Hello,

I have a somewhat peculiar question, whose logical answer is in no doubt for me, but about which I would like an official opinion.

Is it allowed to have a general (other than an army commander) who has no troops under his command ? I see nothing precluding it in the rulebook.

It might seem ludicrous, but I can for example imagine an army of Catalan Companies in Anatolia (5215) that could benefit from it. That army has 1 Army Commander, 0-2 Sub-Generals and 0-1 Internal Allied General (a Mediocre Instinctive Alan). So if want 4 Generals (and 13-14 cards without ruining my budget with a Legendary), I must take the Alan.
The Alan units have in their description that : "Note: An Alan contingent must be commanded by an Alan allied general. Alans are only compulsory if the contingent is taken."
So, could it not be argued by a nitpicking player that nowhere is it stated that Alans must be taken if an Alan General is taken?

Best,
Antoine

IMO a general is part of a contingent so if you take him you are taking the contingent and so the troop minima apply.

Anyone trying it on where I list checking would get short shrift 

Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 25, 2024, 04:17:17 PM
IMO a general is part of a contingent so if you take him you are taking the contingent and so the troop minima apply.

Anyone trying it on where I list checking would get short shrift 

As well they might!

Thank you, that was my take as well, nice to have a confirmation.

Best,
Antoine