Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 16:50:10


Post by: JNAProductions


To elaborate, what I mean is should someone like Calgar be mechanically unique?

I'm of the opinion that you should be able to build unique characters just from existing options. So, Calgar, for instance, would be an Ultramarines Chapter Master with Relic Power Fists, Master-Crafted Bolter, Artificer Gravis Armor and whatever a half-damage thing would be called.

Aun'Va would just be an Ethereal Supreme with Paradox Of Duality and some bodyguards.

Canis Rex would just be a Master Knight Preceptor with a Relic Fist, and the option to hop out when the Knight goes kablooey.

So on and so forth.

Now, there should be SOME exceptions. Primarchs, for instance, I'm okay with being truly unique. Maybe Ghazgul (though he should REALLY be buffed up, by a lot, to merit true unique status in the rules).

Am I alone in this? Or is this a good idea to most?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 16:55:40


Post by: Stux


I think they should be unique in their exact composition so they feel special, but individual important abilities should be replicatable elsewhere in the army.

Example, Trajan is the only way Custodes can get re-roll wounds. That shouldn't be the case. But his weapon profile, sure there's no problem that being unique, and maybe the re-roll wounds source wouldn't be on a shield captain it would be on something else.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 16:57:58


Post by: JNAProductions


 Stux wrote:
I think they should be unique in their exact composition so they feel special, but individual important abilities should be replicatable elsewhere in the army.

Example, Trajan is the only way Custodes can get re-roll wounds. That shouldn't be the case. But his weapon profile, sure there's no problem that being unique, and maybe the re-roll wounds source wouldn't be on a shield captain it would be on something else.
I'd rather go further, as evidenced by the OP, but that seems a pretty reasonable stance to me.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 16:59:23


Post by: Stux


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Stux wrote:
I think they should be unique in their exact composition so they feel special, but individual important abilities should be replicatable elsewhere in the army.

Example, Trajan is the only way Custodes can get re-roll wounds. That shouldn't be the case. But his weapon profile, sure there's no problem that being unique, and maybe the re-roll wounds source wouldn't be on a shield captain it would be on something else.
I'd rather go further, as evidenced by the OP, but that seems a pretty reasonable stance to me.


Based on the thread on unique chapters, I know there are a few people here who will have that preference.

However I've played other games where the 'legendary' characters can be made using the normal rules and it's always struck me personally as really lame and underwhelming feeling.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 17:12:10


Post by: Lance845


I think having solid build options off generic characters is a great way to go. All the profiles for the unique characters should be built from that template. And then, with the options, players would be free to make their own characters for their own unique chapters.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 17:15:56


Post by: Crimson


 JNAProductions wrote:

Am I alone in this? Or is this a good idea to most?

You're not alone, it is a great idea and I've been thinking the same thing for a long time.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 17:41:06


Post by: alextroy


I am alright with them being unique. I am alright with them having unique options. I am not alright with them being better. There is no reason Calgar needs unique rules that make him better than any Ultramarines Chapter Master you can make with the rules.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 17:56:32


Post by: flandarz


I'm kinda in the middle on this one. I'm fine with unique characters having unique things. But I'd also like to be able to build a "kustom" Warboss named "Grumblestompa Da Kruul" and not have him be statistically the same as his Warboss Lieutenant "Starskreem".


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 18:02:12


Post by: JNAProductions


 flandarz wrote:
I'm kinda in the middle on this one. I'm fine with unique characters having unique things. But I'd also like to be able to build a "kustom" Warboss named "Grumblestompa Da Kruul" and not have him be statistically the same as his Warboss Lieutenant "Starskreem".
Yeah-I think we can pretty much all agree, regardless of how you feel on unique characters, that 40k should have lots of customization in HQs.

I feel sorry for the Dark Eldar and Necron players. I mean, good lord, there are...

Regular (+/- Jump Pack)
Terminator
Primaris
Gravis
Bike
Phobos

At least six distinct Captains in Space Marines.

Necron Overlords have a choice of 5 different weapons and one binary wargear. There are as many generic Space Marine Captains as there are options on a Necron Overlord.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 18:14:28


Post by: Insectum7


 JNAProductions wrote:
To elaborate, what I mean is should someone like Calgar be mechanically unique?

I'm of the opinion that you should be able to build unique characters just from existing options. So, Calgar, for instance, would be an Ultramarines Chapter Master with Relic Power Fists, Master-Crafted Bolter, Artificer Gravis Armor and whatever a half-damage thing would be called.

Aun'Va would just be an Ethereal Supreme with Paradox Of Duality and some bodyguards.

Canis Rex would just be a Master Knight Preceptor with a Relic Fist, and the option to hop out when the Knight goes kablooey.

So on and so forth.

Now, there should be SOME exceptions. Primarchs, for instance, I'm okay with being truly unique. Maybe Ghazgul (though he should REALLY be buffed up, by a lot, to merit true unique status in the rules).

Am I alone in this? Or is this a good idea to most?


It also used to be that the language around Special Characters was that they were not unique, and that Marneus Calgar could also represent your successor chapter Master, for example. I'm not sure how they're calling it now.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 18:17:41


Post by: vipoid


 JNAProductions wrote:
To elaborate, what I mean is should someone like Calgar be mechanically unique?

I'm of the opinion that you should be able to build unique characters just from existing options. So, Calgar, for instance, would be an Ultramarines Chapter Master with Relic Power Fists, Master-Crafted Bolter, Artificer Gravis Armor and whatever a half-damage thing would be called.

Aun'Va would just be an Ethereal Supreme with Paradox Of Duality and some bodyguards.

Canis Rex would just be a Master Knight Preceptor with a Relic Fist, and the option to hop out when the Knight goes kablooey.

So on and so forth.

Now, there should be SOME exceptions. Primarchs, for instance, I'm okay with being truly unique. Maybe Ghazgul (though he should REALLY be buffed up, by a lot, to merit true unique status in the rules).

Am I alone in this? Or is this a good idea to most?


No, I think this would be an excellent idea.

One of the reasons I'm for this change is because it would stop GW from stripping options and wargear from everything except special characters.

You want your characters to have cool rules and wargear? Fine. But regular HQs have to have access to them as well.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 18:18:21


Post by: Stux


 Insectum7 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
To elaborate, what I mean is should someone like Calgar be mechanically unique?

I'm of the opinion that you should be able to build unique characters just from existing options. So, Calgar, for instance, would be an Ultramarines Chapter Master with Relic Power Fists, Master-Crafted Bolter, Artificer Gravis Armor and whatever a half-damage thing would be called.

Aun'Va would just be an Ethereal Supreme with Paradox Of Duality and some bodyguards.

Canis Rex would just be a Master Knight Preceptor with a Relic Fist, and the option to hop out when the Knight goes kablooey.

So on and so forth.

Now, there should be SOME exceptions. Primarchs, for instance, I'm okay with being truly unique. Maybe Ghazgul (though he should REALLY be buffed up, by a lot, to merit true unique status in the rules).

Am I alone in this? Or is this a good idea to most?


It also used to be that the language around Special Characters was that they were not unique, and that Marneus Calgar could also represent your successor chapter Master, for example. I'm not sure how they're calling it now.


That is essentially what everyone was doing in 8e anyway, at least before the new Successor rules.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 18:21:23


Post by: Tannhauser42


They should be unique in that they do have something extra special...for them. Not something extra special that they pass on to everyone else around them, in which case everyone now fields that character and they're no longer a special character. Remember those good old days when the only way to play certain armies was to take the special character that was required to unlock those armies?
I don't mind so much if Special Character Chapter Master Jim is marginally better than generic Chapter Master Bob as long as it's paid for and the only thing that's better is Jim gets an extra attack or is one higher strength or something like that it's fine, but if Jim is "all my dudes around me get +1 to everything because I'm cooler than Bob", that's a nope.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 18:28:47


Post by: Stux


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
They should be unique in that they do have something extra special...for them. Not something extra special that they pass on to everyone else around them, in which case everyone now fields that character and they're no longer a special character. Remember those good old days when the only way to play certain armies was to take the special character that was required to unlock those armies?
I don't mind so much if Special Character Chapter Master Jim is marginally better than generic Chapter Master Bob as long as it's paid for and the only thing that's better is Jim gets an extra attack or is one higher strength or something like that it's fine, but if Jim is "all my dudes around me get +1 to everything because I'm cooler than Bob", that's a nope.


That's more or less the crux of it for me.

An army buff shouldn't be contingent on a named character. Those abilities are too important to be gated like that.

But if they have a fancy sword or what have you, sure, whatever.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 19:04:57


Post by: Karol


sometimes unique stuff is really strange. Grey Knights have access to storm shields, but the only model that can take one is Draigo.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 19:47:40


Post by: vipoid


 Stux wrote:
That's more or less the crux of it for me.

An army buff shouldn't be contingent on a named character.


Nor an entire faction.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 21:30:55


Post by: kurhanik


 Lance845 wrote:
I think having solid build options off generic characters is a great way to go. All the profiles for the unique characters should be built from that template. And then, with the options, players would be free to make their own characters for their own unique chapters.


I am basically in this camp. Give a list of a bunch of abilities, attack options, and defense options, and give them all prices, and then you can build your character from there. If necessary, make a cap on the number of choices allowed, or a couple of "if you take Ability C, you cannot take Ability G". If you end up with say 10 options to give your HQ, when combined with Warlord Trait and your Army Ability, you'll be able to make a fairly unique character of your own.

Then a named character could be someone with Abilities X, Y, and Z from the list, but is built off of the same base template as a generic.

After all, half the fun of the game is making up the story of your units and models - so having access to the abilities of a named character without having to bring that exact model is a boon.

Also, I just hate that certain abilities are locked behind a named character, and feel that you should be able to access that ability without having to bring the specific character to every fight.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 21:31:30


Post by: Aash


I’d be in favour of this. IIRC special characters started off like this - Ghazkull was just an Ork warboss with a particular combination of traits and wargear that happened to be used in a White Dwarf battle report back in the day (by Andy Chambers I think) and he decided to name his home brew warboss.

Either go back to this where the same loadout can be created as a generic character, or special characters should only be allowed with the consent of your opponent or in open/narrative games.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 21:41:06


Post by: Elbows


If the game had more avenues for rules, I'd say yes. Sadly we're right back to 7th edition where GW's entire playbook consisted of two types of rules:

1) Ignore ___________ (a basic rules component)
2) Re-roll ___________.

That's about it, sadly. Doesn't leave much room for unique characters. Also, unique characters would continue to be passed up for the best one (i.e. re-roll hits and re-roll wounds).


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 22:54:08


Post by: jeff white


they should be so unique that they do not see use in everyday non-narrative games.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 23:04:58


Post by: Karol


I think it all depends on how they are suppose to work in a list. A special scout sgt, special character, who maybe by interacting with specific adds something new to a list is okey, and can be fun. But such models or units should never be a must take, or over shadow other similar option to a point there are never taken.
Also making special characters out of something which should not be a thing. And armies build around special characters shouldn't be a thing ever, unless it the army is something like imperial/chaos knights.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/08/31 23:46:45


Post by: mightymconeshot


I am just spitballing while I take my break, what if armies had character points and some armies got more than others to represent how special they were but paid more. Than you get a list of tables and can spend where you want. Any character in your army is eligible so if you want a bunch of +1 attack Sarge's or a tanky super HQ, or a master tankman you could do it. And those chapters that have few or eliminated options (DE) would get those back.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 00:39:18


Post by: Dandelion


I agree with the OP. So many characters would be better suited as generic options. I've also never really understood the appeal of unique characters because they kind of ruin my suspension of disbelief. The characters just feel too famous to reasonably fit into my narratives. Plus, more customization is always better.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 00:57:35


Post by: AngryAngel80


I have to say I think unique should feel unique but in the same token you should be able to make pretty neat generic character as well to fit your style.

Sometimes your own hero just feels better.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 07:22:17


Post by: Nerak


They should always be unique but come with a costs. I have a philosophy that special characters should only ever be used in themed armies. Something akin to if you take Kharn the betrayer your army must include 4 units of Berzerkers, or if you take Lysander your army must include 4 squads of terminators. I’ve never used a named character because I believe they make the game and the lore less interesting. I do think it’s cool though when a special character is the central theme of an army I’m facing.

Edit: reminiscing about those very old rules where you could only take a special character with you opponents consent.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 07:58:39


Post by: Elbows


Dandelion wrote:
I agree with the OP. So many characters would be better suited as generic options. I've also never really understood the appeal of unique characters because they kind of ruin my suspension of disbelief. The characters just feel too famous to reasonably fit into my narratives. Plus, more customization is always better.


You want the real answer? Because you can charge crazy money for a named unique hero...and people pay for it. Some of the Forge World Primarchs are over $100 now...lol. That's a real thing.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 08:00:00


Post by: vict0988


There are rules for custom unique characters in Chapter Approved. I don't think they should be allowed in competitive and I do like unique hq choices having unique rules. Unique characters allows gw to attempt to balance individual combos of stat buffs, relics and abilities instead of trying to balance thousands of combos by the cost of their individual upgrades. Take Anrakyr the Traveller my favourite Necron hq, why would I ever put a hunter killer missile on a melee support unit? I'd build a character with the +1 atk aura and save pts by not taking the other upgrades, Anrakyr would be pointless if his main job of adding +1 attack could be done cheaper by a generic HQ. Instead I am forced to take a bunch of unnecessary but fun upgrades and GW can balance that package instead of balancing the various individual upgrades.

