Slitherine

probably I'm wrong but I couldn't see anywhere that the lost of all commanders as an impact on the game except that the BG's can't be bolstered.

In addition nothing special happens if the CinC is killed instead a S/G it is strange

dvorkin wrote:probably I'm wrong but I couldn't see anywhere that the lost of all commanders as an impact on the game except that the BG's can't be bolstered.

Apart from the cohesion test for all BG within 3 MU of the commander when he's lost, and not being able to help a close combat by fighting in the front rank, and not giving a +1 in cohesion test, and not giving a +1 in CMTs, not being able to do double moves and not being able to move as a battle-line I do believe you are right.

"What have the commanders ever done for us?..."

nothing else I'm afraid

thefrenchjester" don't call me big nose "

The loss of a commander seriously weakens the area of the battlefield he was working in especially if he was the only general in the area.

In the game I played on Monday two enemy BG's ended up isolated from their generals and then it was just a metter of time before they both broke.

I have lost games simply because I sent my general off to do something that seemed more important at the time....

Hammy

hammy wrote:The loss of a commander seriously weakens the area of the battlefield he was working in especially if he was the only general in the area.

And if he was an ally general, the troops in the ally contingent can then never be bolstered or rallied.

We have a design principle in the rules of "no double whammies". We deem that all the disadvantages mentioned above are sufficient without any specific penalties for losing commanders.

Perhaps that comment should be written in there as a note?

totally agree just to avoid any thought on this subject