I tend to avoid them as I’m always afraid tourneys won’t allow them or people will get annoyed at their use. Do you guys run them or ever see any pushback?
I’m old enough to have “only with your opponent’s permission” stuck in the back of my head regarding them. Which is stupidly long ago at this point.
If they fit the list and I’ve got the model (or a counts-as) I’ll use them. But I’m far more likely to just use basic generic ones. Nothing against those who do, but I favor my guys more.
Nevelon wrote: I’m old enough to have “only with your opponent’s permission” stuck in the back of my head regarding them. Which is stupidly long ago at this point.
lol I’m glad it’s not just me ?
Guess i need to get that out of my head.
Thanks guys.
Some yes, some no. Really just depends upon the force I'm making.
For ex:
*I'd find it rather odd to make my Grot army & not lead it with the Red Gobbo....
JNAProductions wrote: I have in the past-mostly Cypher, because he was a lot of fun.
But generally, I don't like using them, because 40k should be [b]your guys, not GW's guys.[/b]
Well until they print up a stat sheet for a generic Grot character, I guess I'm stuck with the Red Gobbo.
Oh yeah. I've absolutely nothing against other people playing differently.
You love the lore of Trazyn/Guilliman/Angron/Aun'Va, and want to make an army around them? Go nuts! This is a game we play for fun-so long as you respect my fun (by being a good sport and polite, pretty much) I will respect yours.
As a former Custodes player, most of my points were named characters. Trajaan, Ser Walken, Angry Stabby Lady, and various Shield Captains, (Which are the equivalent of chapter masters)
Personally I'm fairly adverse to using the super high ranking named characters in my lists, but I'm fine if my opponent uses them. I'm one of those folks who finds the idea of lord solar/a primarch/etc being in every army to be unfortunate. I wish GW made the rules for these sort of models less efficient than they have been. As for lower ranking characters whose positions aren't necessarily one-of-a-kind (or can be played as being a more common rank, e.g. creed), I'm less opposed to including them in my army, although I've yet to do so either when I played back in 5th or since I picked things back up in 9th.
As I said though, I don't have any objections to my opponent using them, this is more of a "doesn't mesh with my style of army fluff" sort of thing.
Hecaton wrote: I try to avoid it. When I ran Crusade they were banned.
So armies that depend on their named characters just don't get to exist?
What army cannot function without named characters?
Not just "Isn't tournament level," since Crusade is generally played with like-minded folk who should be willing to adjust strength of a list as needed. What army literally cannot function? What army is so dependent that it will fail to do even the most basic of tasks without a unique character?
So armies that depend on their named characters just don't get to exist?
There was a general understanding that a certain level of imbalance was ok; moreover, people were naming and roleplaying as their commander and faction, so we ended up with "named characters" some of whom could beat the gak out of their non-Crusade equivalent.
No army fails to function with Unique Named Characters. Many don't have any comparable unit to those models and thus lose out in a role if the character is banned.
Marneus Calgar is just a slightly better non-customizable Captain. There are plenty of options Codex Space Marines to do what he does.
Saint Celestine and Morvenn Vahl both fill leader niches that are otherwise completely missing from Codex Adepta Soroitas.
alextroy wrote: No army fails to function with Unique Named Characters.
Found the person who doesn't play guard. Lord Solar is the only unit in the codex that can issue orders to Baneblade/Macharius tanks, and one of only two units (a tank commander with the double orders enhancement being the second-best option) that can issue vehicle orders more efficiently than just taking more basic tanks and ignoring orders. Either you take the named character or you ignore the faction ability, on top of having a detachment ability that is almost always blank text.
The only named characters I have for any of my 40k armies are for my first and main army: the Black Legion.
In the 7-8 years I've played 40k, I have only fielded Abaddon 3 times. Two of them were at the request of my opponent. I've had more opponents surprised that I don't field the Warmaster. To be fair, I never bothered with the previous model of Abaddon. It also took me a very long time to paint. So really, it has only been the last 3 years that I would even think to add Abaddon to my army list.
However, I still want to keep Abaddon as a special addition to my army and not just another unit. This is twofold, I'm primarily a 'your dudes' type player, and I much prefer fielding my Chaos Lord: Lord Galvanus the Profane, scourge of the Raven Guard, et al. Which to me, is just as much as a named character as the Warmaster, but is the actual the warlord of my Black Legion collection/warband. Since it was among the first models I painted for 40k. Galvanus even has a HH model in my SoH. Which was also one if the first painted.
The other reason, Abaddon is like the holiday/guest silverware and china to me. I want that unit to be a kind of special treat for me and my opponent. Not something that comes out for some pick-up or rando game. There are certainly times I think maybe I should field the Warmaster more often to get more comfortable with what the unit can do, though.
The other named character I have is Haarken Worldclaimer. Honestly, it just doesn't feel like a named character. When the Worldclaimer first appeared, he was worse than just taking a Chaos Lord with jump pack. And that never really changed. So I do field him a bit more. But is still in the bottom 1/4 of my HQs making it to the table.
I tend to avoid them. They're other people's characters, not my own. And I get sick of seeing lists with multiples of them (every BT list taking Helbrecht and Grimaldus, ever 1KSons list taking Magnus and Ahriman, etc.).
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Lord Solar is the only unit in the codex that can issue orders to Baneblade/Macharius tanks...
Which, presumably, would only matter if you were bringing those units.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: ... and one of only two units (a tank commander with the double orders enhancement being the second-best option) that can issue vehicle orders more efficiently than just taking more basic tanks and ignoring orders.
Ok. And? There's more to Guard than just orders.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Either you take the named character or you ignore the faction ability, on top of having a detachment ability that is almost always blank text.
That's not even remotely true.
And Lord Horseyman is a dumb model. I'd never buy him, let alone field him.
I think H.B.M.C. covered my response in his. Other than allowing you to give orders to a small subset of units that I don't even think are considered optimal, the army functions fine without Lord Solar. Or at least the issues with the army have nothing to do with the presence or lack of presence of that one model.
alextroy wrote: No army fails to function with Unique Named Characters.
Found the person who doesn't play guard. Lord Solar is the only unit in the codex that can issue orders to Baneblade/Macharius tanks, and one of only two units (a tank commander with the double orders enhancement being the second-best option) that can issue vehicle orders more efficiently than just taking more basic tanks and ignoring orders. Either you take the named character or you ignore the faction ability, on top of having a detachment ability that is almost always blank text.
Right, this was in 9e. Haven't done Crusade in 10th, and probably won't.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Which, presumably, would only matter if you were bringing those units.
Sure, if you want to de facto ban that whole category along with the named character I guess that's true.
Ok. And? There's more to Guard than just orders.
Would you be happy to play your army with no faction rule? Most people aren't.
That's not even remotely true.
It's absolutely true. 40k is a game that requires moving and the detachment ability does literally nothing if you move. I suppose some static artillery units can benefit from it, if you hate having fun and take a gunline, but most of the time it's blank text.
And Lord Horseyman is a dumb model. I'd never buy him, let alone field him.
We're talking about rules, not models. There are plenty of alternative models that look better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: I think H.B.M.C. covered my response in his. Other than allowing you to give orders to a small subset of units that I don't even think are considered optimal, the army functions fine without Lord Solar. Or at least the issues with the army have nothing to do with the presence or lack of presence of that one model.
