Beasts As Generals

A Discussion

Note: This discussion refers to something that was regarded as a flaw in v1.0 of HOTT. Hott v2.0 allows Beasts as generals. However the discussion is of interest, so I will leave this page here for now.

Rahul Sukthankar wrote:

And on an unrelated note: can anyone explain why a "beasts" unit can't be a general? I assume that it's not just for "realism" reasons; after all, "beasts" can include units such as goblins riding worgs, or hunters with hounds. Each of the other forbidden units (paladin, dragon, god, sneaker, lurkers) have good reasons for not being generals (i.e. they would be +7 in combat, or aren't always present). How do beasts fit?

I asked this question a couple of months ago, and I don't think a satisfactory answer ever appeared. I was looking for a suitable grading for the wolf commander of Jadis's forces in 'The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe'; a Beast general if ever there was one. Beasts certainly don't seem to have any major advantages that would make them unfair to have as generals. Does anyone have any idea why they can't be generals?

I think the premise was that a pack of wolves or other such baddies doesnt have the brains to lead, and a humanoid mounted with a pack of snarling beasts would be too busy keeping them under control to be an effective general.

When I was building up my 25mm Ratten army I had one beast elememt, comprising of a pack of small rats being led by an an imposing Rat Lord - it would have made a fine looking general. I can follow DJRaidens arguement, but surely this would preclude a magician - being too busy casting spells to be an effective general.

Generals Greetings! I've been thinking long and hard (you may have heard the creaking and smelled the friction) about the fact that Beasts can not be Generals. Despite being the King Of Rationalization, I really can not come up with a good reason against Beasts being Generals. This is, after all, Fantasy. CS Lewis lets a wolf be an army leader. In other published works, there are extremely smart wolves and other vicious animals that are very smart - and organization-minded. Packs, for example, can be seen as military organizations. In the natural world, wolves, in particular, seem to be able to carry out and complete ambushes and other running fights. Heck, if an Orc is smart enough to be a General, a Wolf (or other beast) should be able to be a full-fledged Marshal Of The Empire...... I would like to get The Rulesgivers' view on this. Has anyone tried contacting Sue or RBS instead of The Phil.

We know what he says. They can't. . .strictly speaking

Here's my opinion (which stinks as much as the rest of them!!) on beasts as generals. Remember that the troop/unit classification in Hordes is not representing what the troops actually ARE, but rather how they BEHAVE on the battlefield. So, if you want a beastly creature (or creatures) to be general, then don't represent them as a Beast stand, use them as either a rider, knight, or something else. A Beast stand is something that is snarling and mindless, or something that is wild and barely tameable (goblins on willful wolves comes to mind) -- not really general material. But if you have a very intelligent wolf who leads your pack, then make him a Rider, Hero, or Knight - and make him the General. As an example of this sort of classification fudging, just look at the army lists in the rulebook - I don't have one here, but aren't Giants represented on one of the Norse Myth lists as hordes? Ask someone what a Giant is in HOTT and they are more than likely to say that it's a Behemoth - but here we have them as hordes!!

Chuck I agree completely. It is how they are used on the battle field. The dragoon/elves comes to mind. A while back a player was complaining that his dragoon/elves, that ride horses then get off and shoot, were not represented in HOTTs. Well, they are, either make them riders or shooters for that game. You can even put the rider figures on shooter stands or the other way around. Another one comes to mind. My own riders in my "Sibley's Grave Diggers "army. They are ACW era mounted cav, basically shock troops. So, are they knights or riders? We finally agreed that , for the most part, they performed as knights so are now classed as such. I do not think a beast should be a general either. It is bad enough that knight and warband generals have to follow up beasts would do the same.

I didn't realize that my casual question about beastly generals would spark a debate, but I may as well pitch in. There are really two questions: 1) Would allowing a beastly general unbalance the game? From the responses of experienced HOTTers, it seems that the answer is "no" -- things would probably work fine. 2) Does it makes "sense" for a beasts unit to be a general. And here, opinion seems strongly divided. One opinion is that beasts aren't smart enough to be generals, or that trainers with beasts are too busy controlling them to become generals. People have countered with several good examples of "beastly" generals in legend and/or books. So why not just model beastly generals as other units -- such as knights? IMHO, this solution is unsatisfactory because the ex-beastly general's unit can no longer work in synergy with his other units. For instance, the wolf general is now afraid of venturing into the forest (bad going) since he will be at -2, and get destroyed on minor defeats. Or he'll get left behind by his troops on the way to the battle (2" vs 4" in bad going). I agree with Chuck's argument that the unit classification in Hordes should represent how the unit *behaves* on the battlefield. So in the Norse lists, giants (who fight & die in droves) are merely hordes. However, turning a beastly general into a rider means that the unit no longer behaves correctly... Maybe I'll just pretend that my heroic beastly general lost a leg in an earlier battle and can thus accurately be modeled as a Warband

Rahul Sukthankar latest missive sums up the discussion of Beast Generals quite nicely. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to suggest a conclusion or resolution. So, as a follow-up, might I suggest that - until a new HOTTs errata or version is issued - players be allowed to field Beast Generals (with the approval of their opponent). Personally, I think that The Rulesgivers are not omniscient (PUT those stones sown!) and simply overlooked the body of published work that would suggest that Beast Generals should be allowed. As Rahul astutely points out, there is no way to have a Beastly General function in a beastly manner without being typed as a Beast. I'm willing to toss a bone to those who want Beast Generals.

So there you have it. Do you see any reason why Beasts can't be generals, apart from the obvious fact that the rules say they can't? Would allowing them to lead armies unbalance the game, or actually allow better representation of certain armies? Send me your opinions.

Back To The Stronghold