GW can be a little shady at the best of times and incompetent the rest of the time so all unique units are not created equal but I think build your own hq would be easy to break. Let me ask all of you, do you regularly take your bad WL traits, chapter tactics and relics? Does the competitive community?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 08:38:05


Post by: godardc


Then they wouldn't be unique characters. I think that's one of the most weird idea I have ever heard from the 40k community, and I heard a lot of stuff lol


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 08:57:23


Post by: Stux


Dandelion wrote:
I agree with the OP. So many characters would be better suited as generic options. I've also never really understood the appeal of unique characters because they kind of ruin my suspension of disbelief. The characters just feel too famous to reasonably fit into my narratives. Plus, more customization is always better.


I understand this opinion, but you surely realise that conversely many people get the most out of the game from being able to put these legendary heroes they've read about into their armies.

Neither side is correct as such, but it's better to have the option than not have it - that way everyone can play the way they want to.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 09:04:38


Post by: BrianDavion


 Stux wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
I agree with the OP. So many characters would be better suited as generic options. I've also never really understood the appeal of unique characters because they kind of ruin my suspension of disbelief. The characters just feel too famous to reasonably fit into my narratives. Plus, more customization is always better.


I understand this opinion, but you surely realise that conversely many people get the most out of the game from being able to put these legendary heroes they've read about into their armies.

Neither side is correct as such, but it's better to have the option than not have it - that way everyone can play the way they want to.


playing devil's advocate (because I personally like unique chars) wouldn't it be more intreasting if unique characters where, essentially, just examples of what we could create witha robust points based character creation system?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 09:07:39


Post by: Stux


BrianDavion wrote:
 Stux wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
I agree with the OP. So many characters would be better suited as generic options. I've also never really understood the appeal of unique characters because they kind of ruin my suspension of disbelief. The characters just feel too famous to reasonably fit into my narratives. Plus, more customization is always better.


I understand this opinion, but you surely realise that conversely many people get the most out of the game from being able to put these legendary heroes they've read about into their armies.

Neither side is correct as such, but it's better to have the option than not have it - that way everyone can play the way they want to.


playing devil's advocate (because I personally like unique chars) wouldn't it be more intreasting if unique characters where, essentially, just examples of what we could create witha robust points based character creation system?


For me, no. It takes away a lot of the special feeling if there isn't SOMETHING unique about them, and I'd hate to see that go. Though as I said above, that unique thing should never be a rule that is crucial to army composition.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 09:24:46


Post by: A.T.


I think from a balance point of view the special characters allow powerful rules to be stacked against other sub-optimal choices to pad out their cost or limit their effectiveness.

Build your own either leads to min/maxed characters on the cheap, or the custom vehicle rules of everything being overpriced to account for minmaxing.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 09:31:24


Post by: JNAProductions


A.T. wrote:
I think from a balance point of view the special characters allow powerful rules to be stacked against other sub-optimal choices to pad out their cost or limit their effectiveness.

Build your own either leads to min/maxed characters on the cheap, or the custom vehicle rules of everything being overpriced to account for minmaxing.
While I do agree that the more options there are, the more likely something is going to be borked, at the same time, GW is not known for balance. I'd rather have a bunch of options that are at least usable in casual play than a slight betterment of balance at the cost of most options.

Ideally, 40k would be balanced AND have a ton of options, but given GW's track record, I'll take options over their attempts at balance.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 09:31:53


Post by: Breton


 Insectum7 wrote:


It also used to be that the language around Special Characters was that they were not unique, and that Marneus Calgar could also represent your successor chapter Master, for example. I'm not sure how they're calling it now.


Now, with special characters you can't change their keywords. So the Doom Eagles could take Marneus, but he's still ULTRAMARINES and only gives rerolls to ULTRAMARINES.

Some things should be unique, some things should not be. Corvex (Sammael's Jet bike) should probably be unique, Sableclaw (His Land Speeder) should probably not be unique - especially since the Talonmaster has virtually the same just slightly less land speeder. The Gauntlets of Ultramar should probably be unique. Equipping a Captain with Gravis Armor, and two Auto Bolt Storm Gauntlets that will get you close should probably be a thing - like the Fist of Dorn is unique but you can still give a Captain a Thunderhammer and Stormshield.

Most of the unique things should just be slightly improved normally available things. The truly unique things that don't have a generic parallel should be rare and iconic. Captain Sicarius for example is too unique, having the Talassarian Tempest Blade, and Battle Forged Heroes.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 09:33:25


Post by: Stux


A.T. wrote:
I think from a balance point of view the special characters allow powerful rules to be stacked against other sub-optimal choices to pad out their cost or limit their effectiveness.

Build your own either leads to min/maxed characters on the cheap, or the custom vehicle rules of everything being overpriced to account for minmaxing.


This is a good point. Build your own will lead to most people taking the 'best' option.

We're already seeing it with Successors, with suddenly most successor chapters becoming Master Artisans overnight.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 09:33:42


Post by: Kharn_The_Betrayer_87


I see where you're coming from, especially in terms of balance. In regards to narrative though I really like how unique these different characters are. It would feel too copy and paste otherwise.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 09:34:26


Post by: Breton


 Stux wrote:


For me, no. It takes away a lot of the special feeling if there isn't SOMETHING unique about them, and I'd hate to see that go. Though as I said above, that unique thing should never be a rule that is crucial to army composition.


Unless it's fluffy for that faction/subfaction. i.e. Azrael, Belial, or Sammael making Terminators/Bikers into Troops or a Wind Rider of Saim-Hann doing the same for Saim-Hann jetbikes.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 09:37:27


Post by: Stux


Breton wrote:
 Stux wrote:


For me, no. It takes away a lot of the special feeling if there isn't SOMETHING unique about them, and I'd hate to see that go. Though as I said above, that unique thing should never be a rule that is crucial to army composition.


Unless it's fluffy for that faction/subfaction. i.e. Azrael, Belial, or Sammael making Terminators/Bikers into Troops or a Wind Rider of Saim-Hann doing the same for Saim-Hann jetbikes.


Sure, but then what about a Dark Angel Successor, surely they should have a 1st Company captain who leads Terminators in the same way?

So you could have a generic 1st Company captain who does stuff for Terminators, then Belial has a fancy sword/duelist special rule or something on top of that.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 09:46:49


Post by: Breton


 Stux wrote:
Breton wrote:
 Stux wrote:


For me, no. It takes away a lot of the special feeling if there isn't SOMETHING unique about them, and I'd hate to see that go. Though as I said above, that unique thing should never be a rule that is crucial to army composition.


Unless it's fluffy for that faction/subfaction. i.e. Azrael, Belial, or Sammael making Terminators/Bikers into Troops or a Wind Rider of Saim-Hann doing the same for Saim-Hann jetbikes.


Sure, but then what about a Dark Angel Successor, surely they should have a 1st Company captain who leads Terminators in the same way?

So you could have a generic 1st Company captain who does stuff for Terminators, then Belial has a fancy sword/duelist special rule or something on top of that.


They have bigger issues with successor chapters. Successor Chapters right now can't even make a generic fluffy Second Company Master. I don't mind if it's a Warlord Trait (other than you couldn't Raven/Death Combi-wing with only one Warlord Trait) or some such. I do think they'd have to word in a way so your Green Wing (or Guardians whatever) get displaced by the Terminators/Bikes/Jetbikes. And in such a way that you could run Raven- and Death- wings together with Belial and Sammael to get both. You shouldn't be able to make a Dark Angels 5th Company army with First Company support, stick your fifth company Master in Terminator Armor and make the 1st Company Objective Secured. Of course, I'm not sure why Terminators under Belial would know how to secure an objective better than they would when they're supporting Master Charlemagne of the Fifth Company. And I absolutely don't understand why 10 Terminators can't secure an objective from 11 traitor guardsmen.

Basically there are certain sub-factions that lean to a Non-Batallion army. These subfactions are no less a Special Character than the actual special characters, and we should be able to make those lists without being punished on CP Generation or ObSec


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 09:52:02


Post by: Stux


I did actually play with an all Deathwing army just last week! My opponent took a fairly janky list too (by arrangement) but even so having only 5cp is extremely restrictive. It felt like more of an issue than the power level of Terminators in all honesty.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 10:10:28


Post by: Breton


 Stux wrote:
I did actually play with an all Deathwing army just last week! My opponent took a fairly janky list too (by arrangement) but even so having only 5cp is extremely restrictive. It felt like more of an issue than the power level of Terminators in all honesty.


I like to give GW the benefit of the doubt and figure they work pretty hard to points balance stuff. They're just not very good at it. Then they do a couple truly stupid things that make me doubt that benefit. Objective Secured and CP both are ridiculously not tied to points or power level, but basically model count. You don't get 6CP for 500 points of Guard and 500 Points of Marines. Guard can already be looking at 13 CP, Marines are lucky to land 8. CP should have just been a flat generation based on game size. At 500 Points you get 6-8... whatever is a decent number to SOMETHING every battle round plus a couple emergencies. At 2,000 you should be looking at about 12-15. Enough to do a couple SOMETHING's each battle round plus a couple emergencies. I'm not entirely sure how we ended up with guard being more "commandable" than Space Marines.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 14:30:08


Post by: Just Tony


I immediately picture Captain Cortez in every army and I think this is a bad idea. Not every Craftworld has a Farseer analogous to Eldrad. If you're THAT hung up on taking other peoples' stuff, play Unbound.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 14:34:30


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Interesting logic in the thread title - "should unique characters be unique?" Of course unique characters should be unique, and long cats should be long. Anyhoo.

Way back in 2nd Ed I recall that Special Characters were pretty much on "with your opponent's permission" status and were not allowed in GW Grand Tournaments. Clearly that's changed. I have to admit that in 8th I rarely run my Dark Angels without one of the unique characters. Run Hellblasters without Azrael? Ain't nobody got time for that! Should that be the case? I think that's a valid question. Some might find it odd that Azrael is in every scrap. It doesn't bother me all that much from an immersion perspective - you can always head-cannon your way around it. Its a Chapter Master in the past or future. I think that the Dark Angels' designers missed a trick by not giving Belial and Sammael the ability to make Deathwing/Ravenwing squads "Troops" choices. I am sure that there are other examples in other armies.

All that to say, I like Unique Characters from a gameplay and lore perspective. Heck, my community has a annual tournament where your Warlord has to be a unique character! Its good fun (exceptions are made for armies that don't have them).


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/01 15:13:49


Post by: An Actual Englishman


 JNAProductions wrote:
To elaborate, what I mean is should someone like Calgar be mechanically unique?

I'm of the opinion that you should be able to build unique characters just from existing options. So, Calgar, for instance, would be an Ultramarines Chapter Master with Relic Power Fists, Master-Crafted Bolter, Artificer Gravis Armor and whatever a half-damage thing would be called.

Spoiler:
Aun'Va would just be an Ethereal Supreme with Paradox Of Duality and some bodyguards.

Canis Rex would just be a Master Knight Preceptor with a Relic Fist, and the option to hop out when the Knight goes kablooey.

So on and so forth.


Now, there should be SOME exceptions. Primarchs, for instance, I'm okay with being truly unique. Maybe Ghazgul (though he should REALLY be buffed up, by a lot, to merit true unique status in the rules).

Am I alone in this? Or is this a good idea to most?


I agree with the entirety of your post really but this part in particular I think resonates with me most. Primarchs and other epic level characters should be the only ones to allow truly unique mechanics.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/03 19:09:13


Post by: Stormonu


As a victim of Herohammer in the past, I have a strong distaste for unique characters.

If the pointing and methodology for building custom characters could be trusted, I’d like to see a system akin to the one in Chapter Approved for building your own. Unique characters would be something I would still expect to see, especially with some unique abilities you can’t roll up/purchase.

Unfortunately, I don’t trust GW one whit for building characters, so you’ll never see them in any games I play.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/03 19:16:26


Post by: Elbows


 vict0988 wrote:
There are rules for custom unique characters in Chapter Approved. I don't think they should be allowed in competitive and I do like unique hq choices having unique rules. Unique characters allows gw to attempt to balance individual combos of stat buffs, relics and abilities instead of trying to balance thousands of combos by the cost of their individual upgrades. Take Anrakyr the Traveller my favourite Necron hq, why would I ever put a hunter killer missile on a melee support unit? I'd build a character with the +1 atk aura and save pts by not taking the other upgrades, Anrakyr would be pointless if his main job of adding +1 attack could be done cheaper by a generic HQ. Instead I am forced to take a bunch of unnecessary but fun upgrades and GW can balance that package instead of balancing the various individual upgrades.

GW can be a little shady at the best of times and incompetent the rest of the time so all unique units are not created equal but I think build your own hq would be easy to break. Let me ask all of you, do you regularly take your bad WL traits, chapter tactics and relics? Does the competitive community?


In short, yes? I have a custom written Chapter Master for my Renegade Space Marines. He has a mediocre Warlord trait, and two of his five special rules are actually penalties. He's not a Chaos believer (though half has Chapter has more or less fallen), so he cannot summon via daemonic ritual - ever., and <CHAOS> psykers within 6" of him suffer a -1 to their casting rolls. He has a pretty bland weapon combination. Custom characters don't have to mean curb-stomping-all-powerful douche bags.

That being said I do think 94% of the 40K gamers would end up with extremely overzealous and overpowered characters doing the same thing. This is obvious just glancing through the "Proposed Rules" section of this forum when custom stuff is suggested. Almost all of it is wildly powerful or super-obnoxiously-biased. Most gamers confuse "flavor" with "power".

However, even with all those considerations, I still heavily encourage people to create their own stuff. GW doesn't control how you play the game. Your opponents are all that matter. If you don't play at tournaments, use whatever you want. Even in the Chapter Approved make-your-own character bit, there are some seriously broken combinations. But if your friends are fine with it...go for it.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/03 19:26:35


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Insectum7 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
To elaborate, what I mean is should someone like Calgar be mechanically unique?

