Ogre Kingdoms Slaughtermaster as General

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**A Black Ram**

Hello, and welcome to another one of my ridiculous OK questions to tailor my army to my fluff!

I was wondering on Dakka's opinion of a Slaughter master leading my army, seeing as my army is centered around a Butcher Council I came up with. I should also say that I do not plan to play in tournaments.

So... would you allow it?
(and for those who don't know, A Slaughter master can only be taken IF a tyrant is taken- meaning two lord choices no matter what if I want the 'master. )

Thank you for the responses and putting up with me, I don't know how you do it (if you can).

**HawaiiMatt**

Ogres are the most hamstrung army for character selection.
We've get a 0-1 tyrant, which you must take to take the other lord choice.
We get hunters, who can't be general, and butchers who can't be general.

IMO, if you want to toss out all of those; letting hunters join units and be general, along with more than 1 tyrant, and slaughtermasters without tyrants; be my guest.

-Matt

**Scarecrow456**

Personally wouldn't play against you doing it (that and i play ogres so it seems a little odd). You are required by rules to take 1 tyrant to take a slaughter master, but if nothing else just take a naked one and called it even. I suppose you would likely find people who would play against that, but i'm not one of them.

**Grey Templar**

In a friendly game, sure.

but the real question is why you wouldn't want a tyrant to be your general. Ld9 is a rare commodity.

I love running tons of butchers, but my Tyrant is the head honcho.

**Mr Mystery**

Not sure I'd be overly fussed.

Though I just take a Tyrant and a Slaughtermaster for lots of killy nonsense!

**Wehrkind**

I doubt I would even recognize the difference

I suppose getting to save points on the tyrant to spam more bulls is good, but from my understanding the tyrant is pretty great, so eh, doesn't bug me at all.

**A Black Ram**

Hmm, very mixed reviews. Thank you all for contributing..more opinions welcome.

**Warpsolution**

Scarecrow: do you have a reason beyond "you need to play by the rules", or is that about the jist of it?

Games Workshop basically encourages us to change things up when they're fun and not stupid. I can't think of how this would be that great of a boon to Ogres, so I say go right ahead.

**Grey Templar**

well, being able to spend more points on Wizards to get those stackable buffs up is good.

and more points for bull spam.

**A Black Ram**

It really has nothing to do with me thinking '' If I take this cheap (200 pts is the same as a tyrant without upgrades..) lord, then I get to gain these benefits! What a sucker, letting me use this..

No. Since I was 10 years old I was in love with the butcher. This was also back when I had no idea how to play. I purely liked the model, and his role. Nowadays, I see he does gut magic, and have read deeper into its fluff.

The TLDR of this post is: Butchers have been my favorite characters for the longest time. Slaughter masters are stronger and more prevalent i.e the Head Shaman, so that is why I want him to lead my force rather than a tyrant.

**Grey Templar**

yeah, i love my Butchers and SMs too.

Scragg actually removes the restriction of having to take a Tyrant to take a SM and is the general himself.

He would be a good option for a legal "Counts As"

just use his rules for your own homebrew SM.

**A Black Ram**

That is a very good thought. I will look into this- but is he an even more powerful wizard than a SM?

Also, isnt using Special Characters frowned upon?

**Grey Templar**

lots of Tournaments don't allow special characters because certain fantesy ones are overpowered.

Scragg isn't any better at casting then a normal Slaughtermaster, but he is a beast in combat as he, and your gorgers, gains abilities with enemy kills.

He can also be your general and is Ld9(same as tyrant)

He allows you to have all your heros be casters(although a BSB is too good not to have) which means more gutmagic on the table.

**heacy hitter**

A Black Ram wrote:
Also, isnt using Special Characters frowned upon?

By some people they are. I personally don't like playing against named characters because you can get some op characters.

**Grey Templar**

however, Scragg isn't one of those special characters that is frowned upon.

its mostly directed at Teclis and a few others.

**spyguyyoda**

To be honest, I would rather you played with a special character than to just say "I know it's illegal, but this guy is way cooler".

I know it's not inherently an attempt to just overwhelm me with more gutmagic, but I guess I'm just pretty by the book.

**BorderCountess**

I'm with Spy Guy. I mostly prefer people to play by the rules, especially if it's the first time we're playing against each other. Someone that I'm very familiar with - that I know and trust - trying it in a friendly game may be a different story, though.

After all, I've developed several homebrew special characters on here (see the "Make a Character" thread some time back), but I've not had a chance to try them out.

