Switch Theme:

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

Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/25 22:10:36


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


How do!

So this is something that’s been irking me.

On one hand, Special Characters add a certain permanence to the background. They’re storied heroes with legacies of awesome behind them.

On the other? They feel too permanent. For instance, we know once introduced, they’re clad in the best plot armour ever. Even when they fail in a given endeavour, we know they’ll live to fight another day. And only very rarely having been changed by their experience.

If 40K was a purely written background, ala Game of Thrones or Walking Dead, their lives could be at risk.

But when there are physical models to sell? Not so much. Given special characters attract a premium price (mostly because peeps will only buy one of each), it would genuinely and understandably irritate folks to have something they just spent a decent slice of money on, and time painting, snuff it.

And so they’re Plot Armoured to a crazy degree. Which kind of seriously limits plot development. For instance, should Guilliman get his hands on Abaddon? We know that ultimately there’ll be No Harm Done, despite the likelihood of Abaddon getting horrifically murdered and fisted to death until he’s so killed he’s not alive anymore by The Avenging Son, who would in turn take some hefty wounds in the process.

Some it kinda makes sense with. You can only ever really banish a Daemon Prince or Primarch. Others? Such as Yarrick? Just….let them die. By all means make it a heroic and influential death, but let them meet a final day.

The same for Astartes Chapter Masters, Sororitas Canoness’ and so on and so forth. Make the battles we read about carry serious weight. Explore the narrative possibilities of Abaddon snuffing it, and The Imperium having to deal with the ramifications of Chaos forces suddenly fragmenting, making it harder to engage them in any meaningful way.

Because right now, they might be fun to field in a game (and I’m happy for them to exist in Codexes), but in the ongoing narrative, they’re too much of an anchor.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/25 22:45:42


Post by: Insectum7


Imo this named character stuff worked so much better when:
A: They were used "with opponents permission" only.
B: When GW didn't really advance the setting.
and
C: When you had more freedom to build your own characters.

I dislike the importance given to named characters these days, both on and off the tabletop. This makes the game less about "your dudes" and more about "GWs dudes TM", which is sad.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/25 22:51:34


Post by: Vector Strike


Aun'Va has a model and was killed


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/25 23:02:31


Post by: Hellebore


 Vector Strike wrote:
Aun'Va has a model and was killed


eldrad was killed back in 2003 as well, but that didn't stick.


The biggest issue for me is the shrinking of the limitless expanse of 40k down to the spheres of influence of a bunch of key named characters. all ork stuff has to hinge on thraka, all eldar stuff on eldrad, guilliman, silent king etc.

It goes from being a massive universe where individuals are machine cogs and can rise and fall without comment across a massive tapestry, to the battle of Bob and Jeff, the advance of Sophie, the triumph of Katherine, the loss and redemption of Steve.

My favourite named characters were all historical ones, because in history their names could be huge and their feats legendary. But they are dead now and the story doesn't have to hinge on them.

IMO the best way to deal with special characters is to have them all as historical - because only in hindsight do we see how amazing they were.




Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/25 23:04:51


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Named characters also get weird when they advance the setting. Even with rejuvenation treatments humans only live so long, so if GW advanced the setting a thousand years what happens to those named characters.

If their beloved characters whose model sells like hot cakes it actually disincentivized GW to push the setting forwards which depending on your perspective is <good/bad>.

I like Named Characters, but I'd like it better if it was a simple system of "Here's how to build your character to be like <insert named character>". Instead we get named characters with unique rules which you can't always replicate with "Your Dudes" which is a shame.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/25 23:18:54


Post by: Gert


Characters don't really die because for the longest time there has only been a focus on the events of M.41 for the whole "1 second to midnight" narrative. Its not the fault of the Characters but rather the setting itself.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/25 23:22:21


Post by: insaniak


I remain confused by the assertion that special characters can't be killed, given that a rather large number of the special characters that GW have introduced over the years have been 'historical' characters who were already dead in the 'current' time.


I like Named Characters, but I'd like it better if it was a simple system of "Here's how to build your character to be like <insert named character>". Instead we get named characters with unique rules which you can't always replicate with "Your Dudes" which is a shame.

I do like this idea, though. More customisability for characters, and keeping 'special' characters within the bounds of that customisability would be nice.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/25 23:34:14


Post by: Argive


 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo this named character stuff worked so much better when:
A: They were used "with opponents permission" only.
B: When GW didn't really advance the setting.
and
C: When you had more freedom to build your own characters.

I dislike the importance given to named characters these days, both on and off the tabletop. This makes the game less about "your dudes" and more about "GWs dudes TM", which is sad.


This is an interesting topic. I hope I can articulate my thoughts..

Mostly agree with the above sentiment.

But also, I think there is no reason why a special character shouldn't be killed narratively.
Just because they are dead does not mean their model needs to vanish. I think that's a very dumb take on GWs part.

This ties in with insectums point about making it "your dudes". As in, there is nothing stopping me with either using the named character as a standard character or simply my army being from a specific time when this character was still alive....

The setting can be advanced and everyone getting killed... but I honestly don't see why it should ever stop minatures being sold...
I mean if eventualy you get too much bloat and essentialy a replacement is being made then that's fine.
But an Iconic character such as Calgar, Eldrad, Kharn or abbadon should be available to future, generations of gamers even if no longer relevant to the narrative setting. These are timeless pieces and part of the hobby IMO. I remember when my first army was nids, and getting old one eye and red terror on the field was just the greatest thing ever.
I didin't care that the red terror is perhaps not that great lol. But the hive tyrant customization was off the chart awesome back in that day (3rd ed?). The whole point was that these guys were very vague and they were rumours of rumours in the lore.

The trouble is, GW has really fleshed out the setting with HH and all the BL fiction to the point where we know what time a given primarch took a dump on a specific sunday @ 1pm in the 31st millenium... So muh of the veil has been pulled back its almost hard work trying to use your imagination and creativity to come up with "your army" rather then buy up whatever the latest GW starter army set in "warzone x" this month is..


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/25 23:41:30


Post by: Gert


Not sure how it's the fault of 30k that named characters have prominence in 40k considering that a lot of these named characters have been around since like 3rd Edition and the Horus Heresy novels only started in 2006.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/25 23:45:19


Post by: Arachnofiend


Let's be real, if named characters with models didn't have plot armor then non-Imperium factions would be a constant mill of new character introduced -> new character killed by a Space Marine.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/25 23:51:09


Post by: Argive


 Gert wrote:
Not sure how it's the fault of 30k that named characters have prominence in 40k considering that a lot of these named characters have been around since like 3rd Edition and the Horus Heresy novels only started in 2006.


Only since 2006? You realise that's 15 years worth of lore content right ? and that's HH stuff alone not to mention the current crop of 40k stuff..
In that 15 years we've had a lot of gaps filled when it comes to the narrative driving IOM.
Culminating in an actual living breathing primarch being a unit available in the game.

This would be completely alien in OG 40k days circa 3rd/4th ed days.

Im not saying there's specifically fault of 30k but rather what is the end result of how things have been.. is that so much lore and cannon is explained there is increasingly less room for mystery and imagination which 40k used to be all about...

Nobody knew anything about anything and everyone was just fighting desperately to survive.
As a player it really isn't the case anymore IMO..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
Let's be real, if named characters with models didn't have plot armor then non-Imperium factions would be a constant mill of new character introduced -> new character killed by a Space Marine.


There is certainly that!


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 00:02:33


Post by: Overread


I sometimes feel this way with AoS, esp as a lot of the heroes we get tend to be immortal types (so that they can keep reappearing in the stories, even though GW hasn't really given us dates to easily see the timeflow). But also because they tend to be really really powerful so they take up 500-1000 points just to put on the table.

Yes you feel the epic impact of them, but at the same time its almost too epic an impact. They dominate their area of the game and whilst its balanced decently to avoid them simply sweeping all else away; they do leave little in the way of points free to give themselves an "army" to go along with them.


AoS heroes certainly often feel like they'd be better placed in Warmaster; where you'd have way more units and the super powered hero has impact, but far reduced in terms of how much table they could command and how much of the percentage of army points they'd dominate.



I too remember the "with opponents permission" days;but I can also see why GW would turn away from that. Because asking your opponent makes something feel more powerful. So you're asking them if its ok for you to play with an advantage in the game (unless they bring their hero too); even if mechanically there is no net advantage. It also makes them far more niche in when you might get to play with them and some groups might never let you play with them. So suddenly those big fancy models of heroes become collectors only and that means far less sales for GW.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 00:04:41


Post by: Gert


I would say the imagination is still there and there are certainly still mysteries.
I've found that the opening up of the Horus Heresy can allow for better construction of narrative for hobbyists and offers some explanations for some large empty gaps. I find the whole Dorn VS Guilliman regarding the Codex to be a really neat story and as a result we got the Fists Exemplar and Maximus Thane, all round cool dude.
For personal narrative I can craft a better story of why certain characters are where they are or why my friends character hates my character.
In the end its all just opinion but I much prefer homebrew characters (narrative wise not rules wise) to named ones.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 00:08:24


Post by: Overread


**double post madness*


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 00:10:11


Post by: Argive


I dont play AOS so could be wrong - but AOS looks more hero hamer than 40k.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 00:32:55


Post by: Karak Norn Clansman


They work when the setting is static. They are potentially problematic when the setting is moving forward, although the Imperial Space Marine bias already mentioned is a an actual risk if named characters can be killed off.

The concept of special characters worked fine when the setting was static. Mostly, they were more of an example of the kinds of characters to be found in the bonkers future, with stories to inspire others to write their own, than central characters around which large events took place. Not unlike Rogue Trader era character profiles, but usually less grimdark and with more importance ascribed to the characters (Fabius Bile, Abaddon, Cypher, Eldrad and so on) than in Rogue Trader character profiles.

For the record, I've never played Lotr with special characters, only Dwarf captains and kings. I prefer to make up my own background and name all my own characters and give them life and ongoing stories in games, rather than piggybacking on named ones seen in Tolkien's writings, movies or GW supplements. The same is true for 40k, though I have nothing against collecting and painting the named characters. They're often cool.

Named characters are a potential problem for a story-driven setting.

However, a dead character need not disappear as a model and playable profile. The game can be played in eras. For instance, most 30k characters are dead by 40k, and still people play with them in Horus Heresy games. One example from Games Workshop's early days are their Regiments of Renown background. Many of them sport backstories where the famous leader of the unit, or the company itself is killed off. There is an end point to some of those regiments' stories, including that of Josef Bugman. They were written tragic from the start.

But such a historical approach could potentially cost sales, especially if too many people don't think for themselves and always slavishly follow the company line with mindless zeal, always hounding the newest shiny thing and latest story development. Like some shoal of fish or sheep flock.

Given the silly resentment of a silly amount of Ninth Age players toward Games Workshop as being something explicitly akin to an ex-girlfriend, I fear that all too many hobbyists like being led by an official company, and conversely will hate that company if it leads them astray. Making up their own mind according to their own tastes and thinking for themselves all along the way was apparently not much of an option. This state of affairs is not Games Workshop's fault: Game designers have repeatedly tried to re-inject narrative play, houseruling tricky situations and so on, and likewise they have repeatedly tried to recapture freewheeling creativity into their own projects (Specialist Games, Dreadfleet, Space Hulk and so on) in a time when they have inevitably been forced into a straitjacket of codex treadmill.

More people should see 40k for the sandbox it was always meant to be. That would make it more feasible to kill off characters when advancing the plot.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 02:26:28


Post by: Goose LeChance


 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo this named character stuff worked so much better when:
A: They were used "with opponents permission" only.
B: When GW didn't really advance the setting.
and
C: When you had more freedom to build your own characters.

I dislike the importance given to named characters these days, both on and off the tabletop. This makes the game less about "your dudes" and more about "GWs dudes TM", which is sad.


This 100x. I would add Forgeworld style models/centerpieces to the list. Just avoid playing in public and stick to close friends/family only, many were told to shut up years ago when these changes started happening.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 02:51:47


Post by: Iracundus


I favor limitation of special characters as well. I don't like the whole "But you can use the rules and things for your own custom character and just say in rules it counts as this special character." The whole point about special characters is they are meant to be special, and perhaps just a bit better or more unique in a different way from your average generic make your own character.

Ghaz is meant to be the prophet of all the Orks. It diminishes him if every single other warlord out there is claiming the same thing and effectively has the same rules. Likewise, Eldrad is supposedly one of the best Farseers ever, which wouldn't be the case if the head Farseer of every Craftworld was his equal.

