other troops should they so wish.
As I commented before, the special rule
adds to what files a general can fight in as usually they cannot fight in an elephant file (6 F 18 in the rules PDF); it does not replace the normal rules of fighting in a file.
In general (ahem, sorry) Generals can give a claim in any file of troops (6 N 1) as long as it is not an allied general with a non-allied UG, or a non-allied general with an allied UG (2 D 3.4) - (be nice in the future to have these things together in the rules). In the case of elephant files getting a claim from an Elephant King there is an additional limitation - the "in their command".
Does that help or do I need to try again?
It's now clear at leats the intend is clear
I would suggest rephrase that rule as the word "command" is clearly defined in the rules and used in another way ( another meaning ? ) for the special elephant king rule , hence the misunderstanding . Perhaps " in their army" or "in their forces" or "from their original list"
"Command" in the Elephant Kings special rule is used in the way it is defined in the rule I quoted (2 C 1). Something like "in their army" would change the special rule.
The only elephants an Elephant King can add a claim to are those in their command.
They can also add a claim to other non-elephant troops in their command.
They can also add a claim to non-elephant troops which are not in their command - with the allied/non-allied restriction mentioned (2 D 3.4).
OK, it is clear then, thank you Nik