Since when are tanks not optimal? You can argue that Baneblades aren't great (but that's mostly because of the difficulty in giving them orders), but Lord Solar is also one of only two ways (with the other being far less efficient) to give orders to all of the other tanks.
And if the army functions just fine why does pretty much every list I've seen take him?
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Sure, if you want to de facto ban that whole category along with the named character I guess that's true.
Ban categories of units? What are you blithering about?
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Would you be happy to play your army with no faction rule? Most people aren't.
There are plenty of other units that can issue orders, so...
ThePaintingOwl wrote: It's absolutely true. 40k is a game that requires moving and the detachment ability does literally nothing if you move.
How is this an argument in favour of Lord Horseyman?
ThePaintingOwl wrote: I suppose some static artillery units can benefit from it, if you hate having fun and take a gunline, but most of the time it's blank text.
You're worried about Guard being a gunline? Guard? The quintessential40k gunline army. Sitting still and blasting the enemy off the table is what they do. Some elements will have to move to get objectives, sure, and they won't be able to use the (current only) detachment rule. And this is the end of the world somehow?
ThePaintingOwl wrote: We're talking about rules, not models. There are plenty of alternative models that look better.
Armies that have to rely on special characters aren't armies that function.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ban categories of units? What are you blithering about?
If you want Baneblades and such to be viable they need orders, and that means taking Lord Solar. Ban their one source of orders and it's a de facto ban on the whole category.
There are plenty of other units that can issue orders, so...
No other units can issue orders to the big tanks. One other unit can issue orders to normal tanks, and can only do so less efficiently than Lord Solar. Tank commanders without the enhancement are hopelessly inefficient and not worth taking.
You're worried about Guard being a gunline? Guard? The quintessential40k gunline army. Sitting still and blasting the enemy off the table is what they do. Some elements will have to move to get objectives, sure, and they won't be able to use the (current only) detachment rule. And this is the end of the world somehow?
Gunlines suck. They're not fun and they're bad at winning. Guard tanks should be moving all the time to get good shots, infantry should be moving to get into position to either screen the tanks or get onto objectives. Maybe if you play on empty tables with no terrain you can just set up a LRBT gunline and win but in normal games the only thing making use of the detachment rule is artillery.
Armies that have to rely on special characters aren't armies that function.
Why not? Special characters are part of the game, it's not a problem with the army itself if someone's house rules make it stop working properly.
alextroy wrote: No army fails to function with Unique Named Characters.
Found the person who doesn't play guard. Lord Solar is the only unit in the codex that can issue orders to Baneblade/Macharius tanks, and one of only two units (a tank commander with the double orders enhancement being the second-best option) that can issue vehicle orders more efficiently than just taking more basic tanks and ignoring orders. Either you take the named character or you ignore the faction ability, on top of having a detachment ability that is almost always blank text.
Yeah Owl, I'm with you on this one- it sucks that Tank Commanders can't issue orders to non-Squadron vehicle units.
What I would do to fix the issue is create a Battle Honor that bestows the ability to issue Orders to ANY guard keyworded unit (so no orders for allied Knights, but any guard super-heavy, flyer or tank. In our campaigns, we allow players to choose Battle Honours rather than roll them, subject to GM approval.
Players shouldn't have to fix GW mistakes with house rules, and who knows, maybe the dex will get right what the Index got wrong. There's likely a tank company specific detachment included in the dex. Neither the house rule nor the impending dex are excuses for poor index design... They are merely offered as possible solutions to what is a legitimate problem with the rules we have at this point in time.
Yeah, the named character problem (if you see it as a problem) is entirely GW's own creation. If they stopped making named characters be the only source of certain abilities or list concepts they wouldn't be nearly as mandatory. Give me an officer Baneblade and shrug, Lord Solar isn't a big deal. Give me a generic Hammerhead commander and shrug, Longstrike isn't a big deal. Etc.
usernamesareannoying wrote: I tend to avoid them as I’m always afraid tourneys won’t allow them or people will get annoyed at their use. Do you guys run them or ever see any pushback?
Generally speaking I'll do it for one of three reasons and two of them are sort of linked:
1) The unit is pretty much the textbook example of the (sub)faction. Typhus and his Host. Ghaz and the (Goff Orks)
2) The unit does something unique/wonky that fits the theme. Tiggy giving Bobby G's bodyguard -1 to hit. Tiggy already follows Guilliman around more than Calgar now, because Primarch - and giving that mini-star -1 to hit is something he'd do.
3) The unit does something unique/wonky that makes the list possible at all: Like when Belial/Sammael made Deathwing/Raveguard troops.
On the flip side, Cassius is linked to Calgar, or Deathwing, but Guilliman not at all. I'll DIY a Primaris Chaplain with Master of Sanctity upgrade to go with Guilliman before I add the cheaper Cassius.
alextroy wrote: No army fails to function with Unique Named Characters.
Found the person who doesn't play guard. Lord Solar is the only unit in the codex that can issue orders to Baneblade/Macharius tanks, and one of only two units (a tank commander with the double orders enhancement being the second-best option) that can issue vehicle orders more efficiently than just taking more basic tanks and ignoring orders. Either you take the named character or you ignore the faction ability, on top of having a detachment ability that is almost always blank text.
So you were challenged to find the 1 army that requires a named character to function - and failed.
I don't use name characters most of the time. It bugs me to think that for some reason such a well-known dude would show up in my backwater unrecorded story, like, there's no reason it couldn't or I couldn't use the profile an rename it but it bugs me nonetheless. Go figure.
I've got Straken's mini though because I liked it a lot.
The minis are often great proxies for generic commanders, or in other places (my Straken, to use your example, gets play in Dark Heresy and other 40kRPGs, plus Necromunda!).
ccs wrote: So you were challenged to find the 1 army that requires a named character to function - and failed.
Ok, yes, if you mean "function" as in "can legally put models on the table" then technically you are correct. If you mean "work as intended and have any real chance of winning" then no.
ccs wrote: So you were challenged to find the 1 army that requires a named character to function - and failed.
Ok, yes, if you mean "function" as in "can legally put models on the table" then technically you are correct. If you mean "work as intended and have any real chance of winning" then no.
Baneblades and Machariuses are now essential to Guard?
You can't possibly win without them?
JNAProductions wrote: Baneblades and Machariuses are now essential to Guard?
You can't possibly win without them?
If you want to play with those models they are. Do you think that "your other units are de facto banned because you can't use the named character that is essential for making them work" is a reasonable rule? Is a house rule banning named characters ok as long as there's at least one list that could win a game?
JNAProductions wrote: Baneblades and Machariuses are now essential to Guard?
You can't possibly win without them?
If you want to play with those models they are. Do you think that "your other units are de facto banned because you can't use the named character that is essential for making them work" is a reasonable rule? Is a house rule banning named characters ok as long as there's at least one list that could win a game?
So what happens when I have tank or 'Blade units that are beyond Horsey Guys command range? Completely plausible scenarios when I need tank support Left/Right/& Center. Or I've put something in Reserve & bring it in nowhere near him.Please, tell me how essential he is to units he can't reach for some reason.
Spoiler:
He's not, because I've planned for that.
Or when he gets killed. What? You think my whole army stops functioning?
Oh, & that Born Soldiers thing? That's a bonus perk for when something stops moving or doesn't need to. Handy, but not essential.