I can already see one argument advanced by others: "Maybe all those reputations are false and they are no better." Ok, then how about someone counts their Chapter Master as Calgar or better yet, Guilliman? Maybe Guilliman's reputation was overblown.


I personally prefer special characters remain for special occasions and stay rare because as others have mentioned, it shrinks the scale of 40K if it only becomes about what these unkillable special characters are doing, as if nothing else matters in the universe. It also means narratively unsatisfying conclusions to virtually every campaign or conflicts since these characters are bubble wrapped in Plot Armor, so you know it will be inconclusive with nobody dead or significantly changed.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 03:10:53


Post by: Voss


It helps to realize that most of the 'named characters' were just various GW dev's personal captains/generals/whatever. They named people in their army lists, and most (like Ghaz) were one-off jokes.

Part of the point of the setting was that individuals don't matter- they just end up as fodder in the never-ending war.

I still think the player-base who are obsessed with SCs care far more about them than GW does. But the player/bean-counter alliance matters more than the devs.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 03:20:21


Post by: Iracundus


The special characters matter when their entire faction starts to be about what they are doing. Eldrad seems to be involved any time GW mentions the Craftworlders. Vect for the Dark Eldar, Ghaz for the Orks, and so on... That's a bad thing IMO because it overshadows all other characters in that faction and their actions.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 03:25:14


Post by: insaniak


Iracundus wrote:
The special characters matter when their entire faction starts to be about what they are doing.

Or worse, where you are forced to take that character in order to use a given army in the first place, as has happened with Red Corsairs and Deathwing in the past.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 03:31:02


Post by: Iracundus


 insaniak wrote:
Iracundus wrote:
The special characters matter when their entire faction starts to be about what they are doing.

Or worse, where you are forced to take that character in order to use a given army in the first place, as has happened with Red Corsairs and Deathwing in the past.


I have always loathed that kind of requirement. As if the big honcho of a faction would always personally show up to every skirmish or that his minions were incapable of doing anything without their boss's presence.

However even without that kind of rules based game requirement, it is still an issue in the background if in terms of story nothing of any consequence happens unless that character is somehow involved, even if in the background as mastermind. That's why for example I dislike Vect's endless "just as planned" moments, which also incidentally serve to basically keep the Dark Eldar at a static status quo.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 08:14:32


Post by: mrFickle


It might have been better if you didn’t have models for special characters but the player take on the persona of a character when playing the game with a few strategic benefits.

So if you played Blood Angels, you might be Dante and in game that give you a few cards up your sleeve. But in the table top are your troops from general down to grunt


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 08:23:57


Post by: Flipsiders


It's been said before, but it just doesn't make sense that GW prevents named characters from dying in the story.

I can play a game of Magic: The Gathering in which I cast a Planeswalker card, and my opponent follows up with a Planeswalker who canonically died centuries earlier.

I can run a D&D campaign in which my players' characters fight against a canonically-murdered Forgotten Realms deity, complete with official stats.

Why can't Warhammer 40k be the same?



Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 08:41:52


Post by: Iracundus


 Flipsiders wrote:
It's been said before, but it just doesn't make sense that GW prevents named characters from dying in the story.

I can play a game of Magic: The Gathering in which I cast a Planeswalker card, and my opponent follows up with a Planeswalker who canonically died centuries earlier.

I can run a D&D campaign in which my players' characters fight against a canonically-murdered Forgotten Realms deity, complete with official stats.

Why can't Warhammer 40k be the same?



In either of those 2 examples, it's not clear what the time is so it might be set in the past.

The same would have to hold true if you play 40K featuring characters from the past. However there are also some matchups that could never happen at least if attempting to keep it vaguely in universe. Macharius could never face off against Aun'va for example.

Sure you can have completely anachronistic games with such impossible matchups. However it seems many 40K players want to play in the present and have games with living characters.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 09:25:20


Post by: BrianDavion


 Flipsiders wrote:
It's been said before, but it just doesn't make sense that GW prevents named characters from dying in the story.

I can play a game of Magic: The Gathering in which I cast a Planeswalker card, and my opponent follows up with a Planeswalker who canonically died centuries earlier.

I can run a D&D campaign in which my players' characters fight against a canonically-murdered Forgotten Realms deity, complete with official stats.

Why can't Warhammer 40k be the same?







yup GW neeeeever kills off people with a mini. nope NEEEEVER



Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 09:36:41


Post by: Gert


Off the top of my head there's Kell, Creed (sort of), Tycho, Macharius had a model at one point IIRC and he died in like M.37 or something.
Of course, that doesn't even consider characters like Nagash *wink*.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 09:40:50


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Neither of which were exactly top level command.

Sure, Aun’Va snuffed it, and that was a welcome surprise. But as I said, when it comes to Guilliman vs Abaddon, we know both are going to survive the encounter - despite the deaths of either/both being a far more interesting event.

The models themselves could still easily be used, as most of our games are defacto historical affairs, as we the players have no influence or impact on the ongoing narrative or background,

Likewise, we’re seemingly never going to see Ahriman, Typhus, Lucius or Kharn achieve Daemonhood - which is one of only two ways service to the Dark Gods ends. Well. Three I suppose if you include turning into a gribbly Chaos Spawn.

And so the background is incapable of surprise and consequence. No Astartes Chapter can be wiped out. No Traitor Legion can suffer truly catastrophic losses. The Sol System will never truly fall. No Craftworld will be lost.

Imagine the galactic mess that could occur should Ghaz get perished. All those concentrated Orky Warbands suddenly fragmenting, heading out on ever more violent crusades to prove who’s next to lead the biggest Waaagh! ever seen.

So on and so forth,


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 09:44:25


Post by: BrianDavion


ahhh so now it only counts when they're top command level eh?



seriously though, Creed was the supreme commander of Cadia.
and forge world metallica was also basicly wrecked.

Now I agree, gulliman vs abaddon as a fight would be kinda dull, which is why frankly I hope we don't ever see it (the Calgar vs Abaddon fight was aweful and I hope we never see it's like again)
but there's plenty of room for a galaxy with special characters in it.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 09:50:10


Post by: Iracundus


Well...I admit Ghaz's death wouldn't be totally disastrous for the Orks as they would still fight, and maybe eventually a new one would rise as the new self declared prophet of the Ork gods.

However basically by 9th edition, basically it seems any character that has not yet made the transition from Finecast (or that GW seemingly has no plans to transition) could be killed off, whereas those that have already received a new model are safe for the foreseeable future.

I would point to Tycho though as an example of the kind of character change we don't see much of now if at all. Tycho just started out as a generic captain that got "killed" by an Ork psychic power in a battle report between Jervis Johnson and Andy Chambers. They rolled with that and made a model of him with the Phantom of the Opera style mask and half paralyzed face. Then they killed him off in Armageddon 3. That's the kind of change that can happen with an advancing timeline.

Granted death of characters is not the only way to advance a timeline. The old worldwide campaigns such as the old Eye of Terror was a way to generate new ideas and results, some of which still persist today such as the Ork occupied forge world of More Dakka (formerly Mordax). It also generated a little surprise or deviation from the templated storyline as in that campaign the Imperials did not swoop in to save the day in the end, or rather they tried and still failed, while the Eldar decided to not play second banana to the Imperium and went off to do their own Webway war.

Those kinds of things I think are more fertile ground for new background development then a predictably inconclusive clash of special characters.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 09:54:53


Post by: BrianDavion


Iracundus wrote:
Well...I admit Ghaz's death wouldn't be totally disastrous for the Orks as they would still fight, and maybe eventually a new one would rise as the new self declared prophet of the Ork gods.

However basically by 9th edition, basically it seems any character that has not yet made the transition from Finecast (or that GW seemingly has no plans to transition) could be killed off, whereas those that have already received a new model are safe for the foreseeable future.

I would point to Tycho though as an example of the kind of character change we don't see much of now if at all. Tycho just started out as a generic captain that got "killed" by an Ork psychic power in a battle report between Jervis Johnson and Andy Chambers. They rolled with that and made a model of him with the Phantom of the Opera style mask and half paralyzed face. Then they killed him off in Armageddon 3. That's the kind of change that can happen with an advancing timeline.

Granted death of characters is not the only way to advance a timeline. The old worldwide campaigns such as the old Eye of Terror was a way to generate new ideas and results, some of which still persist today such as the Ork occupied forge world of More Dakka (formerly Mordax). It also generated a little surprise or deviation from the templated storyline as in that campaign the Imperials did not swoop in to save the day in the end, or rather they tried and still failed, while the Eldar decided to not play second banana to the Imperium and went off to do their own Webway war.

Those kinds of things I think are more fertile ground for new background development then a predictably inconclusive clash of special characters.


part of the thing with Tycho compared to now is the cost of plastic molds etc. it was, in the day of metal minis, reasonably easy and affordable to sculpt a new character on the fly like that. plastic minis take a bit more of an investment, So yeah I don't see random new characters being killed off (especially with the cost of a special char these days)
that said it's possiable for a general to know defeat even if he's not physically beaten himself. and IMHO GW should lean into that a bit from a story telling POV. Gulliman should not be used as a warrior but as a commander. ditto Abaddon, Ghaz, etc. there's no need to have these people literally cross swords


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 10:13:49


Post by: Iracundus


I agree but that is not the kind of fiction GW writes. They must not think their audience would understand or appreciate a war novel from the operational level or higher, or from the logistics aspect. Though not quite as bad as maybe a decade ago, it still seems to be a requirement for at least one action scene every other chapter or so, described in at times exquisitely fine bolter porn detail.

The original Campaign for Taros kind of writing is the kind that would be nice, but I doubt we would be seeing that. Instead GW seems to be going for a more impressionistic style without clear orders of battle and things moving (or not) at the speed of plot.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 10:24:53


Post by: Gert


I think there is definitely the issue with Named Characters in that you need them as anchors for events and factions but at the same time everyone wants to use them because they are said anchor.
Like an army of Rohirrim is cool but an army of Rohirrim led by Theoden, King of Rohan, is much cooler. The downside is that in every battle that gets played, Theoden is there despite the fact he absolutely wouldn't be leading 12 riders into battle with 20ish Goblins.
It's certainly something I struggled with when my hobby group picked up 30k. Everyone wants to use the Primarch for their Legion so then everyone builds a death star around the Primarch and oops everyone has the same list. How boring.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 10:34:15


Post by: Iracundus


Don't need special characters for events or campaigns. Make your own characters. Ban all existing named characters from the campaign. Your own characters then can tell their own tale, either of glory or shameful embarrassing defeat without plot armor. That's the idea behind the Crusade rules, though I personally am not really a fan of them.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 10:37:24


Post by: Niiai


To long did not read.

But Blood Angels Captain Thyco has died over the years has he not? He was fine. In 5th edition you could do regular or black rage version. And now he is dead?


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 10:39:22


Post by: BrianDavion


 Niiai wrote:
To long did not read.

But Blood Angels Captain Thyco has died over the years has he not? He was fine. In 5th edition you could do regular or black rage version. And now he is dead?


he's been dead since 3rd or 4th edition, yet you can still get his mini with stats, both regular and black rage even in the newest codex.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 10:54:03


Post by: kirotheavenger


I think there's two separate points here, lore handling of characters and deeds, and models.

Personally, I preferred when 40k was a setting, not a story.
Individual stories could occur in that setting. "Here's Imperial Armour 3, we're going to tell the story of the Taros Campaign". "Now here's Imperial Armour 4, we're going to tell the story of the Anphelion Project".
That gives writers total freedom. You can introduce any character you want, plus have any ending you want.

Whereas the newer approach of 40k being a story centring on the named characters is really boring as nothing happens. Everything escalates to the brink of galactic annihilation and then... nothing happens, who saw that coming?

I can understand why they would want to centre these stories on these characters. People are more likely to be drawn to a book that features their favourite character than a generic campaign, similarly people are more likely to be drawn to buying the big hero of the chapter rather than just a particular captain for that campaign.
But like everything around 40k, just because it sells better doesn't mean it's more satisfying (at least to us grognards).


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 10:56:59


Post by: Iracundus


Or you could have story but also things that do not center around special characters.