I'm of the opinion that you should be able to build unique characters just from existing options. So, Calgar, for instance, would be an Ultramarines Chapter Master with Relic Power Fists, Master-Crafted Bolter, Artificer Gravis Armor and whatever a half-damage thing would be called.

Aun'Va would just be an Ethereal Supreme with Paradox Of Duality and some bodyguards.

Canis Rex would just be a Master Knight Preceptor with a Relic Fist, and the option to hop out when the Knight goes kablooey.

So on and so forth.

Now, there should be SOME exceptions. Primarchs, for instance, I'm okay with being truly unique. Maybe Ghazgul (though he should REALLY be buffed up, by a lot, to merit true unique status in the rules).

Am I alone in this? Or is this a good idea to most?


It also used to be that the language around Special Characters was that they were not unique, and that Marneus Calgar could also represent your successor chapter Master, for example. I'm not sure how they're calling it now.

I mean, for all intents and purposes, that's basically how it worked for the 6th-7th edition codices. It didn't matter what Chapter name they had as long as they had the same functioning Chapter Tactic.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/03 22:34:57


Post by: Wyldhunt


Personally, I like like unique characters with unique abilities, but they should actually be unique. If a unique character's gimmick is that they're just a generic character but better, they probably don't need to exist. Similarly, if they're just a generic character but with an extra buff slapped on that could probably be an option instead, they probably don't need to exist.

Eldrad Ulthran, for instance, is basically just a generic on-foot farseer but with a better invul save, and a slightly different weapon and superior psychic ability. He's not different from a generic footseer so much as he's just better. Eldrad, cool as I think he is, probably doesn't need to exist. You could make his superior psychic abilities into a "High Farseer" stratagem or a points cost upgrade and get pretty much the same result.

That necron guy who transforms mid-fight and whose name I"m blanking on, on the other hand, has a complicated gimmick that would be pretty tricky to balance as a generic option in a toolbox. It's cool that he exists, and I wouldn't want his transformation thing to be purchasable as a strat or piece of wargear.

Now, there can be exceptions to this. Lelith Hesperax's fluff is that she's just an extra special super duper talented succubus. But that's her thing, and the fluff kind of acknowledges it. It's not just Chapter Master X being arbitrarily better at punching that Chapter Master Y; being better at raw combat antics is her gimmick, and that gimmick is backed up by a couple of unique special rules that I probably wouldn't want to see turned into a generic, purchasable option. If you could purchase the special rules meant to make Lelith seem uniquely talented, then any piece of fluff claiming she's the peerless champion of the arenas rings hollow.


TLDR; special characters usually shouldn't be generic characters +, and I like the idea of bringing back more character customization options.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 00:06:05


Post by: Ishagu


If anything they should be more unique, not less.

Abilities should not always be open for replication.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 00:50:32


Post by: Dandelion


 Stux wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
I agree with the OP. So many characters would be better suited as generic options. I've also never really understood the appeal of unique characters because they kind of ruin my suspension of disbelief. The characters just feel too famous to reasonably fit into my narratives. Plus, more customization is always better.


I understand this opinion, but you surely realise that conversely many people get the most out of the game from being able to put these legendary heroes they've read about into their armies.

Neither side is correct as such, but it's better to have the option than not have it - that way everyone can play the way they want to.


To expand on my statement, I will use Tau characters to explain what I would like (since I know them best):

- Take Longstrike: he is currently the only Tank Ace in the Tau empire which is both a little silly and also annoying since it requires me to play T'au instead of Vior'la to use him. Instead, he should just be replaced with a "Tank Commander" datasheet that is open to every Sept. His special suit can be made a relic and so if you want to field him you take "tank commander" and give him the relic. Rules wise nothing is lost and we've created a whole new way to play Tau for other septs.

- Next Darkstrider: Same problem as above. There should just be a pathfinder veteran for all septs to use. You can even call them "darkstriders" in honor of the original, who would also be dead by now. His analyzer then becomes a relic.

- Aun'shi: Can honestly just be an ethereal with an awesome honour blade relic and a combat warlord trait (and I say that even though I love the character).

- Aun'va: Should be an "Ethereal Supreme" datasheet. He's dead already, and his successor can just use his old model because the difference doesn't matter, and then we can finally get past the hologram nonsense. I'd also have him not have the <SEPT> keyword kinda like Celestine since he commands the entire Tau Empire, thus letting us put him in any army. He could even be a LoW if you give him the right abilities, and he'd be a one per army unit.

Which only leaves Farsight and Shadowsun. Both should stay unique imo. And as mentioned earlier, most of these characters should be dead except for Farsight (and maybe Shadowsun depending on how it's done), so making them generic lets us actually move on with the timeline. If you want to recreate old battles you use the appropriate datasheets and relics to do so. Nothing is actually lost, and we gain narrative and gameplay freedom.

While I'm on the subject, Admech should do the same to Cawl by just having an "Archmagos" datasheet, limiting it to one per army, then having Cawl's super laser be a relic. Now every forgeworld can trot out their Archmagi to fight. (I'd also make this one a LoW too, mostly just because they are literally the Lords of the Imperium's war machine, also Mars is the God of War and I think that would be cool and fitting, plus I just feel they're too powerful for being HQs)


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 02:09:50


Post by: BrianDavion


Longstrike represents a bit of an issue yeah, space marines have the same issue with Chronus, I'd honestly love to see him be replaced with a generic tank commander. (and I say this as a UM fan)


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 02:11:08


Post by: Phaeron Gukk


My opinion on this is that you shouldn't have unique characters unless a generic version exists for all the sub-factions, even if said version can't perfectly mimic the specific character. One example given (I think) was Orikan the Diviner. The Stars are Right is a cool ability that differentiates him from a regular Cryptek, but you can still take a regular Cryptek. Compare this with Imotekh the Stormlord - him existing is fine, but him being the only available Phaeron datasheet is not. I would say Shadowsun is an example of this - of all the factions, the Tau seem the least likely to get cute about only having one commander who wears a stealth-suit.
The only exceptions I can think of are the truly top dogs - there's not going to be a generic Ultramarine Primarch datasheet or a generic Herald of Ynnead, nor should there be. For many of these unique characters, if you took away the things that made the unit truly unique from their contemporaries (statted or not), would they be significantly different in play-style or just inferior?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 04:50:04


Post by: BrianDavion


I dunno that can get a bit silly if you're talking about a Prmarch.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 04:56:47


Post by: Mmmpi


Breton wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


It also used to be that the language around Special Characters was that they were not unique, and that Marneus Calgar could also represent your successor chapter Master, for example. I'm not sure how they're calling it now.


Now, with special characters you can't change their keywords. So the Doom Eagles could take Marneus, but he's still ULTRAMARINES and only gives rerolls to ULTRAMARINES.



This would be a better argument if the average Doom Eagle player didn't have the (ULTRAMARINES...but really Doom Eagles, I pinky swear) chapter trait.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 05:40:42


Post by: Dandelion


BrianDavion wrote:
I dunno that can get a bit silly if you're talking about a Prmarch.


Well, judging by this:

The only exceptions I can think of are the truly top dogs - there's not going to be a generic Ultramarine Primarch datasheet or a generic Herald of Ynnead, nor should there be.

I'd say, not an issue?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 06:44:28


Post by: vict0988


Wyldhunt wrote:
Personally, I like like unique characters with unique abilities, but they should actually be unique. If a unique character's gimmick is that they're just a generic character but better, they probably don't need to exist. Similarly, if they're just a generic character but with an extra buff slapped on that could probably be an option instead, they probably don't need to exist.

Eldrad Ulthran, for instance, is basically just a generic on-foot farseer but with a better invul save, and a slightly different weapon and superior psychic ability. He's not different from a generic footseer so much as he's just better. Eldrad, cool as I think he is, probably doesn't need to exist. You could make his superior psychic abilities into a "High Farseer" stratagem or a points cost upgrade and get pretty much the same result.

That necron guy who transforms mid-fight and whose name I"m blanking on, on the other hand, has a complicated gimmick that would be pretty tricky to balance as a generic option in a toolbox. It's cool that he exists, and I wouldn't want his transformation thing to be purchasable as a strat or piece of wargear.

Now, there can be exceptions to this. Lelith Hesperax's fluff is that she's just an extra special super duper talented succubus. But that's her thing, and the fluff kind of acknowledges it. It's not just Chapter Master X being arbitrarily better at punching that Chapter Master Y; being better at raw combat antics is her gimmick, and that gimmick is backed up by a couple of unique special rules that I probably wouldn't want to see turned into a generic, purchasable option. If you could purchase the special rules meant to make Lelith seem uniquely talented, then any piece of fluff claiming she's the peerless champion of the arenas rings hollow.


TLDR; special characters usually shouldn't be generic characters +, and I like the idea of bringing back more character customization options.

I don't think you explained very well the difference between Lelith and Eldrad, both are at the very top of their game, Lelith will use completely normal daggers to cut through ceramite like butter and Eldrad is among the top 10 psykers in the galaxy. Should every legendary hero be a superhero? There is nothing terribly unique about a lot of greek heroes, they were just really good at fighting or commanding, superior to even other legendary heroes, but not in any unique way, they didn't see the future or know every fighting style common to men, they just swung a sword well. These kinds of generically powerful HQs also exist in 40k, I love my Necron unique characters especially because they are all supervillains, but Eldrad and Ahriman are uniquely powerful but not necessarily powerful in unique ways. I don't think it's arbitrary that one Chapter Master is a better melee fighter than another, is it arbitrary when one Primarch is a better fighter than another?

I know that some people like to introduce their own Mary Sue characters into settings, I like custom characters to a small degree but they should be part of the setting, the setting should not revolve around them because then it stops being the same setting. When you can make your psyker as powerful as Eldrad which I believe should be the strongest Aeldari psyker, then it's not your character put into the 40k universe, it's you shaping the 40k universe around your preferences. GW made a large push in CA2018 to make more Unique characters viable in 8th and I think they went too far in too many cases so you might be thinking "hey those abilities and buffs are really cool, I want my Craftworld to have access to those exact same rules", but I don't think it's the uniqueness of the rules that is a problem, they are just too cheap and you might not even want a super Farseer if it was costed appropriately. Maybe I'm just too much of a robot to understand.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 09:57:48


Post by: Karol


Well not sure how it was for other factions, but for GK draigo was already taken in most armies. When they gave him a huge point drop, he just became an auto include. Specially if someone was considering a non NDK chaptermaster or a captin. I mean who would not take, for almost no extra points, a guy with better stats, the only stormshield in your entire army. only thing that stops him from being taken as the only HQ, is the fact he has the wrong warlord trait, as GK have only one worth taking. But the same happened to the NDK too, there is a non character version of it. It has lower stats, not a character, and was never taken pre CA, over a GMNDK. But somehow in the CA GW decied to drop the point cost of the GM NDK, and not the never taken normal one. Hilarious IMO .

Same with Voldus and a GK librarian. For no points at all you get a GK librarian that is just better. It is the same unit, doing the same thing, but just plain better.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 13:37:29


Post by: Jidmah


BrianDavion wrote:
playing devil's advocate (because I personally like unique chars) wouldn't it be more intreasting if unique characters where, essentially, just examples of what we could create witha robust points based character creation system?


A "robust points based character creation system" is what we have right now for many eldar and marine HQs plus relics. Yet, you keep seeing the same configurations over and over, often just changing by one or two wargear items because you needed to sink points somewhere and bought your warlord a fancy weapon.

Unique characters need unique rules, otherwise they are just losers or winners in the race for optimization.

Unique characters have two downsides - they are locked into a sub-faction and you can have only one. This creates lots of design space for things you can do with them.
One core aspect of unique characters is that they can provide rules that would be absolutely toxic if you could field multiple of them them - for example the swarmlord's move twice ability or Chronus as ultramarine tank commander.
Another thing you can do is provide a character that is a monster in close combat, an exceptional marksman or psyker or has some other overpowering rules that fit your sub-faction (for example Skarbrand's Rage Embodied aura). Since only one of them is allowed, this prevents you from stacking multiple powerful characters for maximum efficiency. This kind of gets blown out of the window though when you can field Gulliman, Tigurius, Chronus, Calgar, Talion, Chronus, Sicarius and Cassius, but luckily half of those suck right now.

What you can do as well is putting some army/unit-warping ability on a character, for example Straken or Pedro Cantor who improve the close combat abilities otherwise rather ranged focused units

What GW has done for many years was putting some sort of unique ability on characters that make certain units that makes units around them better at what they are already doing. Which in turn means that they either make units viable which weren't before, or make already good units great.
In either case, this makes the character a mandatory inclusion to your and army that fields the units they are supposed to support.

TL;DR: Named characters should have unique and creative rules which are unattainable otherwise. They can also serve as a limiter on rules which would be broken if fielded in multiples. Force multipliers should not be unique to named characters.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 13:50:15


Post by: pm713


BrianDavion wrote:
Longstrike represents a bit of an issue yeah, space marines have the same issue with Chronus, I'd honestly love to see him be replaced with a generic tank commander. (and I say this as a UM fan)

I'm still trying to work out why Chronus is one of the smurfs not an Iron Hand honestly.

I don't particularly mind unique characters but the way they work with the sub faction system doesn't work so I'd say either there needs to be a substitute for most unique characters or we need to get rid of the sub faction system. Personally I'd prefer the first choice.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 14:36:50


Post by: vipoid


 Jidmah wrote:

A "robust points based character creation system" is what we have right now for many eldar and marine HQs plus relics.


Except that the current system is not remotely robust and is only partially point-based.

Artefacts in particular don't use points at all - so powerful, army-buffing artefacts cost the exact same amount as a random pistol. Not to mention that every army (except for Space Marines because they're too extra special awsome to play be normal rules) is limited to just 3 artefacts, and even that will set you back 3CPs.