As someone who has owned a Macharius since the model was first released, let me tell you that that tank - nor any of its variants - has ever been essential.
And the idea that that it only functions when brought along Lord Horseyman is a false dilemma.
The Guard do not need him. He is a nice to have, but he is not essential. He's essential to the type of playstyle you seem to be advocating, but there's more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to the Guard.
To put it another way: The Guard don't need him, but you appear to.
ccs wrote: So what happens when I have tank or 'Blade units that are beyond Horsey Guys command range?
You don't, because in that kind of list he exists to provide buffs to the big tanks and if they are more than 24" away something very odd has happened. And if you lose your buff support you probably lose the game soon after unless you've done enough damage that your crippled units can mop up whatever is left.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: As someone who has owned a Macharius since the model was first released, let me tell you that that tank - nor any of its variants - has ever been essential.
Once again: "just don't bring the units that require the named character" is not an acceptable solution. This is not a competitive play discussion, where it doesn't matter how many units suck and never see the table as long as faction win rate is between 45% and 55%, invalidating lists and play styles is not ok.
Once again: "just don't bring the units that require the named character" is not an acceptable solution. This is not a competitive play discussion, where it doesn't matter how many units suck and never see the table as long as faction win rate is between 45% and 55%, invalidating lists and play styles is not ok.
Yeah it is, because you're saying ahead of time what is allowed in a given league, and people can decide to participate or not.
People preferring their own characters over named characters irrespective of game power tend to be great people for playing narrative games, even as one-of.
People having a problem with you playing named characters are usually not worth playing to begin with. There is a high chance that you will violate any other of their arbitrary restriction on how 40k "is supposed to be played" and then have them bitching and mourning for the rest of the game anyways.
Same is true for events. Unless it's a narrative campaign, named characters being banned is a red flag of the organization not knowing their gak and that you should spend your time and money elsewhere.
The only time specifically banning named characters makes sense at all is when you are running a specific narrative scenario and: - the character does not fit the scenario (Gulliman did not fight in any of the wars of Armageddon) - the character is reserved for a specific scenario/narrative path (it doesn't make sense to have Magnus in your army when the goal of the campaign is to prevent the TS from summoning Magnus). - you play a big game/simultaneous games and you don't want put one player above the others because there can only be one Abaddon on the table.
I used to avoid them when I could. I much preferred being able to mix and match a bunch of wargear to make my own characters and fluff them up and make conversions etc (so did basically everyone I played with, using named characters was basically unheard of in my community unless they were broken and you were That Guy). After nuGW neutered the ability to play to play Your Dude characters I stopped caring and so did a lot of other people I feel.
I suspect if you gave people the option to make tricked out custom characters over the more recent trend of Faction Leader And Friends cartoonishness people would choose custom characters.
Hecaton wrote: Yeah it is, because you're saying ahead of time what is allowed in a given league, and people can decide to participate or not.
"We tell you the rules up front" is not a defense of a bad rule. Bad rules are bad rules no matter how they are presented.
The whole argument has gotten a bit silly. I think this is not so much a case of rules being imposed but of a like-minded gaming group discussing their plans for their crusade and collectively deciding on ground rules (my group is actually in the process of doing exactly that for an upcoming crusade as well). On top of that, crusade rules lightly discourage bringing named characters in the first place as they cannot progress or gain experience (at least in 9th edition), which is a huge part of crusade.
On top of all that, I believe they said it was a 9th edition crusade, in which case your issues with not being able to order a baneblade are irrelevant as there is a tank ace that enables that.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: On top of that, crusade rules lightly discourage bringing named characters in the first place as they cannot progress or gain experience (at least in 9th edition), which is a huge part of crusade.
Same for 10th. Epic Heros are explicitly called out to not gain experience, battle honors or battle scars.
use them? yes, rename them? also yes - though when on the table top they have the official name, though perhaps a more customised model.
they are just another in game unit, why wouldn't you include them if they do something that allows a theme you like?
the days of them being banned are thankfully long gone, and hopefully along with it the attitude of "of course we ban special and named characters" followed by aggression if you actually ask: "why?"
Don’t use them, prefer my dudes and they don’t fit our narrative setting, but have used them as the basis for home brewed rules rather than fully make them up so as to avoid making them too powerful.
AnomanderRake wrote: Tournaments not allowing named characters isn't a thing I've heard of since 4e; GW's been pushing named characters pretty hard since 5th.
I think a lot was a hangover from the fantasy side of the games and just became a "too hard, ban them all" thing instead of "whats the actual issue?"
e.g. some pointy eared magic user, simply by existing, stopped me running either of the named Goblin heros
I think GWs reaction, essentially making the named bods essential to unlock features of the armies was aimed directly at the banhammer crowd
ccs wrote: So what happens when I have tank or 'Blade units that are beyond Horsey Guys command range?
You don't, because in that kind of list he exists to provide buffs to the big tanks and if they are more than 24" away something very odd has happened. And if you lose your buff support you probably lose the game soon after unless you've done enough damage that your crippled units can mop up whatever is left.
Oh I assure you it happens.
It happened last week. And it'll happen again.
We play on boards that are 5 - 8 feet long. It's very easy for Mr.Horse not to be in range of everything you'd like him to reach. Also, terrain & counter-deployment.
It might not have been my initial plan to deploy that Demolisher that far away on the flank, but as need/opportunity dictates.... Same with movement throughout the game.
ccs wrote: So you were challenged to find the 1 army that requires a named character to function - and failed.
Ok, yes, if you mean "function" as in "can legally put models on the table" then technically you are correct. If you mean "work as intended and have any real chance of winning" then no.
I would think that GW only allowing the army’s supreme commander give orders to those units was a sure sign they are intended to operate just fine without orders.
Whether the rules successfully allow for that is a different question.
Sure if I feel like it. Super Sentai Daemons assemble list with Be'lakor, Skarbrand, Shalaxi, Rotigus, and Kairos was with their crowd of adoring Nurglings was a fun list.
alextroy wrote: I would think that GW only allowing the army’s supreme commander give orders to those units was a sure sign they are intended to operate just fine without orders.
Why? The unit in question is in the codex and legal in normal games, why does making the shiny new model an auto-take unit mean he isn't supposed to be necessary?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: We play on boards that are 5 - 8 feet long.
Which is much larger than the standard. I'm not sure why range issues on your non-standard tables are supposed to have anything to do with how the codex is meant to work?
It might not have been my initial plan to deploy that Demolisher that far away on the flank, but as need/opportunity dictates....
Demolishers can at least use the other source of orders, even if it isn't nearly as good. And if you're taking a Baneblade (or more than one) that's going to be the focus of your army and where your best buff unit goes.
I am among those old enough to have been "socialised" in a time when special characters required your opponents consent. Over time this restriction was formally lifted, but it remained as some kind of gentlemans agreement.
Nowadays special characters are simply another unit in the codex, and should be treated just like that. Personal sentiments aside there is really nothing wrong with fielding any of them. To me it still feels weird if somebody has Abaddon in each and every game of theirs - but it is of course perfectly fine. There are plenty of good reasons to do so, and it is really none of my business.
What makes this topic more annoying to me is GWs approach to special characters these days: when in the past they were additions to a factions roster, lately they have become a requirement more often than not. Of course GW wants to sell expensive centrepiece models, I have no issue with this in principle. Problems begin with special characters being integral to a factions playstyle to the point where you would significantly handicap yourself by not using them.