Like...the fall of Taros led to production shortfalls on Stygies VII which led to under supply of certain units now taking place in a campaign in a different sector. The effects of one campaign or event can be referenced elsewhere. Like how Moredakka is still being referenced as recently as Avenging Son novel, even though Moredakka was a forgeworld (Mordax Prime) that fell to Orks in the Eye of Terror worldwide campaign, completely outside of Andy Chambers' expectations (he expected the Ork players to fight elsewhere on the Tau front). The Ork players decided otherwise and made their mark in the background.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 11:03:48


Post by: kirotheavenger


Moredakka Prime was also referenced in the videogame Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2, which takes place in the immediate aftermath following the destruction of Cadia.
I didn't know that it was an outcome of an official campaign, that's really cool.

Didn't GW do something like that in 8th but handwaved the end result and declared Imperial Victory anyway?


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 11:14:22


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Haven't read all the replies, but wanted to add some thoughts :

Coming from Lotr I always found it strange how few named characters with their own datasheet and model there are in 40K. In lotr you have a bespoke profile for every guy that dropped a line in the books or the movies. In 40K outside of Space Marines you only get very few people that are often outsiders for their faction (see every single CSM character ). When reading all the small stories in a Codex about some Warboss doing this, or some Daemon Prince destroying that empire I was always wondering: yeah cool, where is that guy in my rules section?
I don't see the problem of killing these in the background. In lotr people that die are often even represented in their profile with fewer points of faith, that are a protection mechanic.

In 8th Edition GW even put out some models that have a unique Name given on their Box (like the DG Tallyman) that are only referenced in the Codex, but don't have their own datasheet. I still don't understand what's up with that.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 11:32:32


Post by: BrianDavion


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Moredakka Prime was also referenced in the videogame Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2, which takes place in the immediate aftermath following the destruction of Cadia.
I didn't know that it was an outcome of an official campaign, that's really cool.

Didn't GW do something like that in 8th but handwaved the end result and declared Imperial Victory anyway?


if by handwaved you mean "the Imperium won it" then sure.

granted at the time it was run space marines where literally the only army with codex for 8th so...


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 11:41:37


Post by: Iracundus


BrianDavion wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Moredakka Prime was also referenced in the videogame Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2, which takes place in the immediate aftermath following the destruction of Cadia.
I didn't know that it was an outcome of an official campaign, that's really cool.

Didn't GW do something like that in 8th but handwaved the end result and declared Imperial Victory anyway?


if by handwaved you mean "the Imperium won it" then sure.

granted at the time it was run space marines where literally the only army with codex for 8th so...


No the Eye of Terror was officially a Chaos minor victory, declared in White Dwarf by Andy Chambers.

I have typed up the official results verbatim (with personal commentary and explanation of campaign mechanics in an addendum at the end of each section):

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/392010.page

There were a lot of Imperial sore losers at the end that tried to convince themselves (and others) that it really meant Imperial victory. They never understood or accepted that the campaign mechanics meant a smaller group of players could defeat a larger group of players if they reported their wins in strategic locations. The Eye of Terror campaign was the only GW world wide campaign that allowed for this. All the other campaigns were Imperial won, because the Imperium players outnumbered everyone else and all other campaigns did not have mechanics that really allowed outnumbered factions to win against superior numbers.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 11:41:46


Post by: Gert


I think they are discussing the Eye of Terror campaign, not Fate of Konor, which was an absolute joke.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 11:41:58


Post by: kirotheavenger


Ah maybe that was it, I remember controversy over how it played out and obviously misremembered the details!


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 11:46:45


Post by: Gert


Konor wasn't even close. I've found 40k campaigns don't work because Space Marines alone make up 50% of the factions. Even if it was divided into Imperium VS Not Imperium the Imperium would still win because of Space Marines. The only way the local GW could balance things was by doing a coin toss to see which side would take the non-Imperial victory and we coordinated to give Chaos more wins because Xenos were too far behind to matter.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 11:48:54


Post by: Iracundus


 Gert wrote:
Konor wasn't even close. I've found 40k campaigns don't work because Space Marines alone make up 50% of the factions. Even if it was divided into Imperium VS Not Imperium the Imperium would still win because of Space Marines. The only way the local GW could balance things was by doing a coin toss to see which side would take the non-Imperial victory and we coordinated to give Chaos more wins because Xenos were too far behind to matter.


The Imperium lost the Eye of Terror campaign because they were too disorganized. Chaos and xenos players organized and placed their wins strategically and won because there were several campaign mechanics that they figured out and were able to use more effectively than the Imperial players. Go to the link I posted above. I explain the mechanics and how the Imperial players managed to lose despite their numerical superiority. Imperial Control was what determined the fate of a warzone, not number of wins. Number of wins reported mattered only in so far as how they influenced the Imperial Control number and there were several ways to shift that besides raw number of wins.

That's how the Orks got a forgeworld, the Tyranids got an honorable mention for almost taking the Belis Corona shipyards, and Chaos got declared the overall winner (it was Order vs Disorder). Yet it wasn't even that binary as the Eldar won in the Webway so in a way it was actually fluff accurate. The Eldar let the Imperium be the punching bag while they pursued their own goals.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 11:51:19


Post by: Lord Zarkov


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Ah maybe that was it, I remember controversy over how it played out and obviously misremembered the details!


Part of the problem was, though Chaos won overall, the Imperium won the space lanes and Cadia. The former got memed into Chaos marooned on captured planets and the combination of that and a failure to take Cadia itself led to a perception of a Chaos loss even though it actually won.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 11:53:40


Post by: Iracundus


Lord Zarkov wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Ah maybe that was it, I remember controversy over how it played out and obviously misremembered the details!


Part of the problem was, though Chaos won overall, the Imperium won the space lanes and Cadia. The former got memed into Chaos marooned on captured planets and the combination of that and a failure to take Cadia itself led to a perception of a Chaos loss even though it actually won.


Actually the final ending was Creed pulling a Dunkirk like evacuation over the sea. This is told both in the campaign ending short fiction and in the BL 13th Black Crusade book. Cadia had been knocked down from a whopping 95% start for the Imperium down to 39.8% at the end, which is really a Chaos win if they manage that for such a vital fortress planet. That and the surrounding sectors' miserable planetary warzone status was what led Andy Chambers to declare Disorder victory.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 13:17:05


Post by: bullyboy


Well, GW could also fracture 40K into "eras" at some point where these characters could continue to exist and be played. You have Horus Heresy, I would say then that the next era should be pre-primaris (whatever you want to call that) and then the current timeline.
Downside is that they have already pushed many of the characters into the current timeline instead of having them perish during the pre-primaris era.

with eras, you play vs opponents in that era only (matched play). No different to how Flames of War separates Early War, Mid War and Late War for WWII. Never going to happen but would have been fun to have some characters die, which then makes sense that you keep playing your tiny Azrael next to old marines instead of having him stand next to Primaris marines looking all goofy. Granted, I don't want to have to buy a marine codex for each era, but damn at least it wouldn't have a million entries as it does now.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 13:30:08


Post by: Iracundus


I wish somebody would actually die from failing to transition to Primaris. They all talk about how dangerous it supposedly is but no character ever fails. Obviously I doubt GW would ever write such a case, except possibly a throwaway character in a novel.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 13:31:21


Post by: Da Boss


I think named characters are fine, but I prefer them to be the exception or archetype rather than be required to play a certain playstyle or be the centre of the faction.

The bigger problem is whether you want the game to be an advancing narrative, which then requires recurring characters. If you have awesome named character models with years of background, it does make sense to use them for your narrative. It seems that the advancing narrative version of 40k is popular with the majority of fans.

I am definitely more on the side of 40k as a setting with no advancing narrative myself. Which is fine because no one is forcing me to purchase or keep up with the advancing narrative.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 13:33:27


Post by: Gert


There's a lot of stuff between the Heresy and the Noctis Eternia though, like 10k years of stuff. There's the Scouring, the War of the Beast, The Beheading, the Forging, the Nova Terra Interregnum, the Age of Apostasy, the Age of Redemption, the list goes on for ages. There are so many big events in the 10k years leading up to the Noctis Eternia that it would be impossible to have the game split into eras.
All the current Named Characters for 40k (besides Gaunt and the Ghosts) are alive in the current time, there are none from any other eras of the Imperium apart from the current time.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 13:40:14


Post by: Iracundus


 Da Boss wrote:
I think named characters are fine, but I prefer them to be the exception or archetype rather than be required to play a certain playstyle or be the centre of the faction.

The bigger problem is whether you want the game to be an advancing narrative, which then requires recurring characters. If you have awesome named character models with years of background, it does make sense to use them for your narrative. It seems that the advancing narrative version of 40k is popular with the majority of fans.

I am definitely more on the side of 40k as a setting with no advancing narrative myself. Which is fine because no one is forcing me to purchase or keep up with the advancing narrative.


I am guessing so far that GW's taking the Indomitus Crusade to be its main setting for a long time to come, and the characters (if they recur) will be the various POVs showing the Crusade at various points. The Imperium is vast and all the various sub-fleets and groups splitting off can still provide plenty of narrative space. There is also Imperium Nihilus which in my view should be a patchwork of sectors and pocket empires, all trying to survive on their own or claiming to be successors and legitimate bearers of Imperial authority. Other worlds and sectors can disagree which can allow for Imperial vs Imperial games and conflict.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 13:59:24


Post by: Lord Zarkov


 Gert wrote:
There's a lot of stuff between the Heresy and the Noctis Eternia though, like 10k years of stuff. There's the Scouring, the War of the Beast, The Beheading, the Forging, the Nova Terra Interregnum, the Age of Apostasy, the Age of Redemption, the list goes on for ages. There are so many big events in the 10k years leading up to the Noctis Eternia that it would be impossible to have the game split into eras.
All the current Named Characters for 40k (besides Gaunt and the Ghosts) are alive in the current time, there are none from any other eras of the Imperium apart from the current time.


There’s still a few pre great rift characters about IIRC.

Isn’t Tycho still about in the BA supplement ? He died back in Armageddon 3.
Creed as well is technically still ‘alive’ in the current era but not really active yet is still the the guard book.

But yeah, they’ve take most of the really legacy characters out, like Macharius who still had rules in 3.0


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 14:09:00


Post by: Gert


The problem with Creed and Kell is that removing them removes like half of the Named Characters for AM. AM just don't have the HQ options to spare which is annoying.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 14:12:26


Post by: kirotheavenger


Tycho is still around and he has not one, but two entries!
You have pre-Rage Tycho and post-Rage Tycho, both separate datasheets within the supplement. Tycho died during one of the Armageddon wars.

They also removed a few characters (Creed and Aun'Va) with the advance in timeline without removing their datasheet.

I think it's a good thing, they shouldn't be afraid of killing of characters. In many ways a satisfying end to a characters journey is better than continuing that story.
Like in the recent Vigilus book, why couldn't Calgar have died to Abaddon, buying time to secure an Imperial victory.
Instead Abaddon remembered he left the oven on and had to leave not a second later so the writer could keep Calgar alive.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 14:19:41


Post by: Argive


I stand by what I said previosuly.
There is nothing stopping characters dying and GWs writing seems odd in this regard.

Characters dying does not have to mean their models dissapear into the ether.

Your codex could easily have named characters from across the ages depending on what era your guys are fighting. Perhaps the reason my UM dont have g man lading them is because he hasnt been lazarused yet for example..

It really doesnt make sense to do things this way.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 15:26:24


Post by: Iron_Captain


I wouldn't mind if some named characters died every now and then.

Warhammer Fantasy had quite a few dead named characters (Vlad, Isabelle and Konrad von Carstein, Gorbad Ironclaw, Grom the Paunch, Repanse de Lyonesse and perhaps others I am forgetting about) and it worked just fine. There is no reason why there couldn't be rules for "dead" characters.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 16:41:31


Post by: Warptide


I make my own named characters out of the book options and shun the named characters. They are fine for whomever wants to use them to game the system or recreate their chapter but I like going the custom route. Just makes more sense for my pickup games and custom campaigns.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 17:25:57


Post by: mrFickle


I started a thread some time ago about the time line and mortal characters like Yarrick that seem to have been around for hundreds of years especially as we have moved on a couple hundred years cos through the indomitus crusade.

Most responses were that you are not necessarily playing in the same year, 40K battles could be from various times

But doesn’t make sense if they are killing characters off and if you had a old mortal characters playing vs new primaris characters

But 40K doesn’t make sense


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 17:50:58


Post by: tneva82


And this is why people shoucd stop trying to twist 40k against what it was designed for. 40k wasn't designed to be story to be followed but setting to make your owe stories.

