General Inspiration

[andrew]

Hi
A quick question that came up in last night's game.  The +1 tactical factor for being "inspired" by one's own general - is this a general from your own command, or your own army?
Andrew

[landmeister]

I would say it means the general of its command but as Barkerese is not my first language I'm not sure. 

[foxgom]

agree.

I read "own" as meaning own command.

Silly idea...
a Sub Gen could count the CinC as his "own General".
So could an element belonging to the Sub gen.
This would make multiple bonuses possible.
I definitely think this is NOT what is meant.


neil fox

[andrew]

I agree the +1 applies to a general from the same command.  If it was intended to be any general, then the word "own" would not be there and the wording might be "a general" or "any general" rather than "own general" - so I believe the inclusion of the word "own" reveals the intent of the author.

Like Neil - trying a "silly idea" :
However, what if the intent of including the word "own" was to stop players claiming the bonus when an opponents general killed one of their elements?  This is obviously an idiotic interpretation, but without the inclusion of the word "own" it is a possible literal interpretation of the rule.  If this was the intention (to prevent your opponent unfairly claiming the +1 when your own general killed an element) then you could argue any general within your own army gives inspiration.  It's not as if the rank and file wouldn't know the general of another command, and as such could be inspired by other generals from the same side inflicting damage on the enemy.  But...

Assuming the previous paragraph is completely irrelevant (and the intent was not to prevent gamesmanship), but continuing to explore alternative interpretations, what is an "own" general?  As Neil mentioned, is my general's general also my general?  Might be a bit of a stretch.....especially given Phil's propensity for using less words, instead of more, to define a rule.  For instance, to make this unambiguous the rule could say "general from own command" but it is highly probable "own general" was intended to convey the same meaning given the object of the tactical factor is the element that is in combat.  Or is this circular reasoning?

In conclusion : I too think it is the general from the element's command, but am still interested to hear others opinions.

Cheers, Andrew

[Valentinian Victor]

My understanding is that it applies to all elements of the army not just restricted to those in the specific generals command. You could place the C-in-C with a sub-gen either side and the sub-gen's would both get the +1 if the C-in-C destroyed the opposing element. Similarly, if the C-in-C had an element from Command A on its left flank and an element from Command C on its right flank they would get the +1 if the C-in-C destroyed its opponent.

However, if you had an ally-general then the +1 would only apply to the troops under the ally-general's command as its only going to inspire those troops and not the rest of the armies, being as its only an ally.

[Barritus]

My understanding is that it applies to all elements of the army not just restricted to those in the specific generals command. You could place the C-in-C with a sub-gen either side and the sub-gen's would both get the +1 if the C-in-C destroyed the opposing element. Similarly, if the C-in-C had an element from Command A on its left flank and an element from Command C on its right flank they would get the +1 if the C-in-C destroyed its opponent.

Does this mean you believe a sub-general could inspire troops from the C-in-C's command?

However, if you had an ally-general then the +1 would only apply to the troops under the ally-general's command as its only going to inspire those troops and not the rest of the armies, being as its only an ally.

Even if they're ally generals from the same nation as the C-in-C? (For example, Ancient British.)

Another point worth noting is that the term "own general" is used elsewhere in the rules. In Initial Deployment on page 22, for example, it's fairly clear (to me at least) that the term refers to troops and a general in the same command. If not, I suspect deployment could get very tricky.

[Valentinian Victor]

This is another example where if DBMM is updated in the future that the term 'own general' needs clarification. Does it mean 'own commands general' or 'own nations general' or 'own army general'? Actually there is a circumstance where the last of the three would apply and that is where an opposing players ally-general becomes unreliable and then changes sides, in this case what would it be classed as?

[RogerG]

An army baggage command is defined as having 'no general'. I.e. it is possible to have a command without a general. The C. in C., although in command of the army, is therefore not considered to be the general of other commands in the army. 'Own general' can therefore only mean the general of that command of which he is a part.

[Barritus]

This is another example where if DBMM is updated in the future that the term 'own general' needs clarification.

Yes, no doubt of that. The problem is that I think Phil Barker has these concepts in his head and the words for a particular concept come out slightly differently each time. So while in theory different concepts should be straightforward and different, in reality they're often defined in ways which overlap with each other, generating confusion.

It's not helped by the lack of an index, as this makes it much harder to find other references to a given concept for checking purposes.