Hence, you're inevitably pushed towards taking only the 1-2 most powerful artefacts available every time.



Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 15:00:48


Post by: Ishagu


Create a character with lots of options will always be near impossible to balance correctly.

We have smash captains now, we used to have bike captains in the past, etc
Certain war-gear combinations will be more beneficial and thus abused depending in large part to the general core rules of the game.

I want to see more unique characters for each faction/sub faction and less create-a-hero with lots of options - they just get abused anyways.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 15:03:00


Post by: skchsan


IMO, matched play should forego all named characters and replace them with customizable 0-1 characters of similar caliber.

One thing that really bugs me is how certain WL traits and relics are tied to the named characters, forcing you to take another generic (if available) HQ just in order to take the trait you want.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 15:04:28


Post by: Ishagu


Why on earth should anyone forego named heroes?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 15:06:18


Post by: JNAProductions


 Ishagu wrote:
Why on earth should anyone forego named heroes?
Several reasons.

It might stretch suspension of disbelief. Why is Bobby G. showing up in every random conflict, or Abaddon?
It might be a desire to play your army, rather than GW's army.
Could be other reasons that I haven't thought of as well.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 15:12:33


Post by: Ishagu


The warp did it. There's your reason.

You are free to play your as you see fit.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 15:14:44


Post by: JNAProductions


 Ishagu wrote:
The warp did it. There's your reason.

You are free to play your as you see fit.
Do you not see how that would not be satisfying for some players?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 15:20:13


Post by: Ishagu


Are you telling me that every single game you play need to be justified in the lore?

You realise most faction literally cannot even fight the Tau?

Seeing Abaddon too much? It's a VR exercise against the Warmaster.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 15:21:27


Post by: vipoid


 Ishagu wrote:
Create a character with lots of options will always be near impossible to balance correctly.


That doesn't excuse not even making an effort to balance artefacts.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 15:21:48


Post by: Dandelion


 Ishagu wrote:
The warp did it. There's your reason.

You are free to play your as you see fit.


Seeing as I explicitly do not want to use any special characters, this advice is aggressively unhelpful.

Besides, I fail to see how making, say, Longstrike into a generic tank commander would be a balance issue. All the customization comes from relics and warlord traits, which is exactly what we have now.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 15:29:13


Post by: skchsan


 Ishagu wrote:
Are you telling me that every single game you play need to be justified in the lore?

You realise most faction literally cannot even fight the Tau?

Seeing Abaddon too much? It's a VR exercise against the Warmaster.
Your comments would be much better received if you weren't so obnoxious in all of your posts.

The way I see it, matched play is similar to multiplayer mode in RTS - where you receive generic 'named' heroes (ex. Warcraft III) where as narrative/open is like campaign mode/UMS.

Currently, we see a lot of "well actually, my army is [sons of ultramar], but in order to include guilliman and have him affect my units, my army needs to have [ULTRAMARINE] keyword. So my army is [Sons of Ultramar] that counts as a [ULTRAMARINE] army. So it's actually a [ULTRAMARINE] army but I call it different name."


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 17:09:49


Post by: Dysartes


 JNAProductions wrote:
To elaborate, what I mean is should someone like Calgar be mechanically unique?


Yes.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 17:12:17


Post by: JNAProductions


 Dysartes wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
To elaborate, what I mean is should someone like Calgar be mechanically unique?


Yes.
A lot of people have said that they don't mind unique characters that have a nice sword or something similar. Do you think unique rules in their entirety, especially rules that affect other models, should be wholly unique?

Because, while I'd like you to be able to build every character with generic options (barring obvious exceptions like Bobby G) a character who has a unique hammer ain't a big deal, or a Duelist rule (that gives them extra hits on 6s or whatever) ain't a huge deal either.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 17:18:42


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 skchsan wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Are you telling me that every single game you play need to be justified in the lore?

You realise most faction literally cannot even fight the Tau?

Seeing Abaddon too much? It's a VR exercise against the Warmaster.
Your comments would be much better received if you weren't so obnoxious in all of your posts.

The way I see it, matched play is similar to multiplayer mode in RTS - where you receive generic 'named' heroes (ex. Warcraft III) where as narrative/open is like campaign mode/UMS.

Currently, we see a lot of "well actually, my army is [sons of ultramar], but in order to include guilliman and have him affect my units, my army needs to have [ULTRAMARINE] keyword. So my army is [Sons of Ultramar] that counts as a [ULTRAMARINE] army. So it's actually a [ULTRAMARINE] army but I call it different name."

Marines sometimes paint their armor different. Bam there you go.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 17:31:55


Post by: skchsan


One thing to think about is certain armies have specific HQ to HQ interactions like Necrons.

This "Generical Rubicon" process will need to be done carefully as to not cause potential abuse with mix and matching CT + Chapter specific character rule interactions.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 17:49:19


Post by: Wayniac


I think there should be enough options to "build" a character, with special characters either being a set-in-stone combination or being actually special. Honestly, I miss the days when special characters required your opponent's permission to use. It kept them actually special.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 18:04:31


Post by: vipoid


 Dysartes wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
To elaborate, what I mean is should someone like Calgar be mechanically unique?


Yes.


Out of interest, which aspects of Calgar would you say need to be kept unique?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/04 19:01:25


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Wayniac wrote:
I think there should be enough options to "build" a character, with special characters either being a set-in-stone combination or being actually special. Honestly, I miss the days when special characters required your opponent's permission to use. It kept them actually special.

It was stupid, not special. If someone REALLY wanted to pay 185(!) points to use Coteaz, you had no reason not to let them.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 04:31:10


Post by: Just Tony


pm713 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Longstrike represents a bit of an issue yeah, space marines have the same issue with Chronus, I'd honestly love to see him be replaced with a generic tank commander. (and I say this as a UM fan)

I'm still trying to work out why Chronus is one of the smurfs not an Iron Hand honestly.


Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 04:56:49


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Just Tony wrote:
pm713 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Longstrike represents a bit of an issue yeah, space marines have the same issue with Chronus, I'd honestly love to see him be replaced with a generic tank commander. (and I say this as a UM fan)

I'm still trying to work out why Chronus is one of the smurfs not an Iron Hand honestly.


Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.

How about you tell us the non 1d4chan version where you actually read the fluff of the codex!


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 05:15:35


Post by: BrianDavion


 Just Tony wrote:
pm713 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Longstrike represents a bit of an issue yeah, space marines have the same issue with Chronus, I'd honestly love to see him be replaced with a generic tank commander. (and I say this as a UM fan)

I'm still trying to work out why Chronus is one of the smurfs not an Iron Hand honestly.


Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.


Did GW not make the models first back in 5E?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 06:22:04


Post by: Apple Peel


If we were to get custom characters in matched play, how would you like to see it implemented?

I personally like the idea of using the CA18 guide for overall character making. However, in matched play, I’d like to see custom characters restricted to only being “Hero” status, meaning they can only pick four improvements, whereas “Mighty Heroes” can take six, and “Legendary Heroes” can take eight. It’s similar to how in Killteam that for matched play, you can only take level 1 specialists.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 09:16:38


Post by: Jidmah


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Why on earth should anyone forego named heroes?
Several reasons.

It might stretch suspension of disbelief. Why is Bobby G. showing up in every random conflict, or Abaddon?
It might be a desire to play your army, rather than GW's army.
Could be other reasons that I haven't thought of as well.


Look, either you are aiming for a fluff-justified game, then you should be fine with just not using the most optimal leader for your army. If you feel like your conflict doesn't warrant Abaddon's attention, just use a Terminator Lord - GW even provided you with a stratagem to make him a chosen of the warmaster. Of course, there should be at least one unit that fits your army (though few armies outside of DE have troubles with this). Your immersion won't suffer from using a talonmaster instead of Sammael, a Chapter Master and sergeant instead of Gulliman or a regular Predator with a fancy paintjob and a marine looking out of it instead of Chronus. The only thing that suffers from this is your win-loss record.

Of course, if you want the best possible army, you need to pick the best HQ for them. If that happens to be a named character, then so be it.

You can't both have an optimized list and follow arbitrary restrictions that have been gone from the game for over a decade. Named characters are part of the game just like any other unit.

The only valid complaint is that named characters shouldn't be must-take options. But that is true for every single non-named unit for the game as well.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 09:35:47


Post by: BrianDavion


It's worth noting that when a character is genuinely unique and isn't just a more powerful version of X. people tend to immediatly dismiss it as bad, never take it etc. Exhibit A, Castellan Crowe. he's a unique character with an intreasting story, one that actually makes him NERFED. don't often hear about him being used.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 10:25:51


Post by: Just Tony


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
pm713 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Longstrike represents a bit of an issue yeah, space marines have the same issue with Chronus, I'd honestly love to see him be replaced with a generic tank commander. (and I say this as a UM fan)

I'm still trying to work out why Chronus is one of the smurfs not an Iron Hand honestly.


Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.

How about you tell us the non 1d4chan version where you actually read the fluff of the codex!


You mean the 5th Ed. Codex I had to own to play my Fists with Kantor? Still have it, in fact. Nice dismissal with no attempt to dispute what I said, though.

BrianDavion wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
pm713 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Longstrike represents a bit of an issue yeah, space marines have the same issue with Chronus, I'd honestly love to see him be replaced with a generic tank commander. (and I say this as a UM fan)

I'm still trying to work out why Chronus is one of the smurfs not an Iron Hand honestly.


Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.


Did GW not make the models first back in 5E?


Model and rules in 5th Ed., which is when the Codex I quoted was released.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 10:31:29


Post by: vict0988


BrianDavion wrote:
It's worth noting that when a character is genuinely unique and isn't just a more powerful version of X. people tend to immediatly dismiss it as bad, never take it etc. Exhibit A, Castellan Crowe. he's a unique character with an intreasting story, one that actually makes him NERFED. don't often hear about him being used.

You are going to need more exhibits than one. Yvraine, Deceiver and Harker are all very unique, the Deceiver is prominently featured in many gimmick lists and a lot of fun to use and not really overpriced, Yvraine has topped many tournaments and Harker has as well If I am not mistaken.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 11:00:45


Post by: vipoid


 Apple Peel wrote:
If we were to get custom characters in matched play, how would you like to see it implemented?

I personally like the idea of using the CA18 guide for overall character making. However, in matched play, I’d like to see custom characters restricted to only being “Hero” status, meaning they can only pick four improvements


The issue with the the customisation options in CA2018 is that there is no attempt to balance the options either against one another or for the individual characters.

For example, a once-per-game chance to do d3 mortal wounds to a non-character unit on a roll of 5+ is costed exactly the same as a 'reroll 1s when shooting' aura. Hell, a trait that improves the damage of a single weapon is costed exactly the same as a trait that improves the damage of *every* ranged weapon.

What's more, there's no consideration about how effective these traits are for different armies. e.g. 'Add 1 to the damage characteristic of all ranged weapons' is going to be a hell of a lot better on a Tau commander with 4 plasma rifles than on an Imperial Guard Commander with a Bolter.


Ideally, I would want to - at the very least - cost these improvements differently for each army (maybe remove some of the more redundant/niche options to make this less overwhelming), taking into account how strong the traits are likely to be for characters in that army. And then rather than saying 'pick 4 options', I'd instead have 'pick 50pts of options' or ''pick 100pts of options'.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 14:23:26


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Just Tony wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
pm713 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Longstrike represents a bit of an issue yeah, space marines have the same issue with Chronus, I'd honestly love to see him be replaced with a generic tank commander. (and I say this as a UM fan)

I'm still trying to work out why Chronus is one of the smurfs not an Iron Hand honestly.


Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.

How about you tell us the non 1d4chan version where you actually read the fluff of the codex!


You mean the 5th Ed. Codex I had to own to play my Fists with Kantor? Still have it, in fact. Nice dismissal with no attempt to dispute what I said, though.

BrianDavion wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
pm713 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Longstrike represents a bit of an issue yeah, space marines have the same issue with Chronus, I'd honestly love to see him be replaced with a generic tank commander. (and I say this as a UM fan)

I'm still trying to work out why Chronus is one of the smurfs not an Iron Hand honestly.


Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.


Did GW not make the models first back in 5E?


Model and rules in 5th Ed., which is when the Codex I quoted was released.

You just posted 1d4chan wankery like most people regarding the 5th edition codex.
Asking for the non wankery version IS disputing what you said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
It's worth noting that when a character is genuinely unique and isn't just a more powerful version of X. people tend to immediatly dismiss it as bad, never take it etc. Exhibit A, Castellan Crowe. he's a unique character with an intreasting story, one that actually makes him NERFED. don't often hear about him being used.

That's because his story is actually REALLY stupid (I'm gonna take the stupid dangerous sword into the middle of battle but I'm not gonna REALLY use it) AND his rules are bad. He needs a complete overhaul.

Hell they made him cheaper than the actual Brotherhood Champ and he's still not really worth considering. That says a LOT about what role he fills (none).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
If we were to get custom characters in matched play, how would you like to see it implemented?

I personally like the idea of using the CA18 guide for overall character making. However, in matched play, I’d like to see custom characters restricted to only being “Hero” status, meaning they can only pick four improvements


The issue with the the customisation options in CA2018 is that there is no attempt to balance the options either against one another or for the individual characters.

For example, a once-per-game chance to do d3 mortal wounds to a non-character unit on a roll of 5+ is costed exactly the same as a 'reroll 1s when shooting' aura. Hell, a trait that improves the damage of a single weapon is costed exactly the same as a trait that improves the damage of *every* ranged weapon.

What's more, there's no consideration about how effective these traits are for different armies. e.g. 'Add 1 to the damage characteristic of all ranged weapons' is going to be a hell of a lot better on a Tau commander with 4 plasma rifles than on an Imperial Guard Commander with a Bolter.