Will Yarric live or die? You decide on tabletop. 40k was supposed to encourage creativity. "40k as a story" group wants to kill off creativity.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 18:47:06


Post by: Argive


mrFickle wrote:
I started a thread some time ago about the time line and mortal characters like Yarrick that seem to have been around for hundreds of years especially as we have moved on a couple hundred years cos through the indomitus crusade.

Most responses were that you are not necessarily playing in the same year, 40K battles could be from various times

But doesn’t make sense if they are killing characters off and if you had a old mortal characters playing vs new primaris characters

But 40K doesn’t make sense


But it makes sense for an army of Imperial fists or salamnders or <insert imperium faction> fighting an army of <insert imperium faction> and all of thier current special characters?

Yes it doesnt make sense from a narrative perspective. But then you just wouldn't take those options if you were running a narrative game would you?
For a pick up game thought which is like 90+% of how 40k is played it makes zero deifference.

I played a CWE v CWE game and we both took eldrad. We decided that one of the armies is a doppleganger chaos spawn and the winner is the real Eldrad.
This is a very wierd self imposed limitation.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 19:11:04


Post by: Flipsiders


A lot of people are mentioning characters such as Tycho and Yarrick that have died within the story as counterpoints to the idea that characters with models don't die in 40k, but it's important to note that every single one of these examples is still in resin. I think it's pretty self-evident that killing characters with models is a choice that GW used to make, but doesn't anymore.

Iracundus wrote:
Spoiler:
 Flipsiders wrote:
It's been said before, but it just doesn't make sense that GW prevents named characters from dying in the story.

I can play a game of Magic: The Gathering in which I cast a Planeswalker card, and my opponent follows up with a Planeswalker who canonically died centuries earlier.

I can run a D&D campaign in which my players' characters fight against a canonically-murdered Forgotten Realms deity, complete with official stats.

Why can't Warhammer 40k be the same?



In either of those 2 examples, it's not clear what the time is so it might be set in the past.

The same would have to hold true if you play 40K featuring characters from the past. However there are also some matchups that could never happen at least if attempting to keep it vaguely in universe. Macharius could never face off against Aun'va for example.

Sure you can have completely anachronistic games with such impossible matchups. However it seems many 40K players want to play in the present and have games with living characters.


This is incorrect. Both D&D and Magic: The Gathering allow anachronistic matchups.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/26 21:19:27


Post by: Iracundus


 Flipsiders wrote:
A lot of people are mentioning characters such as Tycho and Yarrick that have died within the story as counterpoints to the idea that characters with models don't die in 40k, but it's important to note that every single one of these examples is still in resin. I think it's pretty self-evident that killing characters with models is a choice that GW used to make, but doesn't anymore.

Iracundus wrote:
Spoiler:
 Flipsiders wrote:
It's been said before, but it just doesn't make sense that GW prevents named characters from dying in the story.

I can play a game of Magic: The Gathering in which I cast a Planeswalker card, and my opponent follows up with a Planeswalker who canonically died centuries earlier.

I can run a D&D campaign in which my players' characters fight against a canonically-murdered Forgotten Realms deity, complete with official stats.

Why can't Warhammer 40k be the same?



In either of those 2 examples, it's not clear what the time is so it might be set in the past.

The same would have to hold true if you play 40K featuring characters from the past. However there are also some matchups that could never happen at least if attempting to keep it vaguely in universe. Macharius could never face off against Aun'va for example.

Sure you can have completely anachronistic games with such impossible matchups. However it seems many 40K players want to play in the present and have games with living characters.


This is incorrect. Both D&D and Magic: The Gathering allow anachronistic matchups.


What's incorrect? I admitted that D&D and Magic allow for anachronistic setups. Just that that particular example had an unspecified time so it was not necessarily anachronistic.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/27 00:30:55


Post by: Flipsiders


Iracundus wrote:

What's incorrect?


Me, apparently. Sorry about that.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/28 04:04:59


Post by: Jarms48


There's tons of Guard characters that had models in the past, but don't have rules anymore.

- Captain Al'Rahem (Tallarn Desert Raiders): Previously had a model.
- Captain Obadiah Schfeer (Varolian): Previously had a FW model.
- Colonel-Commissar Ibram Gaunt (Tanith First and Only): Previously had a model and also now has a new kit.
- Colonel Schaeffer (13th Penal Legion): Previously had a model.
- Colonel Stranski (Cadian): Previously had a FW model.
- Commander Chenkov (Valhallan Ice Warriors): Previously had a model.
- General Grizmund (Narmenian): Previously had a FW model.
- Marshall Karis Venner (Death Korps of Krieg): Previously had a FW model.
- Lieutenant Kage (13th Penal Legion): Previously had a model.
- Fortress of Arrogance (Officio Perfectus): Previously had a model, though I think this may have been a kit bash from memory.
- Lord Solar Macharius: Previously had a model.
- Maximillian Weisemann (Mortant): Previously had a FW model.

Guard characters that had models but never had rules:

- Commissar Ciaphas Cain (Officio Perfectus): Previously had a limited BL model.
- Sergeant "Ripper "Jackson (Catachan): Limited edition model.

Guard characters that never had models but had rules:

- Mogul Kamir (Attilan Rough Riders)
- Sergeant Lukas Bastonne (Cadian)

I'd love to see at least the old school characters to come back in the 9th edition Guard codex. The other named regiments have no characters.

Other characters should definitely be added to legends. It's a shame they disappeared before legends was a thing so they missed out.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/28 04:51:49


Post by: Wyldhunt


I'm a special character snob. I really like some of them and get rather annoyed with the ones that don't meet my arbitrary criteria.

I feel like they're best utilized when they're used to explore their own little corner of the setting and provide a familiar face and interesting personality to a series of connected stories. I feel like the Asurmen and Jain Zar novels are a decent example of this. The PLs are likable enough. If they showed up in a future novel with the same character voice, I'd be happy to see them. Their stories mostly small in scale (the far reaching impacts of their stories feel distant; they're not blowing up the death star to save the galaxy). Basically, it's fun to look over their shoulders.

Similarly, the special characters that show up in the Lukas the Trickster novel are oozing with fun personality that increase my enjoyment both reading the novel and playing my faction on the tabletop.

Where named characters get to be a pain is when they get "Star Warsy"; that is, when every character has to be involved in every major plot thread in a way that makes an enormous setting feel tiny.

But really, I think that has more to do with the major plot events than with the named characters themselves. Like, any narrative that hinges on two named characters facing off is almost always going to end with both of them still being alive, so it's that much harder to make such conflicts interesting/satisfying. And any big event that basically boils down to character X stopping event Y or else the setting gets blown up tends to be pretty lame. Either because the protagonist is almost inevitably going to stop event Y in a boring fashion, or because event Y being the thing that blows up (a chunk of) the setting would just be kind of lame.

But give me a small-scale story about two named characters running into each other at a bar, and I'm totally there for it. Actually, that's kind of what worked so well in The Infinite and the Divine. Both named characters had entertaining personalities, bounced off of each other well, and were embroiled in events that, while significant to them personally, weren't threatening to wipe out all of humanity if things went poorly. (At least no right away.)


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/28 14:36:19


Post by: Tawnis


mrFickle wrote:
I started a thread some time ago about the time line and mortal characters like Yarrick that seem to have been around for hundreds of years especially as we have moved on a couple hundred years cos through the indomitus crusade.

Most responses were that you are not necessarily playing in the same year, 40K battles could be from various times

But doesn’t make sense if they are killing characters off and if you had a old mortal characters playing vs new primaris characters

But 40K doesn’t make sense


Depends how old they were when the timeline moved, a baseline human can live to be about 300-400 with rejuv treatments, and war heroes get the best of those. On top of that, with all the years and dates a matter of suspect to say the least, and transit in the warp messing with time, there are a lot of ways to explain away the inconsistencies lore wise.

That all being said, I do think that not killing off lore characters is a mistake. Let the old ones die and still keep current rules for them, like Aun'Va got. The downside to this means that they are likely to eventually run out of design space for unique characters, but Forge World manages to keep pumping them out without too much trouble, so it shouldn't be that big a deal so long as they only do a few at a time, at least for the foreseeable future.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jarms48 wrote:
There's tons of Guard characters that had models in the past, but don't have rules anymore.

- Fortress of Arrogance (Officio Perfectus): Previously had a model, though I think this may have been a kit bash from memory.

Other characters should definitely be added to legends. It's a shame they disappeared before legends was a thing so they missed out.


Yeah, FoA was a kitbash. I miss the days when that was actively encouraged.

I had originally assumed when Legends came out that we would get a Legends update for all the old models, really sad that hasn't happened yet.



Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/28 15:06:29


Post by: Gert


A note about the "current timeline", it's never explicitly been stated when the Indomitus Crusade begins or ends and that is the premise that BL authors work off. While the initial premise was that the Battle of Raukos was 100 years after the opening of the Rift, that got changed because it was dumb. The Indomitus Crusade is now "ongoing" and the Triumph at Raukos was the end of Phase 1.
As for Yarrick specifically, it depends on what counts as old for his nickname "The Old Man", which he had at the time of the 2nd War for Armageddon. Being generous and saying he was maybe 60-70, after becoming an Imperial hero and the 3rd War only being 50 years later, Yarrick could still easily be alive in Current Year.M41 because of rejuve and cybernetic treatments.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/28 15:10:31


Post by: kirotheavenger


I think current timeline is only meant to be a 12 year shift?

It still creates some oddities. The 3rd Sphere of expansion I believe lasted 2000 years, starting in M38. In the 12 years following the end of M41 we see the beginning and end of the 4th sphere and then starting a 5th!


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/28 15:13:39


Post by: Gert


The 4th Sphere was specifically thought to be a failure though, that's why the 5th exists. The T'au thought the 4th Sphere had been annihilated in the Warp Engine disaster and the 5th was to expand the Empire, secure the Startide Nexus and to find the 4th Sphere if they were alive.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/28 15:18:09


Post by: kirotheavenger


I thought the 4th specifically returned as a gibbering xenophobic mess.
So they reconditioned all it's members then just launched again. Which seems a bit reckless.

I also generally believe spheres of expansion are more eras than crusades to the Tau, they try and take as much extra territory through diplomacy as direct military action. That doesn't really work in the timescales GW has imposed on these new ones.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/28 15:27:00


Post by: Gert


The 5th found the 4th on the other side of the Startide Nexus where Shadowsun assimilated the forces into her own. It then became clear the 4th had become massively Xenophobic and organised massacres of prisoners and Auxiliaries. After this many 4th Sphere T'au were sidelined or sent for reconditioning and their Auxiliaries reassigned to 5th Sphere exclusive units. There is no more 4th Sphere of expansion.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/29 16:07:08


Post by: Salted Diamond


Jarms48 wrote:
There's tons of Guard characters that had models in the past, but don't have rules anymore.

Spoiler:
- Captain Al'Rahem (Tallarn Desert Raiders): Previously had a model.
- Captain Obadiah Schfeer (Varolian): Previously had a FW model.
- Colonel-Commissar Ibram Gaunt (Tanith First and Only): Previously had a model and also now has a new kit.

- Colonel Schaeffer (13th Penal Legion): Previously had a model.
- Colonel Stranski (Cadian): Previously had a FW model.
[spoiler]- Commander Chenkov (Valhallan Ice Warriors): Previously had a model.

- Colonel Halon Tanz (Mordian Iron Guard): Requires a new model.
- Mogul Kamir (Attilan Rough Riders): Previously had a model.
Spoiler:
- General Grizmund (Narmenian): Previously had a FW model.
- Marshall Karis Venner (Death Korps of Krieg): Previously had a FW model.
- Lieutenant Kage (13th Penal Legion): Previously had a model.
- Fortress of Arrogance (Officio Perfectus): Previously had a model, though I think this may have been a kit bash from memory.
- Lord Solar Macharius: Previously had a model.
- Maximillian Weisemann (Mortant): Previously had a FW model.

Guard characters that had models but never had rules:

- Commissar Ciaphas Cain (Officio Perfectus): Previously had a limited BL model.
- Sergeant "Ripper "Jackson (Catachan): Limited edition model.

Guard characters that never had models but had rules:

Sergeant Lukas Bastonne (Cadian): I think he's the only one.

I'd love to see at least the old school characters to come back in the 9th edition Guard codex. The other named regiments have no characters.