Case(s) in point: Thousand Sons, Death Guard, World Eaters. All three suffer from the same problems: they have rather limited ranges and each requires certain special character(s) being used, unless you want to play only in the most casual of environments. Death Guard are in a rough spot as it is, but without Mortarion you have almost no chance to get even a proper game. World Eaters without Angron? Only if you enjoy losing almost every game.
So while no special character is technically necessary to play - anybody claiming otherwise really needs to check a dictionary for the meaning of the word "necessary" - many factions relying so heavily on one or more of them is bad game design in my opinion. I do not like it, I do not like it at all.
"We tell you the rules up front" is not a defense of a bad rule. Bad rules are bad rules no matter how they are presented.
If everyone consents to a rule like that it isn't bad. What reasoning are you giving for a rule to be bad?
If everyone consents then why do you need a rule? You only need a rule if someone doesn't agree, otherwise people just naturally don't bring named characters in their lists because they don't want to.
And consent doesn't make a rule good. Everyone can consent to a rule that squats get 25% less points than every other faction but it's still a stupid rule.
alextroy wrote: I would think that GW only allowing the army’s supreme commander give orders to those units was a sure sign they are intended to operate just fine without orders.
Why? The unit in question is in the codex and legal in normal games, why does making the shiny new model an auto-take unit mean he isn't supposed to be necessary?
Who says he is an auto-take? That seems to be you. It was not me nor GW.
Since no unit is a compulsory unit in Index Astra Militarum, it is easy to conclude that the army is intended to be run without any specific unit in your army.
alextroy wrote: I would think that GW only allowing the army’s supreme commander give orders to those units was a sure sign they are intended to operate just fine without orders.
Why? The unit in question is in the codex and legal in normal games, why does making the shiny new model an auto-take unit mean he isn't supposed to be necessary?
Who says he is an auto-take? That seems to be you. It was not me nor GW.
Since no unit is a compulsory unit in Index Astra Militarum, it is easy to conclude that the army is intended to be run without any specific unit in your army.
I’m playing my imperial guard on Sunday and don’t even own the model! I’ll let you know how it goes.
alextroy wrote: Who says he is an auto-take? That seems to be you. It was not me nor GW.
Since no unit is a compulsory unit in Index Astra Militarum, it is easy to conclude that the army is intended to be run without any specific unit in your army.
Do you honestly think that "auto-take" means it is literally in the rules that it's a mandatory unit or are you just arguing in bad faith to score internet points?
ThePaintingOwl wrote: If everyone consents then why do you need a rule? You only need a rule if someone doesn't agree, otherwise people just naturally don't bring named characters in their lists because they don't want to.
Someone has to suggest it. We're not telepathic lmao.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: And consent doesn't make a rule good. Everyone can consent to a rule that squats get 25% less points than every other faction but it's still a stupid rule.
Hecaton wrote: Someone has to suggest it. We're not telepathic lmao.
Why does it need to be suggested? If nobody likes using named characters then nobody will take them and you don't need a rule. It would be like insisting that you need a rule where each player must take a minimum of 500 points in a 2000 point game. You only need to suggest a rule if people are taking named characters and some of the group wants them to stop.
Why is it a bad rule?
For the same reason that banning squats is a bad rule. Named characters are part of the game and we don't need scrub rules about "playing the right way".
alextroy wrote: I would think that GW only allowing the army’s supreme commander give orders to those units was a sure sign they are intended to operate just fine without orders.
Why? The unit in question is in the codex and legal in normal games, why does making the shiny new model an auto-take unit mean he isn't supposed to be necessary?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: We play on boards that are 5 - 8 feet long.
Which is much larger than the standard. I'm not sure why range issues on your non-standard tables are supposed to have anything to do with how the codex is meant to work?
It might not have been my initial plan to deploy that Demolisher that far away on the flank, but as need/opportunity dictates....
Demolishers can at least use the other source of orders, even if it isn't nearly as good. And if you're taking a Baneblade (or more than one) that's going to be the focus of your army and where your best buff unit goes.
1) I suggest you go back & read the rules/learn to actually play this game.
Because the standard listed size for an Incusion/Strike (1k - 2kpts) size game is 44x60 inches.
The standard for Onslaught (3k pts) is 44x90 inches.
So no, I'm not playing on anything much larger than standard. Especially at the 2k lv.
2) I also recommend that you let me worry about what the "focus" of my army is. Afteall, I know my plan/theme better than you ever will.
ccs wrote: So no, I'm not playing on anything much larger than standard. Especially at the 2k lv.
44"x90" vs 5'x8' is not much larger? It's damn near 50% larger.
I think he said 5 to 8 feet, not 5 by 8 feet. Even the old tables GW tables were 4 by 8 feet - a sheet of plywood sized - you have to add another board for 5 by 8.
Why does it need to be suggested? If nobody likes using named characters then nobody will take them and you don't need a rule. It would be like insisting that you need a rule where each player must take a minimum of 500 points in a 2000 point game. You only need to suggest a rule if people are taking named characters and some of the group wants them to stop.
For the same reason that banning squats is a bad rule. Named characters are part of the game and we don't need scrub rules about "playing the right way".
Nah, it's not an open invite league. People who don't want to play by the campaign rules don't have to play.
It needs to be suggested because we want a cogent narrative that doesn't involve multiple primarchs etc.
Hecaton wrote: Nah, it's not an open invite league. People who don't want to play by the campaign rules don't have to play.
Cool, thanks for acknowledging that the reason for the rule is that not everyone shares your feelings about named characters and you need to force them to comply or get out.
It needs to be suggested because we want a cogent narrative that doesn't involve multiple primarchs etc.
Rules =/= lore. There is a long tradition of using the rules for a named character to represent your own character, just like people use the generic character rules to represent their own characters.
Most people (at least that I know) have more than just a 2k list. They can swap stuff out, if they feel like it or if points change or if rules call for it.
I don’t know of many people who are so hardcore about a named character that they desperately need to field them-and anyone who feels so, can just not join that league.
Most people (at least that I know) have more than just a 2k list. They can swap stuff out, if they feel like it or if points change or if rules call for it.
I don’t know of many people who are so hardcore about a named character that they desperately need to field them-and anyone who feels so, can just not join that league.
Why is compromise needed here? Do you think people should compromise with someone who arbitrarily insists that units should not be allowed to take upgrades and you should only get the default equipment? That everyone should bring two lists and play half their games with the house rule and half with the normal rules?
Rules =/= lore. There is a long tradition of using the rules for a named character to represent your own character, just like people use the generic character rules to represent their own characters.
Nah. A divorce of rules and narrative is toxic to the kind of campaign that we wanted our Crusade to be.
And yeah, when someone's a league organizer they use "force" to dictate certain things. That's not a bad thing. In this case, it was my feelings, and everyone who played agreed to play under those restrictions.
Why is compromise needed here? Do you think people should compromise with someone who arbitrarily insists that units should not be allowed to take upgrades and you should only get the default equipment? That everyone should bring two lists and play half their games with the house rule and half with the normal rules?
I mean if someone wanted to run a league like that... people are free to play or not. I had 20 people in my league, it was most of the store's regular players. Nobody cited not using named characters as a reason they didn't want to play - everyone was interested in creating their own named characters and fleshing them out. People who didn't play were busy, didn't like narrative leagues, etc.