Ideally, I would want to - at the very least - cost these improvements differently for each army (maybe remove some of the more redundant/niche options to make this less overwhelming), taking into account how strong the traits are likely to be for characters in that army. And then rather than saying 'pick 4 options', I'd instead have 'pick 50pts of options' or ''pick 100pts of options'.

Yeah there's potential for the custom traits assuming you price frem correctly. When I heard about it I was excited until I saw the options not balanced against each other and I'm PRETTY sure GW said it is fun to roll randomly for them.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 15:23:13


Post by: some bloke


I like the idea of a hero-maker, where perhaps the shiny gubbinz (or boring-named equivalent) would include a variety of special abilities as well as weapons & armour. You could pay 1CP to make a character a Hero, or 3CP to make one a Legend. Heroes get 3 items from the shiny gubbinz section, and Legends get 5. Otherwise it's the standard 1 item per army.

Some items would be specific to specific characters, EG the Super shokk attack gun would be Big-Mek specific.

I would have Mega-armour move to the shiny gubbinz (deffkilla and jump-boss can't take it). Warbike would definitely go back in there. and then a variety of abilities, like "the biggest waaaagh" and all the warlord-traits. Want a dude who is standard but has 3 warlord traits? go for it. Want a Megaboss with Ghazzies abilities? go for it.

This would let the named characters remain (essentially pre-made special characters with the odd stat or ability more than the standard) but it would also open the door for the old school build-a-boss we used to have, but for a single, suitably awesome model.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 15:30:14


Post by: Ishagu


You can literally do these things in fun narrative games but they have no place in matched play.

Nothing stopping any of you from playing narrative to your heart's content!


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 15:38:09


Post by: JNAProductions


 Ishagu wrote:
You can literally do these things in fun narrative games but they have no place in matched play.

Nothing stopping any of you from playing narrative to your heart's content!
GW charges hundreds of dollars for rules.

I don’t think asking for a balanced but customizable experience is too much.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 18:00:39


Post by: vipoid


 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing stopping any of you from playing narrative to your heart's content!


Surely you mean FORGE THE NARRATIVE!


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 18:24:19


Post by: Crimson


 some bloke wrote:
I like the idea of a hero-maker, where perhaps the shiny gubbinz (or boring-named equivalent) would include a variety of special abilities as well as weapons & armour. You could pay 1CP to make a character a Hero, or 3CP to make one a Legend. Heroes get 3 items from the shiny gubbinz section, and Legends get 5. Otherwise it's the standard 1 item per army.

No CP; points! This idiocy of making unit upgrades to cost CP instead of points must stop, it is really annoying. Why regular marines can buy their veteran units for point, but the primaris must pay CP for theirs? Why can Ultramarines buy a chapter master which gives them two CP with points, whilst many other chapters need to pay two CP for their chapter master? (For a net loss of whopping four CP!)

Any pregame updates (CM, Veterans, Relics etc) should cost points, the CP should only be for abilities that are used during the game.

But otherwise a good concept!


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 22:07:58


Post by: vipoid


 Crimson wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
I like the idea of a hero-maker, where perhaps the shiny gubbinz (or boring-named equivalent) would include a variety of special abilities as well as weapons & armour. You could pay 1CP to make a character a Hero, or 3CP to make one a Legend. Heroes get 3 items from the shiny gubbinz section, and Legends get 5. Otherwise it's the standard 1 item per army.

No CP; points! This idiocy of making unit upgrades to cost CP instead of points must stop, it is really annoying. Why regular marines can buy their veteran units for point, but the primaris must pay CP for theirs? Why can Ultramarines buy a chapter master which gives them two CP with points, whilst many other chapters need to pay two CP for their chapter master? (For a net loss of whopping four CP!)

Any pregame updates (CM, Veterans, Relics etc) should cost points, the CP should only be for abilities that are used during the game.

But otherwise a good concept!


This.

CP is nowhere near granular enough for this sort of thing.

Hence why we have the current problems with artefacts - with pistols worth 5-10pts being costed exactly the same as auras or other buffs worth 30-50pts.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 22:50:40


Post by: Irbis


Dandelion wrote:
Besides, I fail to see how making, say, Longstrike into a generic tank commander would be a balance issue.

Because then you'd be seeing commander "smashstrike" (read - pick busted combo of traits buffing his primary task to the exclusion of everything else) exactly as often, except he will be far more OP and annoying to face than a special character who can be made fluffy or balanced much more easily. See BA smash captain of 8th edition, IH smashbiker of 7th, or Custode murderhobo of HH. Last one being so broken garbage he could solo primarchs with ease. In what world is that an improvement or in any way preferable over characterful characters?

BrianDavion wrote:
It's worth noting that when a character is genuinely unique and isn't just a more powerful version of X. people tend to immediatly dismiss it as bad, never take it etc. Exhibit A, Castellan Crowe. he's a unique character with an intreasting story, one that actually makes him NERFED. don't often hear about him being used.

He is nerfed because GK writer after Ward was seriously incompetent, though. In 5th edition, he was interesting sidegrade, which, while not all that powerful, was taken by people who wanted to take GK army in slightly different direction. I feel people who don't like special characters never saw what was possible with them in 5th edition.

 Just Tony wrote:
Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.

People still parrot that laughable 4chan nonsense?

Every single word above is comically wrong, seeing he introduced way to make all troop bike armies to appease WS players, added ton of techmarine/master of the forge types for IH players, gave ever other 1st founding legion special character with tons of unique rules and wargear, THEN allowed for Ultramarine characters to be taken in other chapters with zero downsides, except for replacing UM tactic with the one of your preferred legion. No other SM codex ever had this much thought put into it when it came to building fluffy armies.

It's 2019, and people who still say that inane nonsense either never read 5th edition SM codex, or were incapable of actually understanding what was written in it


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/05 23:23:43


Post by: Dandelion


 Irbis wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
Besides, I fail to see how making, say, Longstrike into a generic tank commander would be a balance issue.

Because then you'd be seeing commander "smashstrike" (read - pick busted combo of traits buffing his primary task to the exclusion of everything else) exactly as often, except he will be far more OP and annoying to face than a special character who can be made fluffy or balanced much more easily. See BA smash captain of 8th edition, IH smashbiker of 7th, or Custode murderhobo of HH. Last one being so broken garbage he could solo primarchs with ease. In what world is that an improvement or in any way preferable over characterful characters?


Then why aren't Guard Tank Commanders OP broken cheese spamming broken trait combos and one shotting Primarchs? Oh, maybe smash captains et al. are an outlier and are not representative of the majority of generic characters. Much like how Castellans are not representative of all LoW.

Plus the only traits that benefit a hammerhead would be:
- reroll ones to wound against vehicles (which is what longstrike has already) so moot
- reroll hit rolls within 12" (longstrike hits on 2s so that's reroll ones basically)
- advance and shoot (just makes him faster sometimes)
- if you make a hit roll of 6, add 1 to that wound roll (unreliable)

So pick one.
Oh and a relic to make him harder to be hit. (there's no offensive relic for hammerheads, unless you count the destabilser, but you could put that on a fireblade to have the same effect)

So again, I fail to see the balance issue.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 02:11:01


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Are people still saying the Iron Hands Chapter Master builds were broken? LOL they were just a good tool in the world where you could get Gladius, which was actually broken.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 04:01:48


Post by: Ikol


My take:

Special Characters should be "here's X build of a regular Character but slightly better at this one specific thing".

i.e. the commonly quoted example of "Calgar is a Chapter Master with really awesome gauntlets" versus taking a Chapter Master with regular Gauntlets that gets pretty close. As opposed to now where "Calgar is a Chapter Master with really awesome gauntlets, takes half damage, has Toughness 5 and gives you extra Command Points".

I think the current Eldrad Ulthran is actually a better example of what makes a good special character. Compared to a regular Farseer, he gets a lot of buffs. But he's actually a little more expensive than a Jetbike Farseer, and from there things start to make sense. As the pre-eminent Psyker, he knows and can cast 3 powers as opposed to 2. He gets a special rule where if you successfully cast a power, you get +1 to your next cast roll. He gets a special melee weapon that is more of a side-grade than anything. And he gets a 3++ as opposed to a 4++. For these bonuses he loses; FLY, 9" of movement, a 6" auto-advance rule, a twin-linked Shuriken Cannon and access to a 12" S9 gun.

So he has a better invulnerable save and better Psychic ability at the cost of mobility and shooting power. As well as a side-grade melee weapon. Whilst costing more. He does not provide enough of a buff over a regular Farseer to be a must-take, but he is viable.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 04:45:51


Post by: BrianDavion


 Irbis wrote:

He is nerfed because GK writer after Ward was seriously incompetent, though. In 5th edition, he was interesting sidegrade, which, while not all that powerful, was taken by people who wanted to take GK army in slightly different direction. I feel people who don't like special characters never saw what was possible with them in 5th edition.
:


won't deny that, the GK codex after 5th have all been phoned in visionless crap heaps


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 05:30:35


Post by: Ishagu


You have relics to make custom characters with special attributes and effects.

In fact custom characters are overall more popular. Nothing needs to be changed.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 05:51:11


Post by: Apple Peel


 Ishagu wrote:
You have relics to make custom characters with special attributes and effects.

In fact custom characters are overall more popular. Nothing needs to be changed.

Why can’t I make my own relics?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 06:22:30


Post by: Ishagu


You can. In open/narrative play!


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 06:44:34


Post by: Karol


 Ishagu wrote:
You can literally do these things in fun narrative games but they have no place in matched play.

Nothing stopping any of you from playing narrative to your heart's content!

Now if only matched play was the way people played the game. It is a bit like telling someone who is poor and/or unhealthy, to stop being poor&unhealthy, so they aren't poor&unhealthy.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 07:03:37


Post by: vict0988


Dandelion wrote:
Why aren't Guard Tank Commanders OP broken cheese spamming broken trait combos and one shotting Primarchs? Oh, maybe smash captains et al. are an outlier and are not representative of the majority of generic characters. Much like how Castellans are not representative of all LoW.

No relics or Stratagems and no personal WL traits that are near anywhere as good as the army-wide or aura WL traits. Tank Commanders did immediately start using the new relic BC and if they had a WL trait that increased the damage of one of their weapons by 1 they might use that, especially if they also had Stratagems that let them shoot twice, re-roll failed hit rolls with another Stratagem etc. etc. The reason Smash Captains became OP was #1 they were too cheap, #2 they could stack buffs. Tank Commanders are already cheap enough to be good, they just need more stacking buffs to become insane. Stacking abilities is extremely dangerous, as we saw when stacking CP regeneration was allowed, suddenly instead of increasing CP by 50% you increase it by 150-200% because you take 2-3 Relics/Traits that generate CP. Look at Bloodletters, Obliterators, Doom/Jinx all of these are better than the sum of their parts because two 50% increases will result in 1,5x1,5=2,25x damage not 1+0,5+0,5=2x damage, that's free damage that you can build into your list by finding the right combos. The CA heroic rules were a bit half-baked and I did start trying to assign pts to all the abilities, but it'd be a huge mess and require hundreds of competitive games before it became balanced. GW would have to lower balance for at least 3 months in the competitive scene to make somewhat balanced costs for these buffs and another 6-24 months to get rid of the last OP combos within such a system. At worst we could see the game turning into 100% Character hammer which probably means another round of Castellan domination because someone thinks that +1 damage to one shooting weapon is worth 5 pts.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 07:27:40


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Ishagu wrote:
You have relics to make custom characters with special attributes and effects.

In fact custom characters are overall more popular. Nothing needs to be changed.


Then why are relics limited by subfactions within the codex?

Why can my Vior'la Tau not get the JSJ relic? Or the improved Plasma Rifle?

If relics are the means to make generic characters with special abilities then why are there rules which reduce their availability to generic HQs?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 08:17:36


Post by: vict0988


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
You have relics to make custom characters with special attributes and effects.

In fact custom characters are overall more popular. Nothing needs to be changed.


Then why are relics limited by subfactions within the codex?

Why can my Vior'la Tau not get the JSJ relic? Or the improved Plasma Rifle?

If relics are the means to make generic characters with special abilities then why are there rules which reduce their availability to generic HQs?

To give flavour to the individual factions. Like why do you only get certain buffs in melee or shooting? Because it gives flavour.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 09:11:20


Post by: vipoid


Ikol wrote:
My take:

Special Characters should be "here's X build of a regular Character but slightly better at this one specific thing".


If you go that route then how about actually making them worse at something else? e.g. Urien has a better aura than regular haemonculi but is irredeemably awful in melee.

But instead it seems people want special characters to just be better at everything.


Ikol wrote:
i.e. the commonly quoted example of "Calgar is a Chapter Master with really awesome gauntlets" versus taking a Chapter Master with regular Gauntlets that gets pretty close. As opposed to now where "Calgar is a Chapter Master with really awesome gauntlets, takes half damage, has Toughness 5 and gives you extra Command Points".


My point exactly.


Ikol wrote:

I think the current Eldrad Ulthran is actually a better example of what makes a good special character. Compared to a regular Farseer, he gets a lot of buffs. But he's actually a little more expensive than a Jetbike Farseer, and from there things start to make sense. As the pre-eminent Psyker, he knows and can cast 3 powers as opposed to 2. He gets a special rule where if you successfully cast a power, you get +1 to your next cast roll. He gets a special melee weapon that is more of a side-grade than anything. And he gets a 3++ as opposed to a 4++. For these bonuses he loses; FLY, 9" of movement, a 6" auto-advance rule, a twin-linked Shuriken Cannon and access to a 12" S9 gun.