Other characters should definitely be added to legends. It's a shame they disappeared before legends was a thing so they missed out.


Mogul Kamir never had an actual model and I have never heard of Mordian Colonel Halon Tanz, I'm not aware of a model nor rules for him.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/07/30 04:30:35


Post by: Jarms48



Mogul Kamir never had an actual model and I have never heard of Mordian Colonel Halon Tanz, I'm not aware of a model nor rules for him.


Colonel Halon Tanz is a background lore character. I wrote a Google Doc of previous characters and potential characters for Regiments that have either had them or needed them. Must have missed him when I copied the list.

Oh yes, I think you're right on Mogul Kamir. I vaguely remembered a picture of him from the 5th Guard codex, but they may have been just an ordinary Rough Rider. I'll edit that and put him with Sergeant Lukas Bastonne.



Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/01 10:22:22


Post by: A Town Called Malus


If GW wrote the Lord of the Rings Boromir would have survived Amon Hen, Theoden would have survived the Battle of Pelennor Fields, The Witch King of Angmar would have managed to escape before Eowyn could kill him and the story would end just as the Orcs began to march out of the Black Gate to face the army of men.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/01 10:46:34


Post by: BrianDavion


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If GW wrote the Lord of the Rings Boromir would have survived Amon Hen, Theoden would have survived the Battle of Pelennor Fields, The Witch King of Angmar would have managed to escape before Eowyn could kill him and the story would end just as the Orcs began to march out of the Black Gate to face the army of men.


If GW wrote LOTR the fellow ship never would have happened because before the meeting started the elves and dwarves would have gone to war. and Bormir would have had a tentacle for an arm due to the proximity of mordor



Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/01 10:59:55


Post by: A Town Called Malus


BrianDavion wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If GW wrote the Lord of the Rings Boromir would have survived Amon Hen, Theoden would have survived the Battle of Pelennor Fields, The Witch King of Angmar would have managed to escape before Eowyn could kill him and the story would end just as the Orcs began to march out of the Black Gate to face the army of men.


If GW wrote LOTR the fellow ship never would have happened because before the meeting started the elves and dwarves would have gone to war. and Bormir would have had a tentacle for an arm due to the proximity of mordor



Also, the Hobbits would have been cut out in book 2 to make more room for Aragorn and Boromir repeatedly polishing their swords in excruciating detail. The writers would then get increasingly annoyed at people asking what happened to them until in the appendix of Book 15 it would be revealed they were all massacred by a random army of orcs that turned up in the Shire.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/01 11:02:16


Post by: BrianDavion


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If GW wrote the Lord of the Rings Boromir would have survived Amon Hen, Theoden would have survived the Battle of Pelennor Fields, The Witch King of Angmar would have managed to escape before Eowyn could kill him and the story would end just as the Orcs began to march out of the Black Gate to face the army of men.


If GW wrote LOTR the fellow ship never would have happened because before the meeting started the elves and dwarves would have gone to war. and Bormir would have had a tentacle for an arm due to the proximity of mordor



Also, the Hobbits would have been cut out in book 2 and the writers would get increasingly annoyed at people asking what happened to them until in the appendix of Book 15 it would be revealed they were all massacred by a random army of orcs that turned up in the Shire.


and frodo wouldn't exist at all, they'd just use Bilbo.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/01 21:48:33


Post by: PappyNurgle


I have a love hate relationship with named characters. On one hand, love the lore and all and I love the detail on my Mortarion and how intricately I can paint him up. On the other hand... I never really, 100% liked them. Partially due to me liking to custom make stuff, partially because back in the day I had people run like... bajillions of special characters in one army because roflstomp. Was back in the day when special characters were shifting from opponents to permission to open play. The lawless days lol


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/04 14:37:08


Post by: Semper


 Flipsiders wrote:
It's been said before, but it just doesn't make sense that GW prevents named characters from dying in the story.

I can play a game of Magic: The Gathering in which I cast a Planeswalker card, and my opponent follows up with a Planeswalker who canonically died centuries earlier.

I can run a D&D campaign in which my players' characters fight against a canonically-murdered Forgotten Realms deity, complete with official stats.

Why can't Warhammer 40k be the same?



That would literally drive me crazy. Can't stand that type of stuff. If it's dead, it's dead and can't fight something that came after it or long before it that as ceased to be. Fair as an 'ask your opponent' type scenario, sure but otherwise no.

Static setting, named characters are fine. If the setting moves forward then there needs to be changes to how those characters work and feel to represent a similar development or they need to die and not come back. Characters die all the time in fictional settings. People die all the time in reality and life goes on. Not saying it's not tremendously tragic or sad but such is a natural part of reality. The benefit of it being a fictional setting with magic and advanced tech is that some characters can live past their typical sell-by dates or survive things they wouldn't normally but these deus' should be used sparingly and not without consequence imho. In the same breath, though, there needs to be a story outside of the fan made ones. So there should always be an official 'big bad' and a 'hero' that do have plot armour and are very survivable. Some factions would likely only have one or two (such as IG, Tau, Orks, SM, Custards), others (such as Eldar, Crons and CSM) may have more and others would have none (Tyranids) - in short i'm saying there should be named characters but less of them.

One thing I do agree on though is that there should be MORE customisation for home-brewed characters so that players can forge a home narrative. I'm talking near (but not quite) 3rdEd level of customisation. I fondly remember the days when you could pay 15pts to add 1 Attack or 20pts for a wound to a basic chaos lord. It needed toning down but the idea had merit.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/04 21:12:00


Post by: Iracundus


Magic: The Gatherine had an "out" sort of, in that the original conception way back at the beginning of MtG of Planeswalkers were more like gods, and they could have had many avatars at once. Players playing a game were meant to be 2 planeswalkers duelling. The loser was defeated and maybe banished from a plane, but they were not killed. So even "dead" planeswalkers might not really be dead, merely banished and passed out of memory for all those on a certain plane. Casting a "dead" planeswalker could be rationalized perhaps as them (or an avatar of them) making a return.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/04 21:45:35


Post by: Valkyrie


I never was a fan of the "must have permission to use characters" rule, mainly as there were some real dicks in my gaming circle who would just say no out of spite. I think the points limit was a better idea however, like some characters you had to have 1500 or even 2k lists to run.

As for killing characters off, who cares? The point of the game is you can represent any timescale. I'd rather have characters not die than GW killing them off and removing them from the game full-stop.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/05 07:15:43


Post by: kirotheavenger


Part of the problem with characters is that they're basically just generic characters, with maybe an extra stat or minor special rule.

Which means they compete directly with generic characters and they're either better (thus always used by everyone) or worse (thus almost never used by anyone).


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/05 11:51:51


Post by: Olthannon


I think named characters made much more sense in WHFB and that there was usually a much greater likelihood for their appearance in a battle, made sense to have them in larger games. Not so much the case with 40k.

Part of the good thing with 9th and crusade is that they're at least giving people an option of creating their own special characters in game as the narrative progresses. I mean that was the origins of a lot of the special characters from WD.

What I dislike is that if they are so intrinsic to an army on the field that you can't play a game without them. I'd much rather they could be used if you wanted but it's not the be all and end all.

I don't think I ever bought or used a special character in 40k. I always homebrew stuff so it was never an issue.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/05 11:59:13


Post by: Mr Morden


 Iron_Captain wrote:
I wouldn't mind if some named characters died every now and then.

Warhammer Fantasy had quite a few dead named characters (Vlad, Isabelle and Konrad von Carstein, Gorbad Ironclaw, Grom the Paunch, Repanse de Lyonesse and perhaps others I am forgetting about) and it worked just fine. There is no reason why there couldn't be rules for "dead" characters.


Yep - same in Total War: Warhammer with interactions between "people" who lived and died (or were destroyed) centruies apart

Plus 40K has time travel - remember that Ork Warboss who travelled back in time and sought himself to kill him to get a second copy of his gun


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/05 19:10:47


Post by: BrianDavion


 Olthannon wrote:


What I dislike is that if they are so intrinsic to an army on the field that you can't play a game without them. I'd much rather they could be used if you wanted but it's not the be all and end all.

.


except it's quite possiable to play a game without using a special character.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/05 19:18:32


Post by: TinyLegions


Cannon wise I do tend to agree that we generally see special characters treated with kid gloves by the writers. A prime example is the wrap-up of the SOC back in WFB. The OP's argument in a practical manner that you will piss off your base if you kill off a popular character sounds solid. Albeit, Gee Dubs seems to have no problem pissing off their base on a regular basis on a number of fronts. Having said that, one of the reason why I picked Crimson Fists for a Space Marine army is due to Pedro Cantor.

Game wise it is a little different story for me. I don't remember where I saw it , but it was written in an older editions BRB, that a "Kill" means that the model is in-capacitated and thus unable to continue on with the battle. Therefore, even regular grunts are not exactly killed outright every time they get removed from the table. It was also part of some of the supplemental Campaign rules that was used back in WFB, but with more attrition than what I would expect from Sci-Fi It is a sentiment that I continue to use to this day in almost all of my gaming, unless the model is supposed to already be dead.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/06 07:23:22


Post by: kirotheavenger


I know the "they're not necessarily killed" is a common justification, but it doesn't actually make sense. You don't get ripped apart by a Genestealer who proceeds to use an ability to eat your brain without being dead.
I think it's better to just not take the tabletop as canon.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/06 07:33:45


Post by: PaddyMick


Another way to make a model redundant is to bring out a new bigger model of the character. One day though i'll bring 2nd ed Ghaz to a tourney on a huge base just for the lulz.

Some great posts in this thread. Well said Karak. 40k is what you make it.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/06 09:33:42


Post by: Olthannon


BrianDavion wrote:
 Olthannon wrote:


What I dislike is that if they are so intrinsic to an army on the field that you can't play a game without them. I'd much rather they could be used if you wanted but it's not the be all and end all.

.


except it's quite possiable to play a game without using a special character.


Right but for say Cawl and Ad Mech in 8th edition, how many armies were there that didn't use him because of the meta?

That's what I meant in my post, it's fine when you can happily not take them.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/06 09:38:17


Post by: BrianDavion


 Olthannon wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Olthannon wrote:


What I dislike is that if they are so intrinsic to an army on the field that you can't play a game without them. I'd much rather they could be used if you wanted but it's not the be all and end all.

.


except it's quite possiable to play a game without using a special character.


Right but for say Cawl and Ad Mech in 8th edition, how many armies were there that didn't use him because of the meta?

That's what I meant in my post, it's fine when you can happily not take them.


well it's a flaw of the game when you're basicly forced to take ANY unit because your army is massivly worse without it. be it a special character, a special unit or a tank


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/08/06 09:52:10


Post by: Nibbler


Not sure if anyone mentioned it in this thread already, but looking at other systems, especially warmachine/hordes, there seems to be quite more progression in the setting and in the evolution of characters...

There exist different iterations of the characters, with different abilites, stats and equipment, that can be brought to any game. Such a game might be questionable, in terms of a narrative event, but they are absolutely fine in terms of matched / competitive play.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/26 13:03:30


Post by: streetsamurai


 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo this named character stuff worked so much better when:
A: They were used "with opponents permission" only.
B: When GW didn't really advance the setting.
and
C: When you had more freedom to build your own characters.

I dislike the importance given to named characters these days, both on and off the tabletop. This makes the game less about "your dudes" and more about "GWs dudes TM", which is sad.


Exactly this. Not to mention that these named characters turns the.game, and the story, into a superhero comic


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/26 18:21:42


Post by: Tawnis


Up until 7th edition when we were essentially stuck in time, I didn't mind this, but now, yeah I totally agree.

What I think an elegant solution would be would be that every characters general wargear profile (the weapons and things like jump packs they use) should be accessible in some way by standard marines. They should still have their specials and such, but there should be vannila versions.

Take everybody's favorite emo marine Kayvaan Shrike. If you could use the model also as a Primaris Captain in Phobos armor with Lightning Claw / Heavy Bolt Pistol and a Jump Pack, then there's no issue. They could kill of Shrike in the story, but people could still use his model in game, either in campaigns from before he died, or just as a regular Captain.

I don't think that by any means major characters getting killed off would make people that upset. I mean, there are some people who just like to get angry at anything, but overall, especailly compared to many other complaints GW gets thrown at them, I think it would make little if any impact sales wise and make the lore far more interesting (which could then quite possible push BL sales).