**Puscifer**

I personally think that Slaughtermasters should be able to be Generals and the fact they were not allowed in the first place was just stupid.

Yeah - I wouldn't mind at all.

**BorderCountess**

Puscifer wrote:I personally think that Slaughtermasters should be able to be Generals and the fact they were not allowed in the first place was just stupid.

Yeah - I wouldn't mind at all.

The trouble that some players have is that your opinion (or mine, or anyone's) on what the rules should be is irrelevant. What the rules actually are is all that matters. And the rule is that you can't take a Slaughtermaster without a Tyrant. It's black and white.

**spyguyyoda**

"what the rules should be is irrelevant"

A very true statement. It should probably be noted that GW's stance on rules does tend to be that the rules are less important than what the players agree on.

As Manfred said, if it's someone I know pretty well, and they're like "I just loooove this model and here's the story", well...maybe. If I don't really know you, then probably not. If the SM happens to be your only caster, then that would also increase the odds of me being ok with it, because it tells me that you really are just taking him because you like him.

**Lordhat**

In a one-off/pick-up gameI wouldn't. I play OK and I don't do it simply because it's against the rules. However for something like a campaign where everybody agrees/can do similar things for fluffy campaign-y reasons, be my guest.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Black Ram wrote:Also, isnt using Special Characters frowned upon?

In my (admittedly small) group S.C.'s are accepted without question, if not always without complaint <Cough> Teclis <Cough>.

**HawaiiMatt**

Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Puscifer wrote:I personally think that Slaughtermasters should be able to be Generals and the fact they were not allowed in the first place was just stupid.

Yeah - I wouldn't mind at all.

The trouble that some players have is that your opinion (or mine, or anyone's) on what the rules should be is irrelevant. What the rules actually are is all that matters. And the rule is that you can't take a Slaughtermaster without a Tyrant. It's black and white.

41% of Dakka Dakka disagrees with that.
I wish more people read the side bar on page 3.

-Matt

**Davall**

Yeah, casual games go for it with your opponent's approval. Anything else, I would say no.

The rules are the rules for a reason, even when they make no sense

**Warpsolution**

Game systems exist so our playing at make-believe doesn't degenerate down to "bang! You're dead!", "Nuh-uh, I dodged!".

Of course this sort of thing should only be done in casual games, and with your opponents approval. In fact, having a Slaughtermaster as your general is only possible under those circumstances. In tournaments, we've got to abide by the rules in the strictest of circumstances (ideally). In a casual game, when you're opponent isn't okay with something, the game won't get off the ground until they or you concede.

But GW tells us to take liberty with the rules for the sake of the game. The rules are there because they must be, not because we love rules. They're a necessary evil, in a sense.

Does a Slaughtermaster acting as a general offer you some benefits the book doesn't? Yes. Are they tremendous or even significant benefits? Probably not.
Go for it.

**BorderCountess**

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Puscifer wrote:I personally think that Slaughtermasters should be able to be Generals and the fact they were not allowed in the first place was just stupid.

Yeah - I wouldn't mind at all.

The trouble that some players have is that your opinion (or mine, or anyone's) on what the rules should be is irrelevant. What the rules actually are is all that matters. And the rule is that you can't take a Slaughtermaster without a Tyrant. It's black and white.

41% of Dakka Dakka disagrees with that.
I wish more people read the side bar on page 3.

-Matt

Which means that 59% agree.

**Ralin Givens**

spyguyyoda wrote:To be honest, I would rather you played with a special character than to just say "I know it's illegal, but this guy is way cooler".

I know it's not inherently an attempt to just overwhelm me with more gutmagic, but I guess I'm just pretty by the book.

+1
In my mind its like taking an assasin as your General, coolness factor is there but fluff wise it would make no sense. Also once you reach 2000 points 2 slaughter masters would just become stupid and no fun to paly against. Over all I would say a big resounding No

**Warpsolution**

You don't think that a Slaughtermaster might be able to, say...lead a horde of Bulls onward in a pilgrimage to the Great Maw?

Fluff is flexible. It certainly has its limits (your assassin idea, for example, goes against the very grain of assassin-ness that GW has created), but it's flexible.

2 Slaughtermasters would be tough. As would two any lvl4 casters. But more importantly, the OP isn't saying "is it okay if I just knock off the Tyrant requirement in the OK book forever", but instead, "can this guy be my general in this one instance".
When it comes to this sort of casual, from-the-hip sort of play (the play, I say again, that Games Workshop wants us to partake in), you've gotta' take it case-by-case. And I say it's fine.