So he has a better invulnerable save and better Psychic ability at the cost of mobility and shooting power. As well as a side-grade melee weapon. Whilst costing more. He does not provide enough of a buff over a regular Farseer to be a must-take, but he is viable.


The problem with your example is that you've basically written off the non-Jetbike Farseer entirely. The fact that Jetbike Farseers exist doesn't excuse Eldrad being orders of magnitude better than foot-Farseers.


 Ishagu wrote:
In fact custom characters are overall more popular.


So why does GW keep crapping all over them?


 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing needs to be changed.


I wish GW had taken that view back when characters still had options.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 09:40:14


Post by: some bloke


It sounds like what we need is a return to the older ways, but perhaps with an injection of the new to compensate.

I'm thinking along the lines of the Ogre Kingdoms book, which has tyrants which can pick a Big Name (and pay the points) and any wargear (all totalling 100 points).

Then add in the CP business, where your character can pay 1CP to take a second name.

Names would be the abilities, and wargear is, obviously, the fancy wargear. All of them would cost points.

the "pay 1 CP for another name" would mitigate the points limit - IE if you have a character which is allowed 30pts of names & wargear, they can take a 50pt name for 1CP and 50pts, in addition to their 30pts already.

Special characters would then have their own names, which would be unique - EG you couldn't build a ghazkull, because he would have "da biggest boss there ever woz" rule which, obviously, only he can have. you might have names like:

Arch Arsonist (all units in 3" treat burnas and skorchas as having 10" range)
Mekaniak (always repair 3 wounds on vehicles, mek only)
'Ead 'Unter (gain 1VP for each character this model kills in CC)

and so on.

This allows for special characters to be built, for your army, but maintains a place for the pre-made special characters which feature in the army lore.

Provided the right combos are limited (EG if 2 guns work well together, to become OP, limit to one gun) and the points are balanced, this could work fine. It would be cool to allow all characters a minimum of 10pts to spend on names etc.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 10:16:45


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 vict0988 wrote:

To give flavour to the individual factions. Like why do you only get certain buffs in melee or shooting? Because it gives flavour.


But it doesn't really do that, does it? What flavour is given to the T'au sept (as in the whole sept) by having a single commander able to JSJ, an ability which in all previous editions of the game the Tau appeared in they could do innately? Has everyone but a single Commander in the T'au sept forgotten how to use their jetpacks in a method which is explicitly described in the lore as a standard tactic?

Flavour for subfactions should be in the subfaction rules, not in relics which are just granting special abilities which often don't even make sense to be faction specific.

For instance, Bor'kan gets a special plasma rifle because their sept is great at making stuff. Okay, then why does Vior'la get a fancy flamer? Why does the superior craftmanship of the Bor'kan sept mean they can make better plasma rifles but not flamers? And why does Farsight, from Vior'la, have an improved plasma rifle?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 11:00:16


Post by: TheFleshIsWeak


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

To give flavour to the individual factions. Like why do you only get certain buffs in melee or shooting? Because it gives flavour.


But it doesn't really do that, does it? What flavour is given to the T'au sept (as in the whole sept) by having a single commander able to JSJ, an ability which in all previous editions of the game the Tau appeared in they could do innately? Has everyone but a single Commander in the T'au sept forgotten how to use their jetpacks in a method which is explicitly described in the lore as a standard tactic?

Flavour for subfactions should be in the subfaction rules, not in relics which are just granting special abilities which often don't even make sense to be faction specific.

For instance, Bor'kan gets a special plasma rifle because their sept is great at making stuff. Okay, then why does Vior'la get a fancy flamer? Why does the superior craftmanship of the Bor'kan sept mean they can make better plasma rifles but not flamers? And why does Farsight, from Vior'la, have an improved plasma rifle?


There are also cases where the rules make the artefacts seem almost contradictory.

For example, the Drukhari Kabal of the Poisoned Tongue specialises in two things - melee and poison (getting to reroll 1s to wound in both).

With that in mind, there are 3 weapons that stand out:
- The Djin Blade (a melee Artefact any Archon can take)
- The Parasite's Kiss (a pistol Artefact any character can take)
- The Soul Seeker (a pistol Artefact unique to Poison Tongue Archons)

Now, it could be argued that the third artefact is the most appropriate, since its the one unique to their subfaction, but all three of the above are based around melee or poison.

Hence, from a flavour perspective, it would seem logical to pick one of the above on a Poison Tongue Archon. You might be wondering then what the problem is.

The problem is that the rerolls from Poison Tongue don't work on artefacts. Hence, if you actually take an appropriate artefact, you're literally no better than an Archon from any other faction would be with the same artefact. Possibly even worse, given that other subfactions have better Warlord Traits for melee. What's more, not only does the Poison Tongue bonus not work with the 2 generic artefacts, it doesn't even work with its own unique artefact.

I suppose what bothers me more than anything is that it would be such a minor bonus anyway. Rerolling 1s to wound with a S4 melee weapon. Wow. All those Imperial Knights don't stand a chance now.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 11:27:25


Post by: vict0988



Look guys, I did not write these codices, there is a thread in the Proposed Rules section for Tau but we still need one for Drukhari arguing about changes we want for Relics, WL traits and Stratagems, these threads discuss both balance and flavour and I think it's interesting to discuss. In this case, I really just want to say the writers of these two codices made poopy decisions with some of the relics. Not that the whole system of locking certain choices to certain sub-factions is inherently a bad idea due to the writers not getting things right. The Craftworld codex is especially bad in terms of the wrong kind of flavour being given to factions. I suppose unlocking things does remove all these small oopsies, but Necrons do have some thematic locks, like Imotekh the Phaeron of Sautekh likes to scare the pants of his enemies and the Sautekh relic lets one of your characters do just that. Or Nephrekh being obsessed with stars so their weapon is a staff of light that blinds people. I could probably change my mind if GW said it's the current rules never changing or removing the locks tomorrow, but I really do hope they fix and balance these issues of balance and theme rather than just ignore it/wipe away their attempt at tying rules and theme.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 11:55:15


Post by: Bellerophon


I'm another who generally prefers generic characters, for a couple of reasons. As others have said, it makes the universe seem a much smaller place if the same named characters show up all the time. Also in a hobby that's all about "my guys", I'd rather use my own characters rather than the ones that the GW writers have defined.

So, given I prefer not to use named characters, I'd rather they didn't do anything too unique, that you can't do with a regular character. One that springs to mind is 7th edition Vulkan He'Stan. I've got a Salamanders army, and I wanted them to be more effective with flamers and meltas than other space marine armies because that's fluffy for them. But for some reason, they forget their melta skills when the Forgefather isn't there? That irked me, and it's the sort of named character design I prefer to avoid.That should have been an inherent trait of the subfaction, not something granted by a named character.

I don't think we're going to get generic HQs anywhere near as customisable as they used to be so long as GW continue on this no model no rules direction. But as long as the rules don't force me to take a named character to gain some benefit that my faction should have inherently, I'll be content.

Regarding some of the other discussions going on here - I find any and all "pay CP to upgrade to chapter master" type things to be silly and I'd much rather they cost points. I thought CP were supposed to be a sign of how well led the army is, and that makes sense when you've got named characters like Calgar generating CP. So why then do the chapter masters of the Doom Eagles, Excoriators and Novamarines cost their armies CP instead? It makes no sense.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 12:46:22


Post by: Jidmah


 Bellerophon wrote:
I'm another who generally prefers generic characters, for a couple of reasons. As others have said, it makes the universe seem a much smaller place if the same named characters show up all the time. Also in a hobby that's all about "my guys", I'd rather use my own characters rather than the ones that the GW writers have defined.


This is a thing I totally don't get. In 5th edition basically every codex had a blurb about how Thrakka/Calgar couldn't be everywhere, so you could just create your own character and use their rules for them. My Thrakka used to be "Da Old Boss" - an old, grumpy Blood Axe warboss with failing memory that gave non-sense targets to attack to the amusement of his warband. His leftennants were Dakkan Laughs-All-The-Time (Biker Warboss) and Mekboss Fiesmek (KFF Mek).

Sadly 8th locked Thrakka into Goff and thus forced him to retire.

People field smurfs, ponys and hello kitties as ultramarines, but somehow no one manages to put his own name on a Chronus painted in black and orange.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 12:59:53


Post by: Ikol


 vipoid wrote:
Ikol wrote:
My take:

Special Characters should be "here's X build of a regular Character but slightly better at this one specific thing".


If you go that route then how about actually making them worse at something else? e.g. Urien has a better aura than regular haemonculi but is irredeemably awful in melee.

But instead it seems people want special characters to just be better at everything.


Ikol wrote:
i.e. the commonly quoted example of "Calgar is a Chapter Master with really awesome gauntlets" versus taking a Chapter Master with regular Gauntlets that gets pretty close. As opposed to now where "Calgar is a Chapter Master with really awesome gauntlets, takes half damage, has Toughness 5 and gives you extra Command Points".


My point exactly.


We seem to agree on these points here, so that's nice.

 vipoid wrote:

Ikol wrote:

I think the current Eldrad Ulthran is actually a better example of what makes a good special character. Compared to a regular Farseer, he gets a lot of buffs. But he's actually a little more expensive than a Jetbike Farseer, and from there things start to make sense. As the pre-eminent Psyker, he knows and can cast 3 powers as opposed to 2. He gets a special rule where if you successfully cast a power, you get +1 to your next cast roll. He gets a special melee weapon that is more of a side-grade than anything. And he gets a 3++ as opposed to a 4++. For these bonuses he loses; FLY, 9" of movement, a 6" auto-advance rule, a twin-linked Shuriken Cannon and access to a 12" S9 gun.

So he has a better invulnerable save and better Psychic ability at the cost of mobility and shooting power. As well as a side-grade melee weapon. Whilst costing more. He does not provide enough of a buff over a regular Farseer to be a must-take, but he is viable.


The problem with your example is that you've basically written off the non-Jetbike Farseer entirely. The fact that Jetbike Farseers exist doesn't excuse Eldrad being orders of magnitude better than foot-Farseers.


The non-Jetbike Farseer is 110 points, 115 with Singing Spear.
The Jetbike Farseer is 135 points, 140 with Singing Spear.
Eldrad is 135 points.

Those 25 points buy Eldrad / the Bike-seer the durability. As well as the Bike-seer's mobility whilst Eldrad gets slightly better psyking.

Upgrading an Ulthwe Farseer to Eldrad costs the same as upgrading any Farseer to a Bike-seer. You just get different buffs for that cost.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 13:02:33


Post by: Crimson


Ikol wrote:

The non-Jetbike Farseer is 110 points, 115 with Singing Spear.
The Jetbike Farseer is 135 points, 140 with Singing Spear.
Eldrad is 135 points.

Those 25 points buy Eldrad / the Bike-seer the durability. As well as the Bike-seer's mobility whilst Eldrad gets slightly better psyking.

Upgrading an Ulthwe Farseer to Eldrad costs the same as upgrading any Farseer to a Bike-seer. You just get different buffs for that cost.

The bike upgrade is too cheap. Mobility options for characters almost always are.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 14:01:11


Post by: Ikol


 Crimson wrote:

The bike upgrade is too cheap. Mobility options for characters almost always are.


Well it used to be 35 points to take the bike, but then the cost of a base Farseer got lifted by 10 and the bike version didn't get touched.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 14:04:11


Post by: Crimson


Ikol wrote:
 Crimson wrote:

The bike upgrade is too cheap. Mobility options for characters almost always are.

Well it used to be 35 points to take the bike, but then the cost of a base Farseer got lifted by 10 and the bike version didn't get touched.

I know. That was stupid.



Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 14:14:29


Post by: TheFleshIsWeak


Ikol wrote:

The non-Jetbike Farseer is 110 points, 115 with Singing Spear.
The Jetbike Farseer is 135 points, 140 with Singing Spear.
Eldrad is 135 points.

Those 25 points buy Eldrad / the Bike-seer the durability.


And if it was *just* durability, then Eldrad would be fine. The issue is that it also buys him an entire extra power, an extra cast each turn and a casting bonus for each power he's successfully manifested. He even has a better melee weapon thrown in as a bonus.

It's a massive bonus over the foot Farseer at a tiny cost.


Ikol wrote:

Upgrading an Ulthwe Farseer to Eldrad costs the same as upgrading any Farseer to a Bike-seer. You just get different buffs for that cost.


But you're basically just comparing to the Jetbike Farseer.

Even if the Jetbike Farseer was removed, Eldrad gets so much over a regular Farseer as to be an auto-include. If nothing else he's getting 50% more casts each turn for less than a 20% increase in cost.


 Crimson wrote:
The bike upgrade is too cheap. Mobility options for characters almost always are.


This is also true.

That being said, I think part of the problem is that many mobility options - particularly bikes - also grant extra durability. In addition to being vastly more mobile (which is probably worth 25pts just by itself), Jetbike Farseers also get +1T and +1W.

You'd think that perhaps speed would require some sort of trade-off, but instead fast models get to have their cake and eat it.

I think it's a real issue when it comes to armies like Space Marines, as automatic invulnerable saves combined with the extra durability of bikes makes stuff like Terminator Armour virtually pointless. Why bother when Bikes get you near enough the same thing whilst more than doubling your speed?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 15:09:35


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Coming from lotr I was always surprised how few characters there are in 40K. If anything I'd say keep them special, they should give the army something unique you can't do with a generic character. HOWEVER with the subfactions in 8th it'd be cool to have some kind of additional special rule for subfaction characters that don't have a named character (with a model). I know, there's the warlord trait already, but named characters have that AND something else. So basically, as long as there's not a named character for every subfaction give the factions that don't have one the ability to make one out of their generic chars.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 15:51:27


Post by: Dandelion


 vict0988 wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
Why aren't Guard Tank Commanders OP broken cheese spamming broken trait combos and one shotting Primarchs? Oh, maybe smash captains et al. are an outlier and are not representative of the majority of generic characters. Much like how Castellans are not representative of all LoW.