Most people (at least that I know) have more than just a 2k list. They can swap stuff out, if they feel like it or if points change or if rules call for it. I don’t know of many people who are so hardcore about a named character that they desperately need to field them-and anyone who feels so, can just not join that league.
Banning named characters is exactly the same level of stupid as banning all primaris, grey knights or eldar.
If an event organizer enforces rules from two decades ago, it's extremely likely that their understanding of game rules, balance and socially acceptable behavior is just as outdated.
Jidmah wrote: Banning named characters is exactly the same level of stupid as banning all primaris, grey knights or eldar.
Wouldn't that be situational?
If mean, if it's just a straight up tournament, fine, banning gak just comes across as stupid. But if it was't, a themed event, a narrative event, or something that was tied to a specific location or point in the timeline (eg. before the return of Guilliman, for example), would it be ok then?
Jidmah wrote: Banning named characters is exactly the same level of stupid as banning all primaris, grey knights or eldar.
Wouldn't that be situational?
If mean, if it's just a straight up tournament, fine, banning gak just comes across as stupid. But if it was't, a themed event, a narrative event, or something that was tied to a specific location or point in the timeline (eg. before the return of Guilliman, for example), would it be ok then?
You can find my opinion on that on the previous page of this thread if you really want to know, I speficially addressed that case. It will most likely be similar to your take on this.
The event in question was not a narrative event, but a competitive league format.
The event in question was not a narrative event, but a competitive league format.
Wait is there a second argument going on here? I was under the impression the current discussion was regarding whether making certain rules for what you can or can't take in a narrative crusade is bad (it's not, imho, just be up front about it). Now that I think about it, the OP might have mentioned a competitive event, but the conversation has moved on as their question seems to have been resoundly answered as "don't worry about it".
And before someone points a finger at people who think it's okay to ban special characters in crusade, a) if the crusade organizer is going to surprise you with that rule after getting you invested in the crusade, you don't want to be in that crusade, b) if special characters are something really important to you in your narrative head cannon of your army, talk to them about it, the other players might be okay with am exception, and c) special characters are softly discouraged by crusade rules anyway.
Why does it need to be suggested? If nobody likes using named characters then nobody will take them and you don't need a rule. It would be like insisting that you need a rule where each player must take a minimum of 500 points in a 2000 point game. You only need to suggest a rule if people are taking named characters and some of the group wants them to stop.
[
Because it manages expectations and avoids hurt feelings. In our crusade, we aren't banning special characters, but we are making several other rules changes and clarifications and we have those all written down. These are things we've all agreed on. It's nice to have them explicitly layed out so I can go remind myself of them when needed.
I've never really been a fan but then I started back in 2nd where you had to have permission to field them. None of my friends at the time seemed to care one way or the other.
Given that the customisation aspect has been bloodily torn out of the game, is there even a difference between special and generic characters at this point?
It just seems like a choice between a named dude with no options or an unnamed dude with no options.
alextroy wrote: I would think that GW only allowing the army’s supreme commander give orders to those units was a sure sign they are intended to operate just fine without orders.
Why? The unit in question is in the codex and legal in normal games, why does making the shiny new model an auto-take unit mean he isn't supposed to be necessary?
Who says he is an auto-take? That seems to be you. It was not me nor GW.
Since no unit is a compulsory unit in Index Astra Militarum, it is easy to conclude that the army is intended to be run without any specific unit in your army.
ThePaintingOwl wrote:
alextroy wrote: Who says he is an auto-take? That seems to be you. It was not me nor GW.
Since no unit is a compulsory unit in Index Astra Militarum, it is easy to conclude that the army is intended to be run without any specific unit in your army.
Do you honestly think that "auto-take" means it is literally in the rules that it's a mandatory unit or are you just arguing in bad faith to score internet points?
Why is it that whenever someone disagrees with your analysis that they are arguing in bad faith? That seems to be a bad faith argument in itself
Named Characters are useful units. They often provide capabilities that are hard if not impossible to acquire in non-named characters. That does not mean that armies or units are not supposed to be usable without them. To argue otherwise is simply incorrect.
You can find my opinion on that on the previous page of this thread if you really want to know, I speficially addressed that case. It will most likely be similar to your take on this.
The event in question was not a narrative event, but a competitive league format.
usernamesareannoying wrote: I tend to avoid them as I’m always afraid tourneys won’t allow them or people will get annoyed at their use. Do you guys run them or ever see any pushback?
I never use named characters in my armies. I always love making up lore for my legion/waaagh! so i usually name a leader to make him a character in my mind. Cringe, I know, but isn't 40k anyway?
Jidmah wrote: Banning named characters is exactly the same level of stupid as banning all primaris, grey knights or eldar.
Wouldn't that be situational?
If mean, if it's just a straight up tournament, fine, banning gak just comes across as stupid. But if it was't, a themed event, a narrative event, or something that was tied to a specific location or point in the timeline (eg. before the return of Guilliman, for example), would it be ok then?
You can find my opinion on that on the previous page of this thread if you really want to know, I speficially addressed that case. It will most likely be similar to your take on this.
The event in question was not a narrative event, but a competitive league format.
I was talking about narrative events.
For a tournament, yeah, no reason to bar named characters from the game.
Narrative events, by definition, are meant to tell a story.
Naturally, the storyteller gets a say in what characters can participate in the story. Kind of how a TTRPG GM can veto your idea of playing the BBEG's mother.
And even then, a general ban on named characters is highly questionable, as there are plenty of characters that fit into pretty much any setting (Badrukk, Trayzin and many Eldar come to mind), as well plenty who are scattered around the particular part of the galaxy where your story is taking place.
In my experience crusade has already hit the sweet spot. Named characters were still played regularly in my group, but not every game since they miss out on essential parts of the system and if they manage to score an agenda, it's reward might just disappear into nothingness making them odd to use. On the flip side, nothing is lost when you use your named character as a narrative element, since they wouldn't be gaining or losing anything from the game anyways.
And even then, a general ban on named characters is highly questionable, as there are plenty of characters that fit into pretty much any setting (Badrukk, Trayzin and many Eldar come to mind), as well plenty who are scattered around the particular part of the galaxy where your story is taking place.
Nah, the galaxy is a gigantic place. Perfectly reasonable to ban them. What do you do if multiple people want to run them?
warhead01 wrote: I've never really been a fan but then I started back in 2nd where you had to have permission to field them. None of my friends at the time seemed to care one way or the other.
Same. The named characters of that era were mostly about flavor and I don't recall any of them being a fixture. I never used them because I wanted more guys with guns and in that edition everything was so deadly that even a Bloodthirster could be laid low by a single lascannon shot.
It sounds like GW has (typically) weaponized them by only offering certain buffs if you take them. No idea how orders work, but it seems pretty bad game design to say that all units can get orders, but only special characters can give them to certain units.
Well, maybe not bad game design, but certainly greedy. May as well require special printed cards to give orders and then price them differently based on how cool the order is. (I would not be surprised if that isn't already the case.)
As a now and then thing, they can be neat enough I guess? Plus at this point a few armies are basically built around them sadly like World Eaters (or at least they were on release I believe).