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/26 19:19:50


Post by: catbarf


Part of why I liked 40K thematically more than Warmachine back in the day was because I could play as a regiment I invented, led by officers I invented. Meanwhile in Warmachine my forces were organized around Magnus The Traitor and were narratively constrained as a result.

40K has gradually shifted much more in the Warmachine direction. You're much more heavily incentivized to take special characters, and they're no longer the 'with permission only' entries intended for narrative play.

Competitively, it was more interesting for Warmachine because the entire game was designed around you picking one character to lead your force, and those characters had attendant strengths and weaknesses that shaped how your army played. In 40K characters tend to just supercharge their respective subfaction, and it makes for a less interesting dynamic.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 02:26:00


Post by: Voss


Nibbler wrote:
Not sure if anyone mentioned it in this thread already, but looking at other systems, especially warmachine/hordes, there seems to be quite more progression in the setting and in the evolution of characters...

There exist different iterations of the characters, with different abilites, stats and equipment, that can be brought to any game. Such a game might be questionable, in terms of a narrative event, but they are absolutely fine in terms of matched / competitive play.


Eh... no. No they aren't.
I broke a league with Epic Vlad (way back, end of first edition or beginning of 2nd). First turn victories and absurd shenanigans for buffing even basic infantry to god tier. It would have been abandoned entirely had I just not stopped bringing him.
Others were bad enough to struggle getting out of a wet paper bag.

Warmachine is heavily about tier rankings for various pieces, especially including warcasters/warlocks.
From a narrative perspective, the old versions shouldn't even exist, which is problematic for a game that's explicitly on a timeline, not just questionable. There are entire factions that the 'original versions' of the warcasters never met because they didn't exist as fighting forces in the world when the younger versions of those characters were running around.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 03:58:19


Post by: jeff white


Insectum had it right for me, first response post page one, exalted.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 05:46:33


Post by: tneva82


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

But when there are physical models to sell? Not so much. Given special characters attract a premium price (mostly because peeps will only buy one of each), it would genuinely and understandably irritate folks to have something they just spent a decent slice of money on, and time painting, snuff it..


Ah yes the Solar Macharium was sooooo alive and kicking when the model was sale wasn't he


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 06:58:28


Post by: Deadnight


 streetsamurai wrote:


Exactly this. Not to mention that these named characters turns the.game, and the story, into a superhero comic


I remember speaking to jervis one time and he explained how back in third, they made a 'bare boned' lore with the explicitly aim to give players and hobbyists space to make ^their^ individual forces and heroes.

What happened was people kept asking for more stories of ^named chapter^ and ^named hero^ and the idea to have ^your own personally created hero^ as the driving force of the game was quietly replaced with more focus on Names. This has been true since at least 5th edition.theyve not gotten rid of 'make your own hero' but they have acknowledged its more of a niche request.

Basically gw went in a direction that a lot of players were asking for and where they saw business potential.

Having a small cast drive the entire narrative can be annoying at times but it's narrative 101 for a lot of modern media, not just superhero stuff, whether tv's game of thrones, vikings etc. I presume it's easier to write for or something like that.



Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 12:09:11


Post by: Da Boss


Yep. I've also observed that the more character focused, comic book style stuff is really popular. Just look at how popular the primarchs are, the way they are presented is full on comic book style right down to having them die and come back. And they're by far and away one of the most popular aspects of the background.

I think lots of people really like that kind of stuff. It's not really my cup of tea, but I recognise now that I'm in the minority and can't really begrudge GW for pursuing the main audience.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 14:01:24


Post by: xerxeskingofking


its not really a "comic book" thing, though. Most Soap operas have small casts, and even the larger ones normally have only have 10-20 characters actually active, and normally focused on a subset of the full cast for a given storyline. Most wrestling (which, lets face it, is just a macho soap opera*) is similar, with each story only having a few active characters and others dipping in as bit players.

History often gets this treatment as well, as people will describe history in terms of the Great Men(tm) who were the able to shape history. How many WW2 documentaries talk about "Rommel vs Monty" like it was the two of them in the ring for a boxing match, and not "Afrika corps vs 8th army", for example? the further back you go in history the more pronounced this is. pretty much all most people know about the Romans is Caesar, Augustus and maybe Pompey. Almost everything we know form the historical record about those times is framed through the actions of these Great Men(tm).

and its present in many other areas of life, as well. how many people talk about politics like the parties consist of JUST the party leaders and no one else? discussion of sports teams often devolves in to a game of "<my star player> is better than <your star player>", and how many people talk about "Zuckerberg" as shorthand for "the whole of Facebook's corporate apparatus"?

I dont think its fair to blame comic books, or GW, for something thats present and widespread in our society as a whole.


rant over, back to just 40K:

I think the issue with special characters is, personally, in the context of 40k lore, they lower the stakes. I know that if, say, Ahriman and Logan Grimmar are thrown together in a ULTIMATE SHOWDOWN OF ULTIMATE DESTINEY, its nothing of the sort. Nothing Meaningful is going to change. both those guys are going to walk away with no lasting harm, no great change to the setting will happen, their will be no real consequence to the fight, because the writers of these fights dont have the authority to make major changes to the overarching plot. They can't kill or seriously cripple a character, they cant have one faction suffer a major setback, etc.

because i know the end result is "status quo", it really takes the tension out of the fights.

* and I must stress that THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. I enjoy watching wrestling sometimes, i'm not taking a cheap shot at it, just pointing out that it really is, at its heart, built around the personal dramas of a small set of peers, like soap operas are.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 14:30:01


Post by: Insectum7


xerxeskingofking wrote:
its not really a "comic book" thing, though. Most Soap operas have small casts, and even the larger ones normally have only have 10-20 characters actually active, and normally focused on a subset of the full cast for a given storyline. Most wrestling (which, lets face it, is just a macho soap opera*) is similar, with each story only having a few active characters and others dipping in as bit players.

History often gets this treatment as well, as people will describe history in terms of the Great Men(tm) who were the able to shape history. How many WW2 documentaries talk about "Rommel vs Monty" like it was the two of them in the ring for a boxing match, and not "Afrika corps vs 8th army", for example? the further back you go in history the more pronounced this is. pretty much all most people know about the Romans is Caesar, Augustus and maybe Pompey. Almost everything we know form the historical record about those times is framed through the actions of these Great Men(tm).

and its present in many other areas of life, as well. how many people talk about politics like the parties consist of JUST the party leaders and no one else? discussion of sports teams often devolves in to a game of "<my star player> is better than <your star player>", and how many people talk about "Zuckerberg" as shorthand for "the whole of Facebook's corporate apparatus"?

I dont think its fair to blame comic books, or GW, for something thats present and widespread in our society as a whole.


I think it's totally fair to blame GW because they didn't do this back in the day. They slid into it somehow, by culture or creed, and it's a negative for the setting and hobby.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 15:00:19


Post by: Deadnight


 Insectum7 wrote:


I think it's totally fair to blame GW because they didn't do this back in the day. They slid into it somehow, by culture or creed, and it's a negative for the setting and hobby.


Hmm, I think ^blame^ is probably the wrong word. They've done nothing particularly wrong in focusing on Names.

They slid to it because its what most of the fan base wanted, ultimately- so if you want to ^blame^ anyone, it's on us, the fan base, as well. And I personally dont think it's a particularly fair criticism to level. People are not wrong for subjectively liking stories about Names. Gw are not wrong for catering to that.

They did the focus on 'letting players make the story theirs' back in third and earlier and it went down like a lead balloon. Even then it was the Names that People were drawn to. People weren't interested in making the story 'theirs'. People want stories about their favourite heroes. Its that simple. Gw is not wrong by targeting what they see as what the fanbase wants, especially when they still leave space there for those that do want to do that. And clearly, in this particular case they're not far off the mark.its been a huge success over the last 15 or 20 years. The direction has been vindicated.

It's as true for 40k as season whatever of Sons of Anarchy or whatever show, series or story you care to name. Or warmachine. People get behind Names.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 16:13:41


Post by: macluvin


Aw. The biggest appeal to me for 40k is the chance to explore the universe through the eyes of my own unnamed characters and write their own stories of victory and defeat. Even the idea of doing the equivalent of rolling up another character should a previous character die on the table top would have been cool and kept me at the end of my seat. I guess I am just that weird that I’m not like the fan base clinging to the named dudes. I liked them for inspiration though. Also their minis can be pretty cool, but I’ve been more interested in making the named mini my dude than anything else.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 17:50:39


Post by: xerxeskingofking


 Insectum7 wrote:

I think it's totally fair to blame GW because they didn't do this back in the day.



But they did.

2nd edition, the codexes were still full of stories about the named characters. Gaz vs Yarrick, the Phoenix Lords, the Primarchs and the basic plot of the Heresy, thats all lore form the early to mid 90s. it was all well established stuff when I started playing back in '98. maybe not as prominent, but it was always their.

And as to the more recent prominence? well, like others have said, its clearly worked for them, so "the customer is always right" in its original meaning is clearly in effect here.

As much as you or I dislike the way they've taken over the narrative, it has clearly helped GW grow the business to far beyond what it was before by any pretty much any metric you choose to name. Does that make us grognards who liked 40K "before it was cool"? Maybe, hell probably, but its clear that it works for them and is going to continue, dispite however much i might wish for some changes to that (like killing off a few characters in the lore, etc).


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 18:33:55


Post by: Insectum7


xerxeskingofking wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:

I think it's totally fair to blame GW because they didn't do this back in the day.



But they did.

2nd edition, the codexes were still full of stories about the named characters. Gaz vs Yarrick, the Phoenix Lords, the Primarchs and the basic plot of the Heresy, thats all lore form the early to mid 90s. it was all well established stuff when I started playing back in '98. maybe not as prominent, but it was always their.
They existed, yes. But there were good stretches of time where they were "by opponents permission only" and occasionally disallowed in tournaments.

At the same time there were far more ways to build your own characters up, through Wargear cards etc.

Since then they've removed options from building your own characters, as well as occasionally using named characters to build-unlock, making them necessary for some armies.


And as to the more recent prominence? well, like others have said, its clearly worked for them, so "the customer is always right" in its original meaning is clearly in effect here.

As much as you or I dislike the way they've taken over the narrative, it has clearly helped GW grow the business to far beyond what it was before by any pretty much any metric you choose to name. Does that make us grognards who liked 40K "before it was cool"? Maybe, hell probably, but its clear that it works for them and is going to continue, dispite however much i might wish for some changes to that (like killing off a few characters in the lore, etc).
Well for starters it's good to remember that correlation doesn't mean causation. And it's not like I think these characters shouldn't exist. All we're asking is for there to be less focus on them in the "grand narrative" and more space used for "character without immediately purchaseable model", as well as potentially more options for building our own (specifically Chaos Lords and Eldar Exarch/Autarchs from my point of view, because they've lost a lot over the years.)




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


I think it's totally fair to blame GW because they didn't do this back in the day. They slid into it somehow, by culture or creed, and it's a negative for the setting and hobby.

. . .
They did the focus on 'letting players make the story theirs' back in third and earlier and it went down like a lead balloon. . .

I seem to recall that 2nd ed was a definite period of growth, so I'm not sure I'd say it went down like a lead balloon.

And I knew a lot of people who quit at the start of 3rd ed, and not a single one of them called out being unable to take special characters. There was a radical shift in paradigm that didn't jibe with people that had nothing to do with characters. In fact, I could argue that one of the potential things driving people away was the inability to make and customize their own characters as much!

. . .
Like I said, it's fine that they exist. Just try not to name drop them all the goddamn time.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 18:56:47


Post by: jeff white


Deadnight wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:


I think it's totally fair to blame GW because they didn't do this back in the day. They slid into it somehow, by culture or creed, and it's a negative for the setting and hobby.


Hmm, I think ^blame^ is probably the wrong word. They've done nothing particularly wrong in focusing on Names.

They slid to it because its what most of the fan base wanted, ultimately-
Spoiler:
so if you want to ^blame^ anyone, it's on us, the fan base, as well. And I personally dont think it's a particularly fair criticism to level. People are not wrong for subjectively liking stories about Names. Gw are not wrong for catering to that.

They did the focus on 'letting players make the story theirs' back in third and earlier and it went down like a lead balloon. Even then it was the Names that People were drawn to. People weren't interested in making the story 'theirs'. People want stories about their favourite heroes. Its that simple. Gw is not wrong by targeting what they see as what the fanbase wants, especially when they still leave space there for those that do want to do that. And clearly, in this particular case they're not far off the mark.its been a huge success over the last 15 or 20 years. The direction has been vindicated.