No relics or Stratagems and no personal WL traits that are near anywhere as good as the army-wide or aura WL traits. Tank Commanders did immediately start using the new relic BC and if they had a WL trait that increased the damage of one of their weapons by 1 they might use that, especially if they also had Stratagems that let them shoot twice, re-roll failed hit rolls with another Stratagem etc. etc. The reason Smash Captains became OP was #1 they were too cheap, #2 they could stack buffs. Tank Commanders are already cheap enough to be good, they just need more stacking buffs to become insane. Stacking abilities is extremely dangerous, as we saw when stacking CP regeneration was allowed, suddenly instead of increasing CP by 50% you increase it by 150-200% because you take 2-3 Relics/Traits that generate CP. Look at Bloodletters, Obliterators, Doom/Jinx all of these are better than the sum of their parts because two 50% increases will result in 1,5x1,5=2,25x damage not 1+0,5+0,5=2x damage, that's free damage that you can build into your list by finding the right combos. The CA heroic rules were a bit half-baked and I did start trying to assign pts to all the abilities, but it'd be a huge mess and require hundreds of competitive games before it became balanced. GW would have to lower balance for at least 3 months in the competitive scene to make somewhat balanced costs for these buffs and another 6-24 months to get rid of the last OP combos within such a system. At worst we could see the game turning into 100% Character hammer which probably means another round of Castellan domination because someone thinks that +1 damage to one shooting weapon is worth 5 pts.



All you've proven is that new units can be broken if they're not balanced in the context of their codex. Congratulations, water is wet and the sky is blue. And guess what, in the context of Tau there are no relics/traits that could possibly make them OP (seriously, they all are designed to buff the suit commanders), so the point is moot until the codex gets an update.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 16:07:29


Post by: vict0988


Dandelion wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
Why aren't Guard Tank Commanders OP broken cheese spamming broken trait combos and one shotting Primarchs? Oh, maybe smash captains et al. are an outlier and are not representative of the majority of generic characters. Much like how Castellans are not representative of all LoW.

No relics or Stratagems and no personal WL traits that are near anywhere as good as the army-wide or aura WL traits. Tank Commanders did immediately start using the new relic BC and if they had a WL trait that increased the damage of one of their weapons by 1 they might use that, especially if they also had Stratagems that let them shoot twice, re-roll failed hit rolls with another Stratagem etc. etc. The reason Smash Captains became OP was #1 they were too cheap, #2 they could stack buffs. Tank Commanders are already cheap enough to be good, they just need more stacking buffs to become insane. Stacking abilities is extremely dangerous, as we saw when stacking CP regeneration was allowed, suddenly instead of increasing CP by 50% you increase it by 150-200% because you take 2-3 Relics/Traits that generate CP. Look at Bloodletters, Obliterators, Doom/Jinx all of these are better than the sum of their parts because two 50% increases will result in 1,5x1,5=2,25x damage not 1+0,5+0,5=2x damage, that's free damage that you can build into your list by finding the right combos. The CA heroic rules were a bit half-baked and I did start trying to assign pts to all the abilities, but it'd be a huge mess and require hundreds of competitive games before it became balanced. GW would have to lower balance for at least 3 months in the competitive scene to make somewhat balanced costs for these buffs and another 6-24 months to get rid of the last OP combos within such a system. At worst we could see the game turning into 100% Character hammer which probably means another round of Castellan domination because someone thinks that +1 damage to one shooting weapon is worth 5 pts.



All you've proven is that new units can be broken if they're not balanced in the context of their codex. Congratulations, water is wet and the sky is blue. And guess what, in the context of Tau there are no relics/traits that could possibly make them OP (seriously, they all are designed to buff the suit commanders), so the point is moot until the codex gets an update.

Did you even read it? It has nothing to do with the base unit, it might be perfectly fair and balanced, but if you stack enough buffs that are anything but completely trash on top of a unit, that unit will one-shot Primarchs. So if you add re-roll hit rolls of 1, +1 to wound and +1 D on top of a Tank Commander for prices that might individually be fair enough, then that all told will become OP, because the buffs will total more than the sum of their parts. The re-roll 1s to hit will mean more wound rolls, then those extra wound rolls will have an easier time wounding and all the extra hits and extra wounds will do more damage. Either the abilities are useless on their own and balanced when taken together or they are OP when taken together. You can't just have infinite possibilities without also creating infinitely many OP combos. The larger the number of combos, the larger the number of broken combos. Saying that there are no buffs that could become OP for Commanders seems uninformed, Commanders are already OP, giving them builds that are even more OP is a bad idea.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 16:08:38


Post by: JNAProductions


 vict0988 wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
Why aren't Guard Tank Commanders OP broken cheese spamming broken trait combos and one shotting Primarchs? Oh, maybe smash captains et al. are an outlier and are not representative of the majority of generic characters. Much like how Castellans are not representative of all LoW.

No relics or Stratagems and no personal WL traits that are near anywhere as good as the army-wide or aura WL traits. Tank Commanders did immediately start using the new relic BC and if they had a WL trait that increased the damage of one of their weapons by 1 they might use that, especially if they also had Stratagems that let them shoot twice, re-roll failed hit rolls with another Stratagem etc. etc. The reason Smash Captains became OP was #1 they were too cheap, #2 they could stack buffs. Tank Commanders are already cheap enough to be good, they just need more stacking buffs to become insane. Stacking abilities is extremely dangerous, as we saw when stacking CP regeneration was allowed, suddenly instead of increasing CP by 50% you increase it by 150-200% because you take 2-3 Relics/Traits that generate CP. Look at Bloodletters, Obliterators, Doom/Jinx all of these are better than the sum of their parts because two 50% increases will result in 1,5x1,5=2,25x damage not 1+0,5+0,5=2x damage, that's free damage that you can build into your list by finding the right combos. The CA heroic rules were a bit half-baked and I did start trying to assign pts to all the abilities, but it'd be a huge mess and require hundreds of competitive games before it became balanced. GW would have to lower balance for at least 3 months in the competitive scene to make somewhat balanced costs for these buffs and another 6-24 months to get rid of the last OP combos within such a system. At worst we could see the game turning into 100% Character hammer which probably means another round of Castellan domination because someone thinks that +1 damage to one shooting weapon is worth 5 pts.



All you've proven is that new units can be broken if they're not balanced in the context of their codex. Congratulations, water is wet and the sky is blue. And guess what, in the context of Tau there are no relics/traits that could possibly make them OP (seriously, they all are designed to buff the suit commanders), so the point is moot until the codex gets an update.

Did you even read it? It has nothing to do with the base unit, it might be perfectly fair and balanced, but if you stack enough buffs that are anything but completely trash on top of a unit, that unit will one-shot Primarchs. So if you add re-roll hit rolls of 1, +1 to wound and +1 D on top of a Tank Commander for prices that might individually be fair enough, then that all told will become OP, because the buffs will total more than the sum of their parts. The re-roll 1s to hit will mean more wound rolls, then those extra wound rolls will have an easier time wounding and all the extra hits and extra wounds will do more damage. Either the abilities are useless on their own and balanced when taken together or they are OP when taken together. You can't just have infinite possibilities without also creating infinitely many OP combos. The larger the number of combos, the larger the number of broken combos. Saying that there are no buffs that could become OP for Commanders seems uninformed, Commanders are already OP, giving them builds that are even more OP is a bad idea.
Good thing no one was talking about infinite possibilities.

Lots=/=infinite.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 16:10:26


Post by: skchsan


The only generic character more powerful than named characters is a smash captain.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 16:12:37


Post by: flandarz


Depends on your definition of "more powerful". I'm sure many Ork players would say that the Supa Shokk Attack Gun Mek is more powerful than many of their named characters. The Index Biker Boss as well.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 16:16:09


Post by: vict0988


 JNAProductions wrote:
Good thing no one was talking about infinite possibilities.

Lots=/=infinite.

Ah, so introducing lots of broken combos is fine? Why don't one of you write up that magically balanced system and then I'll tear it apart, if I'm not able to then I'll enlist the help of a dozen other people to help me break your system. Go on, take all the time you need. You'll find that you have to create individually terrible buffs for combos to not be OP or otherwise create a byzantine system of checks and balances between every combo. It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's so hard that it's very unlikely GW will do it well given how hard they gakked the Relic/Trait system with more than half the options being absolutely terrible. You might argue that it's a question of a lack of granularity that your system won't have, but GW could've added S and D to all the gak weapons until they were good, they could have balanced the extra attacks a BA character can do by limiting them to S4 AP- or not have them carry over to a potential second round of attacks. GW failed in creating a balanced hero system and I don't trust them to replace my Unique characters with a balanced and fun make-your-own Unique character.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 16:16:33


Post by: skchsan


 flandarz wrote:
Depends on your definition of "more powerful". I'm sure many Ork players would say that the Supa Shokk Attack Gun Mek is more powerful than many of their named characters. The Index Biker Boss as well.
I'm talking about direct comparison which this thread is about.
Zhadsnark is stronger than biker bawss.
Buzzgobb is stronger than a big mek.

Smash captains are stronger than any other jumppack HQ's in BA's arsenal due to how tailored (with a thunderhammer) he could be made to do what he does best. Other named JP characters are better suited for babysitting other units to provide buffs and can't maximize on the CP expenditures the ways smash captains do.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 16:27:25


Post by: JNAProductions


 vict0988 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Good thing no one was talking about infinite possibilities.

Lots=/=infinite.

Ah, so introducing lots of broken combos is fine? Why don't one of you write up that magically balanced system and then I'll tear it apart, if I'm not able to then I'll enlist the help of a dozen other people to help me break your system. Go on, take all the time you need. You'll find that you have to create individually terrible buffs for combos to not be OP or otherwise create a byzantine system of checks and balances between every combo. It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's so hard that it's very unlikely GW will do it well given how hard they gakked the Relic/Trait system with more than half the options being absolutely terrible. You might argue that it's a question of a lack of granularity that your system won't have, but GW could've added S and D to all the gak weapons until they were good, they could have balanced the extra attacks a BA character can do by limiting them to S4 AP- or not have them carry over to a potential second round of attacks. GW failed in creating a balanced hero system and I don't trust them to replace my Unique characters with a balanced and fun make-your-own Unique character.
GW charges each player anywhere from about $40 to several hundred dollars on rules alone.

They're a multi-billion (I believe) dollar corporation.

I doubt I could make characters that both have, say, a dozen options each and still have them be balanced. But I'm one guy. GW damn well should be able to.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 16:29:30


Post by: skchsan


 vict0988 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Good thing no one was talking about infinite possibilities.

Lots=/=infinite.

Ah, so introducing lots of broken combos is fine? Why don't one of you write up that magically balanced system and then I'll tear it apart, if I'm not able to then I'll enlist the help of a dozen other people to help me break your system. Go on, take all the time you need. You'll find that you have to create individually terrible buffs for combos to not be OP or otherwise create a byzantine system of checks and balances between every combo. It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's so hard that it's very unlikely GW will do it well given how hard they gakked the Relic/Trait system with more than half the options being absolutely terrible. You might argue that it's a question of a lack of granularity that your system won't have, but GW could've added S and D to all the gak weapons until they were good, they could have balanced the extra attacks a BA character can do by limiting them to S4 AP- or not have them carry over to a potential second round of attacks. GW failed in creating a balanced hero system and I don't trust them to replace my Unique characters with a balanced and fun make-your-own Unique character.
The point of this discussion is that there are occasions where you're forced to take a named character because there aren't any other generic HQ you can take. I don't think the suggestion here isn't to make character customization fully open (he has a jumppack equipped bike, with thunderhammer, stormshield, combi plasma, plasma pistol & melta bomb so he has T5, deepstrike, 3++, etc), but an option to take a slightly less powerful generic HQ unit that better fills the role in your army.

Take for example, in my army I am forced to take a sammael because I have no access to a reroll hit aura that can keep up with my army because there is no Master on Bike. I'm not asking for a Grandmaster on Bike - just a master. On bike. Then I need to take a Talonmaster as my warlord because I need to take "Grand Strategist" (although he's an auto take in ravenwing list anyways) since Sammael is locked to 'Master of Maneuver'. The proposed master on bike would have less movement (since its not a spiffed up last jet-bike of the imperium) and forego 'reroll to hit rolls of 1's for all <Dark Angels>' for just 'reroll to hit rolls made by RAVENWING units' and not locked to 'master of maneuver' as my default WL trait for slightly cheaper price tag (maybe like 20pt less).


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 16:50:11


Post by: vict0988


 skchsan wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Good thing no one was talking about infinite possibilities.

Lots=/=infinite.

Ah, so introducing lots of broken combos is fine? Why don't one of you write up that magically balanced system and then I'll tear it apart, if I'm not able to then I'll enlist the help of a dozen other people to help me break your system. Go on, take all the time you need. You'll find that you have to create individually terrible buffs for combos to not be OP or otherwise create a byzantine system of checks and balances between every combo. It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's so hard that it's very unlikely GW will do it well given how hard they gakked the Relic/Trait system with more than half the options being absolutely terrible. You might argue that it's a question of a lack of granularity that your system won't have, but GW could've added S and D to all the gak weapons until they were good, they could have balanced the extra attacks a BA character can do by limiting them to S4 AP- or not have them carry over to a potential second round of attacks. GW failed in creating a balanced hero system and I don't trust them to replace my Unique characters with a balanced and fun make-your-own Unique character.
The point of this discussion is that there are occasions where you're forced to take a named character because there aren't any other generic HQ you can take. I don't think the suggestion here isn't to make character customization fully open (he has a jumppack equipped bike, with thunderhammer, stormshield, combi plasma, plasma pistol & melta bomb so he has T5, deepstrike, 3++, etc), but an option to take a slightly less powerful generic HQ unit that better fills the role in your army.