I'd personally drastically prefer customizable generic characters with special characters being a specific build of them. Like why is Marneus Calgar the only person to think of double fisting people? Or Harker the only guardsman capable of carrying a heavy bolter by themself? The galaxy is huge, so if even just one in ten billion people have thought of either of these and are capable of it, just the sheer scale of the Imperium means that there would be tons of people capable of it.
usernamesareannoying wrote: I tend to avoid them as I’m always afraid tourneys won’t allow them or people will get annoyed at their use. Do you guys run them or ever see any pushback?
Just a HH player's opinion here. I think that if you're bringing a Primarch or a character that can significantly alter an army (Sevatar, for example), you should tell your opponent. It's just good sportsmanship, IMHOP.
I haven't seen problems with named characters since 2nd Ed. There are no restrictions on them where I play, and we even have a tournament where you have to have a named character as your Warlord.
To me named characters are just cooler versions of my favorite units Sucks when they suck, also slightly sucks when theyre so op that everyone auto takes them…
I remember that at least in 3.5 guard codex characters could be use only if the army was big enough, like, creed could only be taken in a 1500 or more points army. Straken was in Codex Catachan that I only got lately. Then 5th edition codex brought a plethora of new named characters and although it didn't used them, I liked the idea of upgraded sergeants. I played for a year maybe, a year and a half with it then 6th codex hit.
Bastogne's story kicked arse in my opinion, but I didn't trust myself enough back then to convert a Bastogne and no mini was released IIRC.
usernamesareannoying wrote: I tend to avoid them as I’m always afraid tourneys won’t allow them or people will get annoyed at their use. Do you guys run them or ever see any pushback?
Just a HH player's opinion here. I think that if you're bringing a Primarch or a character that can significantly alter an army (Sevatar, for example), you should tell your opponent. It's just good sportsmanship, IMHOP.
In 40K, the primarchs - at least the loyalist ones - don't really significantly alter the army. Even last edition it was more often the named captains that did that (I'm thinking mainly the two DA Captains) - and I wouldn't be surprised to see something in the codex that wrangles extra OC to Ravenguard and/or Deathwing based on a Strat, Belial/Sammael or some such to represent their non-standard "org chart"
Nah, the galaxy is a gigantic place. Perfectly reasonable to ban them. What do you do if multiple people want to run them?
Then one of them will be running Shmeldrad, the long lost brother of Eldrad.
Or the battles will simply not be at the exact same time and place. Also, you can always pick one of the following universal hand-waves: "eldar in disguise", "alpha legionaire", "it's a clone", "the warp screwed up time again" or "because Mork and Gork said so". You know, just like official novels defining the very setting do.
The only reason to not have multiples is if they are in the same game, or you are using synchronous missions. Outside of that, you are just prioritizing your pet peeve over another player's enjoyment.
And even then, a general ban on named characters is highly questionable, as there are plenty of characters that fit into pretty much any setting (Badrukk, Trayzin and many Eldar come to mind), as well plenty who are scattered around the particular part of the galaxy where your story is taking place.
Nah, the galaxy is a gigantic place. Perfectly reasonable to ban them. What do you do if multiple people want to run them?
Does the same work for people who have the same army? What if multiple people want to play the Ultramarines 2nd Company?
Hell, people wanting to play Custodes, or Space Marines, or Tau? The galaxy is a gigantic place, the odds of Custodes or Space Marines showing up are slim, and Tau? Forget it if you're not on the Eastern Fringe, or near the Startide Nexus.
For me, I use the excuse of "it's a gigantic galaxy" to justify HOW people can bump into eachother. It's a big place, and the timeline is expansive. I'm sure there was at least one time that Captain Sicarius took the 2nd Company out to fight in the Genericus Sub-Sector, or that someone who happened to share a lot of the same traits as Marneus Calgar led the Ultramarines in their defence of the Randomica System.
And even then, a general ban on named characters is highly questionable, as there are plenty of characters that fit into pretty much any setting (Badrukk, Trayzin and many Eldar come to mind), as well plenty who are scattered around the particular part of the galaxy where your story is taking place.
Nah, the galaxy is a gigantic place. Perfectly reasonable to ban them. What do you do if multiple people want to run them?
Does the same work for people who have the same army? What if multiple people want to play the Ultramarines 2nd Company?
Hell, people wanting to play Custodes, or Space Marines, or Tau? The galaxy is a gigantic place, the odds of Custodes or Space Marines showing up are slim, and Tau? Forget it if you're not on the Eastern Fringe, or near the Startide Nexus.
For me, I use the excuse of "it's a gigantic galaxy" to justify HOW people can bump into eachother. It's a big place, and the timeline is expansive. I'm sure there was at least one time that Captain Sicarius took the 2nd Company out to fight in the Genericus Sub-Sector, or that someone who happened to share a lot of the same traits as Marneus Calgar led the Ultramarines in their defence of the Randomica System.
That depends on the event of narrative. When we do play them we trailer the forces and avoid picking the same and specific ones based on what is being done.
Day even, long story event, it really just depends on the organisers and what they planing, if players don’t like it. Then they can play standard games as well seperate from the events.
It’s really no different from a tournament game with specific terrain set ups, or any other rules they use.
Apple fox wrote: It’s really no different from a tournament game with specific terrain set ups, or any other rules they use.
It is though. In a tournament, you are always allowed to play every single one of the datasheets in any codex that you own, and in the rare cases when TO meddle with this it's not the case well received at all.
In my personal opinion, for narrative events it's fine to have single games which limit what you can bring, assuming every single army and player can fulfill those requirements. A good example would be a setting where vehicles, monsters and planes are not allowed because of narrow spaces (i.e. Boarding Action) or when you tell everyone to bring a fast list in order to participate in an ork race. Bad examples from actual GW missions across the years are "all units must have FLY", "all units must have a save of 4+ or better", "no monsters (vehicles are fine)", "all units must be vehicles or inside transports", "no TZEENCH units". I don't think it takes much imagination to figure out which armies get completely boned by such limits.
Just make sure to communicate the limitations before the first game is played, because otherwise you will ruin the fun for some players. I was quite bummed out to find that my ork speed freek army couldn't actually contribute to my side's global campaign goal AT ALL because it required INFANTRY units to perform actions.
A unit should not be unavailable from all games of an event, and if it is, it should be for a very good reason, as described in my previous post.
And mind you, this is for events. Events, as in, "playing games with people who you limited or no information about". Four friends doing their bi-weekly prezelhammer campaign in the same garage for 30 years is not an event. You know everyone's armies and each other well enough to not need outside advice on how to make you games fun. It might still be worth stepping back a second and check if you haven't mistaken peer pressure for a consensus though.
Apple fox wrote: It’s really no different from a tournament game with specific terrain set ups, or any other rules they use.
It is though. In a tournament, you are always allowed to play every single one of the datasheets in any codex that you own, and in the rare cases when TO meddle with this it's not the case well received at all.
In my personal opinion, for narrative events it's fine to have single games which limit what you can bring, assuming every single army and player can fulfill those requirements. A good example would be a setting where vehicles, monsters and planes are not allowed because of narrow spaces (i.e. Boarding Action) or when you tell everyone to bring a fast list in order to participate in an ork race.
Just make sure to communicate the limitations before the first game is played, because otherwise you will ruin the fun for some players. I was quite bummed out to find that my ork speed freek army couldn't actually contribute to my side's global campaign goal AT ALL because it required INFANTRY units to perform actions.
The only time a unit should be unavailable from all games of an event, it should be for a very good reason, as described in my previous post.