It's as true for 40k as season whatever of Sons of Anarchy or whatever show, series or story you care to name. Or warmachine. People get behind Names
.
How has this been established? I must have missed that…

Seems that some people responded to the support to make your own dudes with requests for more of what wasn’t there, per the Jervis anecdote above. Now, we see the same. Shouldn’t we expect similar support for your dudes and not so much for named characters in every game, if this is the case?

Besides, named characters were always around. Their use in gams was discouraged. They were too point heavy and too powerful, and required a narrative reason and typically prior agreement with opponents. These days, it is difficult to find batreps on YT that don’t use named characters… I think that this is boring bad for the game, and has more to do with corporate control than that it was what “most” people wanted… else we should see a similar swing in the other direction, now.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 19:17:16


Post by: the_scotsman


 jeff white wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:


I think it's totally fair to blame GW because they didn't do this back in the day. They slid into it somehow, by culture or creed, and it's a negative for the setting and hobby.


Hmm, I think ^blame^ is probably the wrong word. They've done nothing particularly wrong in focusing on Names.

They slid to it because its what most of the fan base wanted, ultimately-
Spoiler:
so if you want to ^blame^ anyone, it's on us, the fan base, as well. And I personally dont think it's a particularly fair criticism to level. People are not wrong for subjectively liking stories about Names. Gw are not wrong for catering to that.

They did the focus on 'letting players make the story theirs' back in third and earlier and it went down like a lead balloon. Even then it was the Names that People were drawn to. People weren't interested in making the story 'theirs'. People want stories about their favourite heroes. Its that simple. Gw is not wrong by targeting what they see as what the fanbase wants, especially when they still leave space there for those that do want to do that. And clearly, in this particular case they're not far off the mark.its been a huge success over the last 15 or 20 years. The direction has been vindicated.

It's as true for 40k as season whatever of Sons of Anarchy or whatever show, series or story you care to name. Or warmachine. People get behind Names
.
How has this been established? I must have missed that…

Seems that some people responded to the support to make your own dudes with requests for more of what wasn’t there, per the Jervis anecdote above. Now, we see the same. Shouldn’t we expect similar support for your dudes and not so much for named characters in every game, if this is the case?

Besides, named characters were always around. Their use in gams was discouraged. They were too point heavy and too powerful, and required a narrative reason and typically prior agreement with opponents. These days, it is difficult to find batreps on YT that don’t use named characters… I think that this is boring bad for the game, and has more to do with corporate control than that it was what “most” people wanted… else we should see a similar swing in the other direction, now.


My friend, if you say the words "Corporate Control" and think anything other than "What makes the Corporation the most money from the most people" then you would be....uh...wrong.

You would be wrong. Sorry. The guy youre responding to is correct here. the 40k setting became an all-marines-all-the-time ensemble cast battle anime because that is the thing people bought more of and wanted more of.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 19:20:09


Post by: Insectum7


^Coorperate control has more options at it's disposal than chasing the lowest common denominator for $$$


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 19:21:37


Post by: the_scotsman


xerxeskingofking wrote:
its not really a "comic book" thing, though. Most Soap operas have small casts, and even the larger ones normally have only have 10-20 characters actually active, and normally focused on a subset of the full cast for a given storyline. Most wrestling (which, lets face it, is just a macho soap opera*) is similar, with each story only having a few active characters and others dipping in as bit players.

History often gets this treatment as well, as people will describe history in terms of the Great Men(tm) who were the able to shape history. How many WW2 documentaries talk about "Rommel vs Monty" like it was the two of them in the ring for a boxing match, and not "Afrika corps vs 8th army", for example? the further back you go in history the more pronounced this is. pretty much all most people know about the Romans is Caesar, Augustus and maybe Pompey. Almost everything we know form the historical record about those times is framed through the actions of these Great Men(tm).

and its present in many other areas of life, as well. how many people talk about politics like the parties consist of JUST the party leaders and no one else? discussion of sports teams often devolves in to a game of "<my star player> is better than <your star player>", and how many people talk about "Zuckerberg" as shorthand for "the whole of Facebook's corporate apparatus"?

I dont think its fair to blame comic books, or GW, for something thats present and widespread in our society as a whole.


rant over, back to just 40K:

I think the issue with special characters is, personally, in the context of 40k lore, they lower the stakes. I know that if, say, Ahriman and Logan Grimmar are thrown together in a ULTIMATE SHOWDOWN OF ULTIMATE DESTINEY, its nothing of the sort. Nothing Meaningful is going to change. both those guys are going to walk away with no lasting harm, no great change to the setting will happen, their will be no real consequence to the fight, because the writers of these fights dont have the authority to make major changes to the overarching plot. They can't kill or seriously cripple a character, they cant have one faction suffer a major setback, etc.

because i know the end result is "status quo", it really takes the tension out of the fights.

* and I must stress that THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. I enjoy watching wrestling sometimes, i'm not taking a cheap shot at it, just pointing out that it really is, at its heart, built around the personal dramas of a small set of peers, like soap operas are.


This is 10000% accurate and also really really funny coming from a guy whose username is 'xerxes, king of kings.'

I'd also once again like to point out that, hilariously, EVERY BAD GUY* FACTION IN THE 40K UNIVERSE HAS A RESURRECTION MECHANIC so that the good guys can safely win and kill the bad guys any time the writers want them to. Tyranids Necrons Dark Eldar Chaos and Orks are all narratively designed to lose, every. single. fight.

(*yes I know Um Ackshually Everyone In 40k Is The Bad Guys I mean the factions that have the obvious cackling saturday morning cartoon villain spikey sinister monster aesthetic)


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 19:39:40


Post by: Las


I've noticed the change in GW's philosophy affecting my behaviour on the tabletop. When modelling an army, I used to always take the "generic" HQ option and kit him out as I liked from the wargear options, modelling a bespoke "my dude" to fit my fluff.

These days, I'm still kitbashing and converting my own bespoke dudes, but I almost always use them as "counts as" named-characters because the armies are so clearly designed around their use. The edge on the tabletop has overcome the head-canon rationalization needed.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 19:43:48


Post by: jeff white


Yeah, that is what I see on batreps a lot too. That and just using the named character…


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^Coorperate control has more options at it's disposal than chasing the lowest common denominator for $$$

Right. Truth is, after a decision is made, one cannot know that it made the most money. This is presumed. And controlling IP and how it gets used may be part of a strategy to do that, one that might seem to work as it might appear to tap into untapped potential, but, again, wouldn’t the people wishing for a return of convertibility and ones own dudes represent such an untapped market now, if profits were the only object? Is it possible that stock evaluations are related with profits but also how a company controls IP so that competitors cannot take this market?


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 19:52:10


Post by: Insectum7


 the_scotsman wrote:
xerxeskingofking wrote:
Spoiler:
its not really a "comic book" thing, though. Most Soap operas have small casts, and even the larger ones normally have only have 10-20 characters actually active, and normally focused on a subset of the full cast for a given storyline. Most wrestling (which, lets face it, is just a macho soap opera*) is similar, with each story only having a few active characters and others dipping in as bit players.

History often gets this treatment as well, as people will describe history in terms of the Great Men(tm) who were the able to shape history. How many WW2 documentaries talk about "Rommel vs Monty" like it was the two of them in the ring for a boxing match, and not "Afrika corps vs 8th army", for example? the further back you go in history the more pronounced this is. pretty much all most people know about the Romans is Caesar, Augustus and maybe Pompey. Almost everything we know form the historical record about those times is framed through the actions of these Great Men(tm).

and its present in many other areas of life, as well. how many people talk about politics like the parties consist of JUST the party leaders and no one else? discussion of sports teams often devolves in to a game of "<my star player> is better than <your star player>", and how many people talk about "Zuckerberg" as shorthand for "the whole of Facebook's corporate apparatus"?

I dont think its fair to blame comic books, or GW, for something thats present and widespread in our society as a whole.


rant over, back to just 40K:

I think the issue with special characters is, personally, in the context of 40k lore, they lower the stakes. I know that if, say, Ahriman and Logan Grimmar are thrown together in a ULTIMATE SHOWDOWN OF ULTIMATE DESTINEY, its nothing of the sort. Nothing Meaningful is going to change. both those guys are going to walk away with no lasting harm, no great change to the setting will happen, their will be no real consequence to the fight, because the writers of these fights dont have the authority to make major changes to the overarching plot. They can't kill or seriously cripple a character, they cant have one faction suffer a major setback, etc.

because i know the end result is "status quo", it really takes the tension out of the fights.

* and I must stress that THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. I enjoy watching wrestling sometimes, i'm not taking a cheap shot at it, just pointing out that it really is, at its heart, built around the personal dramas of a small set of peers, like soap operas are.


This is 10000% accurate and also really really funny coming from a guy whose username is 'xerxes, king of kings.'

I'd also once again like to point out that, hilariously, EVERY BAD GUY* FACTION IN THE 40K UNIVERSE HAS A RESURRECTION MECHANIC so that the good guys can safely win and kill the bad guys any time the writers want them to. Tyranids Necrons Dark Eldar Chaos and Orks are all narratively designed to lose, every. single. fight.

(*yes I know Um Ackshually Everyone In 40k Is The Bad Guys I mean the factions that have the obvious cackling saturday morning cartoon villain spikey sinister monster aesthetic)
Riiight. . But it's that whole "Ressurection excuse" that makes it a comic book thing. Alexander the Great in RL died. Patton died. When character hero/villain comes back from the dead to fight another day so we can get the rematch. . . that's the comic book thing.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 20:30:34


Post by: Gert


Jesus supposedly came back from the dead though. Wasn't aware the New Testament was a comic.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 20:38:16


Post by: Insectum7


 Gert wrote:
Jesus supposedly came back from the dead though. Wasn't aware the New Testament was a comic.
Uhhhhhhh. . .


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/27 23:06:45


Post by: Jarms48


I don't mind named characters in the narrative or the tabletop. What I do mind is how common they are.

They might as well be teleporting everywhere fighting against the monster of the week. Instead they should really stick to their areas of the galaxy.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 02:24:40


Post by: Mmmpi


 Gert wrote:
Jesus supposedly came back from the dead though. Wasn't aware the New Testament was a comic.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga_Bible_(series)


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 06:29:42


Post by: Da Boss


 Gert wrote:
Jesus supposedly came back from the dead though. Wasn't aware the New Testament was a comic.


Did Jesus come back from the dead after an epic battle against Judas, where he displayed his themed superpowers and narrowly lost the fight?

I'd probably still have left the catholic church if that was the case for all the other excellent reasons, but I'd remember more of the bible I'm pretty sure.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 08:03:40


Post by: endlesswaltz123


There should be 1x special character in each army who breaks the standard rules of what a character should be able to do - Robby, Mortarion, Gaz, swarmlord etc etc, but they should pay the cost for it, and it shouldn't be so cheap it's an auto take - and arguably should be locked to 2000+pt games.

Every other special character should be based on a standard character but with additions that are paid for, be that stats, weapons, extra rules (that are standard rules - marine captain acting as a lieutenant also with re-roll 1's to wound as well). Good but not game breaking and based off the standard 'special rules' of that faction, and they should be paid for.

This is where I liked USC's in the past to be honest.

Also, named characters are fine, but like in 2nd/3rd edition, a lot of them should be for legacy battles... As they are dead.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 09:39:28


Post by: mrFickle


Doesn’t the new SM codex allow for you to create your own heroes, or is that crusade?


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 10:23:42


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Crusade.

"Requires Opponent's Permission" just means that people assume it's because they're overpowered, so never give permission.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 12:13:37


Post by: Platuan4th


 Gert wrote:
Jesus supposedly came back from the dead though. Wasn't aware the New Testament was a comic.


It's a fictionalized version of a character with super powers, sounds like a comic to me.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 12:41:59


Post by: triplegrim


I love special characters. They give chapters like the Blood Angels lots of character. Even if you dont use them, knowing there are madmen like Mephiston and Astorath among their ranks makes them much more amusing to play.

Same with that interrogator chaplain (azrael?) among the Dark Angels who tortures his prisoners too hard and ends up killing them before they repent, making him a miserable failure to the rest of the chapter, having ever turned two fallen dark angels. Gives a lot of characterization and inspiration about -what- and -how- a chapter feels. Even if you just use generic hqs.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 13:09:51


Post by: Gert


Spoiler:
 Platuan4th wrote:
It's a fictionalized version of a character with super powers, sounds like a comic to me.