I thought that was exactly the intent of this discussion, should Unique HQs be removed from the game and be replaced with a set of rules that can emulate what they currently do? So no Belial, instead we get a Deathwing Master with special rule options so he can play at being Belial.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 16:53:38


Post by: skchsan


 vict0988 wrote:
I thought that was exactly the intent of this discussion, should Unique HQs be removed from the game and be replaced with a set of rules that can emulate what they currently do? So no Belial, instead we get a Deathwing Master with special rule options so he can play at being Belial.
It's been discussed that the ceiling for generic HQ customization should be capped at its equivalent named character, where some people agreed and some thought named characters should still have something that sets them apart even if its slight. The problematic aspect of this is that GW is not known for their ability to make balanced rulesets, so your worries aren't fully unjustified, and has been noted so since the first page of this discussion.

Another issue that was also brought up is that sometimes you have to take your army as 'count-as' parent army despite the freedom granted. (i.e. 'for example, Azrael is the Supreme Grandmaster of Dark Angels and not that of successor chapters.')


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 17:15:47


Post by: Dandelion


 vict0988 wrote:
Dandelion wrote:

All you've proven is that new units can be broken if they're not balanced in the context of their codex. Congratulations, water is wet and the sky is blue. And guess what, in the context of Tau there are no relics/traits that could possibly make them OP (seriously, they all are designed to buff the suit commanders), so the point is moot until the codex gets an update.

Did you even read it? It has nothing to do with the base unit, it might be perfectly fair and balanced, but if you stack enough buffs that are anything but completely trash on top of a unit, that unit will one-shot Primarchs.


The keyword being "if". All I want is to just add "tank commander" to the list of available datasheets. That's it, no other changes. You're the one suggesting they must also come with dozens of potential buffs that can stack. Worst case scenario we stack a good relic with a good warlord trait which is exactly what we have now for every single generic character. Yet for some reason it's hypothetical Tau Tank Commanders that could abuse the current system the most. Despite the fact that suit commanders already exist and get far better relics.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 17:30:55


Post by: BrianDavion


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Coming from lotr I was always surprised how few characters there are in 40K. If anything I'd say keep them special, they should give the army something unique you can't do with a generic character. HOWEVER with the subfactions in 8th it'd be cool to have some kind of additional special rule for subfaction characters that don't have a named character (with a model). I know, there's the warlord trait already, but named characters have that AND something else. So basically, as long as there's not a named character for every subfaction give the factions that don't have one the ability to make one out of their generic chars.


problem is subfactions without a special character tend to be, by definition, ones GW tends to ignore. (notice Ultramarines have the most characters?) the best we can hope for is GW makes a ton of money off the Marine codex supplements, eneugh so that they decide through supplements and campaign books to do this for other subfactions and thus produce more characters. making special chars now is a pain for GW though as they produce them in plastic rather then resin (which is easier to make a model cheap)


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 17:38:47


Post by: skchsan


BrianDavion wrote:
making special chars now is a pain for GW though as they produce them in plastic rather then resin (which is easier to make a model cheap)
I see where you're getting at, but not quite true.

Plastic injection molds cost more to produce but they boast far better durability against wears during production.

Silicon molds for the old metal models probably needs to be replaced after around 4-5 casts, more if they have some proprietary silicon compound that lasts longer. Also take into consideration miscasts and the wasted production cost on that.

I think it has to do with more potential sales (you're not going to buy a special named character more than once or twice) and projected demands that determine whether a unit goes thru the "plastic rubicon". And, it would be easier to make a new model instead of importing an existing model (since you have to 3d scan them, import it, clean up the meshes, revise it, etc - much easier to start from scratch) into plastic mold.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 17:45:38


Post by: BrianDavion


 skchsan wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
making special chars now is a pain for GW though as they produce them in plastic rather then resin (which is easier to make a model cheap)
I see where you're getting at, but not quite true.

Plastic injection molds cost more to produce but they boast far better durability against wears during production.

Silicon molds for the old metal models probably needs to be replaced after around 4-5 casts, more if they have some proprietary silicon compound that lasts longer. Also take into consideration miscasts and the wasted production cost on that.

I think it has to do with more potential sales (you're not going to buy a special named character more than once or twice) and projected demands that determine whether a unit goes thru the "plastic rubicon". And, it would be easier to make a new model instead of importing an existing model (since you have to 3d scan them, import it, clean up the meshes, revise it, etc - much easier to start from scratch) into plastic mold.


right hence a character of minor popularity may not be worth updating.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 18:12:11


Post by: vict0988


Dandelion wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Dandelion wrote:

All you've proven is that new units can be broken if they're not balanced in the context of their codex. Congratulations, water is wet and the sky is blue. And guess what, in the context of Tau there are no relics/traits that could possibly make them OP (seriously, they all are designed to buff the suit commanders), so the point is moot until the codex gets an update.

Did you even read it? It has nothing to do with the base unit, it might be perfectly fair and balanced, but if you stack enough buffs that are anything but completely trash on top of a unit, that unit will one-shot Primarchs.


The keyword being "if". All I want is to just add "tank commander" to the list of available datasheets. That's it, no other changes. You're the one suggesting they must also come with dozens of potential buffs that can stack. Worst case scenario we stack a good relic with a good warlord trait which is exactly what we have now for every single generic character. Yet for some reason it's hypothetical Tau Tank Commanders that could abuse the current system the most. Despite the fact that suit commanders already exist and get far better relics.

The list of available datasheets? Available for what?


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 18:21:11


Post by: Dandelion


 vict0988 wrote:

The list of available datasheets? Available for what?


Available to be used. "Existing datasheets" if that makes it clearer. Currently, there are no Tau Tank Commanders outside of one special character. A Vior'la detachment cannot have any tank commanders at all, under the current rules.

At the very least, the Guard have both Pask and generic tank commanders, so I don't know why people are suddenly so concerned about a Tau version of that.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 18:30:02


Post by: skchsan


Dandelion wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

The list of available datasheets? Available for what?


Available to be used. "Existing datasheets" if that makes it clearer. Currently, there are no Tau Tank Commanders outside of one special character. A Vior'la detachment cannot have any tank commanders at all, under the current rules.

At the very least, the Guard have both Pask and generic tank commanders, so I don't know why people are suddenly so concerned about a Tau version of that.
Agreed. Named characters, apart from reaaaaaaaaaally specific ones, should be souped-up versions of available generic characters and vice versa.

Although, I'd argue that some factions just have too much named characters.


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/06 23:11:41


Post by: BrianDavion


 skchsan wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

The list of available datasheets? Available for what?


Available to be used. "Existing datasheets" if that makes it clearer. Currently, there are no Tau Tank Commanders outside of one special character. A Vior'la detachment cannot have any tank commanders at all, under the current rules.

At the very least, the Guard have both Pask and generic tank commanders, so I don't know why people are suddenly so concerned about a Tau version of that.
Agreed. Named characters, apart from reaaaaaaaaaally specific ones, should be souped-up versions of available generic characters and vice versa.

Although, I'd argue that some factions just have too much named characters.


even as someone with an Ultramarines army I'd be a little annoyed if another new UM char popped up. I AM however absolutely happy to see the Iron Hands FINALLY getting a character


Should Unique Characters Be Unique? @ 2019/09/07 05:40:59


Post by: Wyldhunt


 vict0988 wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Personally, I like like unique characters with unique abilities, but they should actually be unique. If a unique character's gimmick is that they're just a generic character but better, they probably don't need to exist. Similarly, if they're just a generic character but with an extra buff slapped on that could probably be an option instead, they probably don't need to exist.

Eldrad Ulthran, for instance, is basically just a generic on-foot farseer but with a better invul save, and a slightly different weapon and superior psychic ability. He's not different from a generic footseer so much as he's just better. Eldrad, cool as I think he is, probably doesn't need to exist. You could make his superior psychic abilities into a "High Farseer" stratagem or a points cost upgrade and get pretty much the same result.

That necron guy who transforms mid-fight and whose name I"m blanking on, on the other hand, has a complicated gimmick that would be pretty tricky to balance as a generic option in a toolbox. It's cool that he exists, and I wouldn't want his transformation thing to be purchasable as a strat or piece of wargear.

Now, there can be exceptions to this. Lelith Hesperax's fluff is that she's just an extra special super duper talented succubus. But that's her thing, and the fluff kind of acknowledges it. It's not just Chapter Master X being arbitrarily better at punching that Chapter Master Y; being better at raw combat antics is her gimmick, and that gimmick is backed up by a couple of unique special rules that I probably wouldn't want to see turned into a generic, purchasable option. If you could purchase the special rules meant to make Lelith seem uniquely talented, then any piece of fluff claiming she's the peerless champion of the arenas rings hollow.


TLDR; special characters usually shouldn't be generic characters +, and I like the idea of bringing back more character customization options.

I don't think you explained very well the difference between Lelith and Eldrad, both are at the very top of their game,

Fair. You're probably right. I guess what I'm getting at is that, mechanically, Lelith's "choose a stat to buff every round" rule is just bookkeeping intensive enough that I wouldn't want to keep track of three of her throughout my army, AND it's a rule meant to demonstrate her dark muse level skills. Her unique mechanical gimmick and notorious martial superiority make her somewhat justified as being a unique character. Her superiority as a melee combatant is kind of canonical. Most dark eldar players seem to be pretty happy to acknowledge that Lelith is the best of the best, even if they want their own custom fluff succubus to be notoriously talented. If every other succubus on the table had the "dark muse level combat skill" special rule because they purchased it with points, then it weakens the narrative being expressed by that rule.

Now the fact that Lelith is less, in game terms, mathematically less killy than an optimized generic succubus is kind of a separate issue. Her unique rules give a narrative impression that she's capable of unique feats that are beyond most succubi .

Contrast this with Eldrad. Eldrad's "thing" is that he's the best at divining the future, especially when it comes to long-term prophecies. That shouldn't necessarily translate to casting more combat powers in a single game round, especially when those powers could potentially all just be mortal wound generators (although that probably wouldn't be an optimal use of his abilities.) My custom fluff farseer from Biel-Tan could reasonably be even better at juggling multiple short-term predictions and eldritch lightning bolts in the heat of battle than Eldrad; it wouldn't contradict Eldrad's gimmick. My Iyanden seer could reasonably have a 3+ invulnerable through better rune armor or better split-second jedi backflipping skills. Eldrad casts more powers faster, defends against damage better, and wields a more versatile melee weapon than other farseers even though that isn't really his gimmick.

So when the rules say, "No, your succubus can't do what Lelith does," I go, "Sure. Makes sense. My succubus isn't a dark muse like Lelith." It feels like her narrative niche is being protected. But when Eldrad is better at being a footseer than my footseer seemingly arbitrarily, it doesn't feel like it's justified by his fluff, and it doesn't feel like his rules are exploring an interesting mechanical gimmick; it feels like he's just a superior psychic combatant even though that isn't really what makes him noteworthy in the lore.



I don't think it's arbitrary that one Chapter Master is a better melee fighter than another, is it arbitrary when one Primarch is a better fighter than another?

Special rules are a tool for conveying the story of a unit. If a chapter master is mechanically the best at character vs character fights because he has a special rule and he has that special rule because his fluff says that he's a legendary duelist from a chapter that frequently wins the Feast of Blades, awesome. That's Fluff and crunch agreeing with each other. But if your elf wizard is the best at combat casting and invulnerable saves even though that's not really his fluff, then things get a little messy. Now, if I want rules for my own farseer whose combat casting prowess is part of his personality, I might be tempted to use Eldrad's rules to represent that because he's simply the best datasheet for conveying that story even though it doesn't actually fit Eldrad's story. Or, if I want to represent my feast of blades duelist chapter master, I might steal the rules of the Emperor's Children or Dante or whomever else seems the most mechanically optimized for melee because it fits the story better than a generic captain datasheet.

And some special characters just... kind of aren't all that special. Longstrike and Chronos are among the best tank commanders in their respective factions, but do they necessarily deserve to be the ONLY tank commanders for their factions? Wouldn't it be cool if you could scrape off the "Ultramarines" keyword on Chronos's datasheet and use him to represent your legendary Iron Hands tank commander? Wouldn't it be nice if Viorla or one of the other Septs could spit out a tank commander so that you weren't forced to play Tau sept to have a tank commander at all?


I know that some people like to introduce their own Mary Sue characters into settings, I like custom characters to a small degree but they should be part of the setting, the setting should not revolve around them because then it stops being the same setting. When you can make your psyker as powerful as Eldrad which I believe should be the strongest Aeldari psyker, then it's not your character put into the 40k universe, it's you shaping the 40k universe around your preferences. GW made a large push in CA2018 to make more Unique characters viable in 8th and I think they went too far in too many cases so you might be thinking "hey those abilities and buffs are really cool, I want my Craftworld to have access to those exact same rules", but I don't think it's the uniqueness of the rules that is a problem, they are just too cheap and you might not even want a super Farseer if it was costed appropriately. Maybe I'm just too much of a robot to understand.


I largely agree with this, and this is part of why I feel special characters work best as a way of providing different game mechanics rather than stronger game mechanics. Vulkan Hestan buffs flamers and meltaguns in your Salamanders army. He doesn't make flamer/melta heavy marine lists into the most optimized marine list in existence, but he gives you a reason to play with more flamers and meltas than you normally would, and this, in turn, might impact which units you take to deliver those meltas and flamers. He provides a different sort of playstyle without coming across as the most optimized of all beatsticks or even the most optimized of marine units.