All our narrative games had rules all lay out beforehand, just like our tournaments do it. It also is that a narrative even can be a lot of things, like campaigns or a game day.
There is nothing really stopping spread freaks from having truck infantry, so that isn’t a sure issue above.
Also ruin the fun is itself two way, as a narrative event may have those rules to create a different environment for players who find something different fun.
In the end, it’s healthy for a community to run different events in different ways for everyone to get something they like, even if they don’t join everything.
It should be part of the hobby as well. The tournament scene for 40K I honestly don’t hold that high, it’s a bit off a mess out there.
Apple fox wrote: There is nothing really stopping spread freaks from having truck infantry, so that isn’t a sure issue above.
Should have been more precise. I was running the speed mob army of renown, and that specially excluded all infantry. Which wasn't really an issue for the first chapter of the campaign (three games), by the time we started the second chapter, the only way to get any infantry in my army would been to drop my entire army and start with a new one.
Also ruin the fun is itself two way, as a narrative event may have those rules to create a different environment for players who find something different fun.
I heavily disagree. Claiming that a specific model/unit/unit composition/pain job ruins your fun should never, ever be considered even remotely equal to someone not having fun because they are not allowed to bring their models, playing a game not worth playing or being outright being excluded from playing at all, despite them enjoying the play style.
There is no reason to consider the two sides equal, unless you consider your opponent's enjoyment irrelevant compared to yours and him to only be a necessary evil for your own enjoyment. Which makes you a bad person.
In the end, it’s healthy for a community to run different events in different ways for everyone to get something they like, even if they don’t join everything. It should be part of the hobby as well.
Named characters and narrative games are not mutually exclusive. It's arbitrary gatekeeping which is absolutely not healthy for any community ever.
I am not sure how is it the players, who picked Angles of Absolution as his army, and uses DA rules for them, as the codex says he should, foult that GW only created a named DW master? Especialy now that units have characters locked to units they can join, often in strange ways, but rules are rules.
At the same time the Tyranid player can just say that his codex lore says that the hive mind reproduces Swarm Lords, Old one eyes etc for different hive fleets. Banning models in narrative or not setting is always a slippery thing to do, and even more so when the player doesn't have, because of how GW wrote the rules for the army, an option to replace the missing models. And that is before taking in to account peoples model collections.
As people like to put words in my mouth, a short summary: There are a few good reasons to not allow certain unique characters to not be played in narrative games. If you re-enact the war of Armageddon and you tell the Ultramarine player that they can't play Gulliman, that's fine. If you tell the only ork players that they have to align on who gets to play Thrakka, Snikrot, Zagstrukk and Badrukk, that's also fine. If you tell the only Black Templar player that they can't play Grimaldus, you're a dick. If you tell a necron player that they can't bring the nightbringer, you should not be organizing narrative events.
Or the battles will simply not be at the exact same time and place.
Also, you can always pick one of the following universal hand-waves: "eldar in disguise", "alpha legionaire", "it's a clone", "the warp screwed up time again" or "because Mork and Gork said so".
You know, just like official novels defining the very setting do.
The only reason to not have multiples is if they are in the same game, or you are using synchronous missions. Outside of that, you are just prioritizing your pet peeve over another player's enjoyment.
It beggars belief to have that as the norm in the campaign. It also gets away from the focus - which is developing your own fluff, like an rpg character.
Or the battles will simply not be at the exact same time and place.
Also, you can always pick one of the following universal hand-waves: "eldar in disguise", "alpha legionaire", "it's a clone", "the warp screwed up time again" or "because Mork and Gork said so".
You know, just like official novels defining the very setting do.
The only reason to not have multiples is if they are in the same game, or you are using synchronous missions. Outside of that, you are just prioritizing your pet peeve over another player's enjoyment.
It beggars belief to have that as the norm in the campaign. It also gets away from the focus - which is developing your own fluff, like an rpg character.
As I alluded to above, I think it's fair to say that any notion of developing characters died with 9th edition.
"Boy oh boy, I can't wait to develop my character with fixed weapon choices and no wargear options by giving them the one solitary artefact they're permitted to take! He'll be very different to my other character with the exact same fixed weapon choices and no wargear options. Not to mention different from my opponent's character with fixed weapon choices and no wargear options. And very, very different from the special character version with fixed weapon choices and no wargear options!"
Don't get me wrong, in prior editions I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. However, 10th has killed any notion of customisation or 'your dudes' stone dead. Thus, banning special characters at this point seems akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, sailed to another continent, risen to fame as a minor celebrity, and eventually died of a drug overdose.
Hecaton wrote: It beggars belief to have that as the norm in the campaign. It also gets away from the focus - which is developing your own fluff, like an rpg character.
This is Colonel John Doe of the Cadian 209349039053460943906905409690546546905th Cannon Fodder. He is great at leadership and commands his regiment from his horse. Here are all the stories of his battles.
vs.
This is Colonel John Doe of the Cadian 209349039053460943906905409690546546905th Cannon Fodder. He is great at leadership and has a plasma pistol and power sword. Here are all the stories of his battles.
How exactly is one "developing your own fluff" but the other isn't? Are you confusing "developing your own fluff" with "picking upgrades from an option table"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: "Boy oh boy, I can't wait to develop my character with fixed weapon choices and no wargear options by giving them the one solitary artefact they're permitted to take! He'll be very different to my other character with the exact same fixed weapon choices and no wargear options. Not to mention different from my opponent's character with fixed weapon choices and no wargear options. And very, very different from the special character version with fixed weapon choices and no wargear options!"
Hey, sometimes generic characters have options. You can take a plasma pistol and power fist, or you can be wrong. But the theoretical existence of a chainsword and laspistol option means MY choice of plasma pistol and power fist is 100% unique and totally different from named characters with fixed equipment.
warhead01 wrote: I've never really been a fan but then I started back in 2nd where you had to have permission to field them. None of my friends at the time seemed to care one way or the other.
Same. The named characters of that era were mostly about flavor and I don't recall any of them being a fixture. I never used them because I wanted more guys with guns and in that edition everything was so deadly that even a Bloodthirster could be laid low by a single lascannon shot.
It sounds like GW has (typically) weaponized them by only offering certain buffs if you take them. No idea how orders work, but it seems pretty bad game design to say that all units can get orders, but only special characters can give them to certain units.
Well, maybe not bad game design, but certainly greedy. May as well require special printed cards to give orders and then price them differently based on how cool the order is. (I would not be surprised if that isn't already the case.)
What's irked me over the years is, or, was when they were required to play an army build. I played dark Angels for a very long time and then one day Death Wing as an army build was a thing and it required oll' what's name, just as one example.
As I alluded to above, I think it's fair to say that any notion of developing characters died with 9th edition.
And for matched play, I'd agree 100%.
But let's all remember that what Hecaton was talking about was a Crusade campaign, which provides at least as much customization than more flexible equipment lists from previous editions.
In 9th, every unit qualified for 4 upgrades, plus any Requisition strategems you care to purchase with RP, in which case they become permanent. There were also titular upgrades for some units in some armies, and some mission/ campaign rewards could be granted in addition to any of those rewards. These upgrades often took the form of relics or weapon upgrades- not enough to entirely make up for the loss of equipment options from previous editions, but once combined with Rank rewards, non-equipment Battle Honours and permanent Req Strats, the unit usually ends up with far greater customization than you could get with a flexible equipment list alone.
