Welcome to Librarium Online!
I notice that several armies use an alter highborn.
Since the army general has to have the highest leadership value, and an alter kindred cannot be the army general, aren't these two rules in conflict?
Nope, it just goes to another hero. That is why armies generally use an alter and a spell singer or noble/highborn of a different kindred. there are other armies whose heros have the same rules, such as the Ogre hunter.
Maelstrom is correct - So if you take an alter highborn and a wardancer noble, the wardancer becomes your general.
This does, however mean that an alter highborn or noble couldn't be the only hero in your army, unless I'm mistaken.
since you have to have a general, and the alter can't be a general, then yes you do have to have another character to take the place of general. you are right!:yes:
Armies: Wood Elves, High Elves
Warbands Campaign 07: 1st
San Antonio Alamo GT
Heh... thanks for the confirmation, Trodi. Posts like mine are what happens when I'm tired and not paying attention to what I'm posting.:sleep:
I've seen people go too far with this rule. Take vampire counts for example, a list where a lord level character is disallowed. They say, "A thrall has higher leadership than a necromancer, so the necromancer can't be your general. But a thrall can't be a general either. So you can't take a thrall."
What a load of malarkey. GW could clear it up, though, by just saying something like, "Whatever character has the highest leadership and is eligible to be the general must be the general." Of course, that's not worded too great either.
Sounds like rules-lawyering at its worst. Makes me glad I'm friends with most of the people I play against - we don't bother with crap like that.
There seems to be this big buzz lately about Jervis Johnson's "Rules As Written" decree. What people seem to forget is that he also used the "Just Say Yes" idea to encourage people to keep it fun.
God, I hate rules lawyers.