 Da Boss wrote:
Did Jesus come back from the dead after an epic battle against Judas, where he displayed his themed superpowers and narrowly lost the fight?

I'd probably still have left the catholic church if that was the case for all the other excellent reasons, but I'd remember more of the bible I'm pretty sure.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Uhhhhhhh. . .

The point I was making with that little joke is that it's not the fault of comics or TV shows that 40k saw a shift of focus onto Named Characters (although generally, I don't find this to be 100% accurate). Settings are cool and all but stories are better, and while you can absolutely still make your own stories and are actively encouraged to do so, GW adding NC's gives the overarching story of 40k some anchors with which people can craft a narrative.
You can go back to some of the oldest stories on Earth and find superhuman people with amazing abilities accomplishing heroic tasks and impossible feats.
Take the Trojan War. What's more appealing? A story of Greek expansion into Asia Minor where they sack a city called Troy, OR, a story where the Trojan prince steals away the most beautiful woman in the world and starts a war that drags in the greatest legends of Ancient Greece?


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 15:51:35


Post by: Grimtuff


 Gert wrote:
Jesus supposedly came back from the dead though. Wasn't aware the New Testament was a comic.


It is. It's called Godyssey and he kicks the gak out of Zeus. Checkmate.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 16:12:41


Post by: Da Boss


Gert: Listen, I can totally accept that you can prefer a story to a setting. But they're different things, and one isn't automatically better than another. When I'm reading a novel or watching a film, I want a story with characters that I care about.
But when I'm playing a creative game like a fantasy wargame or a roleplaying game, I want space to create my own stuff, I want inspiration for that. I think that a setting focus rather than a story focus works better for that. I see 40K as a space to be a creator rather than a consumer.

But, and I don't mean this in some disparaging hipster way, I can see that that's the minority view so I understand why GW have chosen to go in the direction they have. It's just not really for me.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 18:02:29


Post by: Gert


But what part of 40k doesn't let you craft your own narrative? GW literally introduced a whole system for you to do this with Crusade and the Galaxy is still just as big as it was. The only thing 40k doesn't have that AoS does is Anvil of Apotheosis for super custom character creation.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 18:20:48


Post by: Insectum7


 Gert wrote:
Spoiler:
 Platuan4th wrote:
It's a fictionalized version of a character with super powers, sounds like a comic to me.

 Da Boss wrote:
Did Jesus come back from the dead after an epic battle against Judas, where he displayed his themed superpowers and narrowly lost the fight?

I'd probably still have left the catholic church if that was the case for all the other excellent reasons, but I'd remember more of the bible I'm pretty sure.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Uhhhhhhh. . .

The point I was making with that little joke is that it's not the fault of comics or TV shows that 40k saw a shift of focus onto Named Characters (although generally, I don't find this to be 100% accurate). Settings are cool and all but stories are better, and while you can absolutely still make your own stories and are actively encouraged to do so, GW adding NC's gives the overarching story of 40k some anchors with which people can craft a narrative.
You can go back to some of the oldest stories on Earth and find superhuman people with amazing abilities accomplishing heroic tasks and impossible feats.
Take the Trojan War. What's more appealing? A story of Greek expansion into Asia Minor where they sack a city called Troy, OR, a story where the Trojan prince steals away the most beautiful woman in the world and starts a war that drags in the greatest legends of Ancient Greece?


“Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”

Many stories (especially religious ones) use characters in them to express ideas in a way that's easily palatable and memorable to an audience/populace. So in a sense, of course characters pop up. That's all well and good.

The problem with GW is that we see the same friggin characters all the friggin time . . . in a universe with millions (trillions) of potential stories to be told. Plus, when they're using named characters, they can't ever put these characters in any real risk, so a lot of the tension is then lifted from a story, and storytelling can suffer for it. In addition there's a big risk of the focus of the story becoming about the character themselves, rather then the idea that the story might otherwise express. Writing a story about an anonymous Imperial citizen encountering Necrons for the first time - the story, while using characters, is really about making the Necrons feel like a major threat. If the story is written from the UM perspective with Captain Sicarius at the helm. . . well that runs a hefty risk of being about how cool Sicarius is instead, and about how indomitable the UM are.



Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 18:49:40


Post by: Da Boss


 Gert wrote:
But what part of 40k doesn't let you craft your own narrative? GW literally introduced a whole system for you to do this with Crusade and the Galaxy is still just as big as it was. The only thing 40k doesn't have that AoS does is Anvil of Apotheosis for super custom character creation.


It's a feeling that the setting has shrunk, that freedom is constrained by an overdeveloped and over detailed canon, and that these big characters are everywhere. It doesn't stop me from doing my own thing, but it means I'm not engaged with GW material any more in the same way. No worries, no big deal. I've been into GW stuff for over 20 years, it'd be weird if I was still into it in the same way.

If you read my posts and see intense emotion of any sort about this stuff, it's not actually there. I'm pretty chill about all of this and happily working away on my own stuff. But if the question is posed as to what I think, I'm also happy enough to answer it.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/28 20:31:42


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Hmm, I'm with Gert on that one. It's a huge galaxy that hasn't become smaller (well, the Rift destroyed a lot of stuff, but still...). I agree that the way GW tells the story isn't that great (why is Typhus wherever the DG appears?), but I can still tell a story on planet dropterius Maxima about my custom vectorium under Lord Anthraxas from the 4th Plague company. It's just that GW doesn't tell those generic stories anymore. I got the campaign book for the fight about medusa (3rd Edition?), while it's kind of nice to read it's basically exactly like the intro of Dow Soulstorm .


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/29 13:28:47


Post by: Salted Diamond


I feel the problem with named characters is that they are always better then a generic (except maybe in the points cost). If they had give them identical stats to generics but gave each a unique interaction with their own Chapter tactics that replaces "Rites of Battle" I feel it might help balance the need to always take a named character.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/29 14:15:04


Post by: Waaaghbert


 Gert wrote:
But what part of 40k doesn't let you craft your own narrative? GW literally introduced a whole system for you to do this with Crusade and the Galaxy is still just as big as it was. The only thing 40k doesn't have that AoS does is Anvil of Apotheosis for super custom character creation.


What if I want to play Ynnari, but don't want to use one of the existing, named characters? Same with creations of bile.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/29 14:48:40


Post by: Gert


 Salted Diamond wrote:
I feel the problem with named characters is that they are always better then a generic (except maybe in the points cost). If they had give them identical stats to generics but gave each a unique interaction with their own Chapter tactics that replaces "Rites of Battle" I feel it might help balance the need to always take a named character.

That's not quite accurate though since many NC's are just "meh" or provide minimal benefits. Who's taking Sergeant Chronus or Jarran Kell in their lists?
If we go into HH there's boatloads of NC's and a solid 60% are just a bit worse than a basic HQ choice, with many being superceded by Praetors.

Waaaghbert wrote:

What if I want to play Ynnari, but don't want to use one of the existing, named characters? Same with creations of bile.

They are exceptions to the rule.
Ynnari are in a very weird place right now TBF and it's clear nobody at GW knows what to do with the faction.
CoB are built around Bile. Without him the faction doesn't exist.
I would say having 2 subfactions out of what, like 50, being required to take NC is not the "gotcha" you think it is.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/29 15:20:54


Post by: Salted Diamond


 Gert wrote:
 Salted Diamond wrote:
I feel the problem with named characters is that they are always better then a generic (except maybe in the points cost). If they had give them identical stats to generics but gave each a unique interaction with their own Chapter tactics that replaces "Rites of Battle" I feel it might help balance the need to always take a named character.

That's not quite accurate though since many NC's are just "meh" or provide minimal benefits. Who's taking Sergeant Chronus or Jarran Kell in their lists?
If we go into HH there's boatloads of NC's and a solid 60% are just a bit worse than a basic HQ choice, with many being superceded by Praetors.
But they are better then the generic versions. Chronus in a tank is better then a tank without him it's more just vehicles in general are not great right now, and Kell has no generic version to compare to. If vehicles become useful again, I can see UM players finding a place Chronus

I should probably clarify my opinion that when you have an option between a named and a generic, the named is always a better choice (point cost not included). There is nothing to encourage players to not take the NC


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/29 15:42:41


Post by: Gert


Relics, faction choice, upgrade options.
There are definitely reasons to not include NC's.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/29 16:23:47


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Indeed. As long as I know 40K there's rather been the complaint that most named characters in that game are just generic chars with bad loadout
I'd say most chars nowadays also do something special, no?
Can't list all of them but from my factions (DG,Nurgle Daemons, Orks) Rotigus and the new guy on white squig are probably the boring ones as they're just generic chars but a little bit better, while others have some interesting Aura that encourage you to build specific lists.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/30 15:45:21


Post by: solkan


Special characters exist because the game designers survive off of the anguish of war gamers. It's the only logical explanation.

It's certainly not because of the conflicting goals of:
* Believe it or not, there are people who ask for unique, special versions of the generic upgrade troops.
* It's easier (and even possible) to balance a specific combination of abilities (like you'd see packaged as a special character), compared to trying to balance a point based abilities and equipment list. (Equipment lists just generate all of the overpowered/underpriced/combo hunting you see in list creation, on the model level.)

That's part of the reason why the old advice was "Go ahead and make your own dude with this dude's stats and abilities, if you want."

Conclusion: Wargamers are responsible for everything wrong with wargaming.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/30 17:24:54


Post by: mrFickle


Are the objections the names characters in the game or in the fluff or both? Without characters with names it’s hard for them to make more story and sell said story. Novels for examples.

A lot of people don’t feel up to doing kitbash and therefore the idea of turning a space marine champion into one of the names space marine characters wouldn’t be fun.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/31 03:01:42


Post by: PenitentJake


Crusade characters definitely have the capacity to become stronger than many if not most named characters.

The recent Black Templars released raised the bar even higher, because some of the unique Crusade relics and upgrades are actually on the upgrade sprues, so it isn't just rules- it actually affects the model too.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/31 04:20:02


Post by: Insectum7


mrFickle wrote:
Are the objections the names characters in the game or in the fluff or both? Without characters with names it’s hard for them to make more story and sell said story. Novels for examples.

A lot of people don’t feel up to doing kitbash and therefore the idea of turning a space marine champion into one of the names space marine characters wouldn’t be fun.
For me the inclusion of named characters in the game is fine, (though I tend to make my own) but I'd much prefer that less time be spent on them in the fluff of the overall universe outside of their respective codexes.


Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/31 04:24:00


Post by: solkan


mrFickle wrote:
Are the objections the names characters in the game or in the fluff or both? Without characters with names it’s hard for them to make more story and sell said story. Novels for examples.


Your comment seems to be dismissing the huge amount of background stories that were just about random named marines or whatever running around doing stuff, never to get their own model or whatever. Or things like Gaunt who recently got a model release to commemorate the book series. Would you believe that a large portion of 40k's development history is the developers making up their own personal characters or armies, and eventually getting an army written around them, and then expecting the players to do the same?

I swear that ends up being a no-win scenario for the game company. You can get a demonstration of how it goes bad for a company in Infinity, where the cycle ends up being:
Step One: Basic model/unit gets released.
Step Two: A story is written about a specific trooper of that unit, and that specific named trooper gets a model and special rules.
Repeat Step One and Step Two for everyone's factions, and for a few different units in each faction (or to give someone in the community a model in their likeness as a really nice gesture of appreciation), and the army lists end up bloated and unwieldy.

Over at a completely different company with a completely different game, for some time Wyrd Games has been getting into a pattern of:
* Release Character A with a specific story, and artwork.
* Release Character A with different or revised artwork.
* Write and design a second character, possibly with radically different artwork, but that still manages to fit Character A's rules, and release Character B as an "alternate model" for Character A.
(Of course, if GW did it, you'd get people foaming over FOMO because a lot of the alternates end up being seasonal or otherwise limited releases. But it's not hard to find someone willing to complain about release schedules...)



Named characters a mistake? @ 2021/10/31 05:42:53


Post by: mrFickle


I realise there’s loads of stories about characters that we will never hear from again or see in the game but what I mean is that there is a story that we are all exposed to as game players that has a few characters that are required in order to move the story along or create a compelling setting.

I started playing in second and I loved the named characters for bringing specific events in the 40K universe alive but I think I also remember that they had several tiers of hero’s available in the codex.