It remains to be seen whether 10th will provide as much opportunity; both Psychic Mastery Battle Honours and Requisition strats are gone now, so 10th is already in a hole. The lack of generic Crusade Relics and the limited generic Battle Honours in the Core Crusade rules are somewhat problematic, unless you're interested in having YOUR DUDES participate in the Tyrannic War, or some future campaign book.
There should also be bespoke faction-based in each of the dexes, but for some factions, that's a long wait.
I'd argue that Psykers, in general, are in a hole this Edition. So bland, so set-in-stone, and too many weird rules interactions ("Psyker" or "Psychic" is only ever a detriment/weakness).
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Hey, sometimes generic characters have options. You can take a plasma pistol and power fist, or you can be wrong. But the theoretical existence of a chainsword and laspistol option means MY choice of plasma pistol and power fist is 100% unique and totally different from named characters with fixed equipment.
But given that all upgrades are free, you should probably take the best things.
When I’m active, yes. Though I usually go for puns or pop culture references.
Just reading the new Ciaphas Cain novel, where we’re introduced to Veteran Sargent Toba Morie of the Reclaimers Chapter. This is an excellent example of the sort of pun names I favour.
It’s established that the Reclaimers have an unusual amount of Corvus pattern helmets, and they’re issued as a visible mark of honour to veteran battle brothers. That is of course a Beaky Helmet. Which were also known as Wombles due to the shape. And one of the Wombles is named Tobermory.
Crusade is a matched play system and this highlights the issues with trying to apply it to a narrative context. The subject is advancing the story of characters but all discussion of it inevitably comes to which special rules you can stack up to improve their dice math. Yeah, sure, Crusade gives you the choice between re-rolling 1s and +1 AP instead of the removed choice between a chainsword and a power fist but in the end it's all just rules optimization stuff that has no impact on the character or their story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: But given that all upgrades are free, you should probably take the best things.
Crusade is a matched play system and this highlights the issues with trying to apply it to a narrative context. The subject is advancing the story of characters but all discussion of it inevitably comes to which special rules you can stack up to improve their dice math. Yeah, sure, Crusade gives you the choice between re-rolling 1s and +1 AP instead of the removed choice between a chainsword and a power fist but in the end it's all just rules optimization stuff that has no impact on the character or their story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: But given that all upgrades are free, you should probably take the best things.
That's exactly the problem I was referring to.
For what it's worth, you seem to be overlooking the possibility that some people will choose their upgrades to fit a theme even if doing so is sub-optimal. I'm sure there's folks out there that prefer to roll their crusade rewards/upgrades instead of pick and then update their lore to explain why these changes occurred. (That said, I will also mention that I'm firmly in the camp of those who miss the wargear costing points).
usernamesareannoying wrote: I tend to avoid them as I’m always afraid tourneys won’t allow them or people will get annoyed at their use. Do you guys run them or ever see any pushback?
Just a HH player's opinion here. I think that if you're bringing a Primarch or a character that can significantly alter an army (Sevatar, for example), you should tell your opponent. It's just good sportsmanship, IMHOP.
In 40K, the primarchs - at least the loyalist ones - don't really significantly alter the army. Even last edition it was more often the named captains that did that (I'm thinking mainly the two DA Captains) - and I wouldn't be surprised to see something in the codex that wrangles extra OC to Ravenguard and/or Deathwing based on a Strat, Belial/Sammael or some such to represent their non-standard "org chart"
Ummm....okay. I was specifically think of 30k, where a Primarch, or sufficiently powerful characters (read: Sevatar), can absolutely change the character of an army. Sorry if that wasn't readily apparent.
Crusade is a matched play system and this highlights the issues with trying to apply it to a narrative context.
You keep saying this, and it continues to be wrong. In the game WH40K, there is a play mode called Matched. The term is used in this context to distinguish that mode of play from Crusade, Open and Combat Patrol. All are distinct modes of play.
I understand what you are trying to imply by using the lowercase "m" - but that is your personal semantic axe to grind and it has nothing to do with any argument I am making here or have ever made in the past, because anytime I've ever used the word Matched, I've been referring to the play mode, whether I remembered to hit shift when I typed "m" or not. When most people used the word matched in reference to 40k, I'm sure that in most cases, they're using it the same way, which makes your weird semantic hang-up just as irrelevant in responses to them as it is in response to me.
I'd advise you to to abandon this peculiar semantic obsession, because it undermines your credibility.
The subject is advancing the story of characters but all discussion of it inevitably comes to which special rules you can stack up to improve their dice math. Yeah, sure, Crusade gives you the choice between re-rolling 1s and +1 AP instead of the removed choice between a chainsword and a power fist but in the end it's all just rules optimization stuff that has no impact on the character or their story.
People are free to play Crusade in any way they choose, provided they can find opponents who consider their behaviour acceptable. Some roll battle honours randomly, some choose them freely and some play games that are moderated by a GM who has the option of approving thematic choices in lieu of random rolls.
Every Battle Honour I've ever chosen has been related to the story events which generated the XP necessary to purchase it, because that's my preference, and the GM has always agreed that my choices were appropriate and granted approval on that basis.
And finally, while it's true that some of the Battle Honours are as simple as those you mention (especially in 10th), others are far more interesting.
Either way, if a player feels like the equipment options they've lost in 10th are compromising their enjoyment of the game, playing Crusade might provide them with a way to get some of that feeling back, again, provided they can find a group of people to play with who will agree to play under those circumstances.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: For what it's worth, you seem to be overlooking the possibility that some people will choose their upgrades to fit a theme even if doing so is sub-optimal. I'm sure there's folks out there that prefer to roll their crusade rewards/upgrades instead of pick and then update their lore to explain why these changes occurred. (That said, I will also mention that I'm firmly in the camp of those who miss the wargear costing points).
I'm not overlooking it, I just don't think it's a meaningful choice for anything but dice math optimization. Competitive players may find it fascinating to analyze and choose between +1 AP and +1 damage but from a story point of view it's all meaningless. The hero has a cool pistol, move on. It's a trivial background detail that would barely merit a single sentence in a 500 page novel.
And I really don't get the appeal of RNG for narrative play. It's a useful balance constraint in matched play games, to prevent players from automatically stacking up all the best stuff ASAP and breaking the game but from a story point of view it makes no sense. If upgrades have any story merit at all they should be decided based on what best fits the story. Rolling randomly to see what you get and then rationalizing it afterwards gets it completely backwards IMO, and ends up feeling like the lore rationalizations for why every devastator sergeant has a free plasma pistol and thunder hammer.
It continues to be correct. Crusade is not Matched Play, the GW sanctioned tournament format, but it absolutely is a matched play format. It is a system that makes compromise after compromise sacrificing narrative elements to better function in a matched play environment where you bring your force to the local store/club and play pickup games in stock missions against random opponents. It has been designed, and even designed well IMO, from the ground up for that specific purpose.
it has nothing to do with any argument I am making here or have ever made in the past
It has everything to do with matched play. Your description of upgrades is about how they work in a matched play system where list construction for on-table performance is the goal. And, as I said, it highlights how Crusade's design focus on matched play games makes it a poor narrative system. Instead of focusing on actual story elements you're encouraged to get bogged down in the details of whether you should take +1 AP or +1 strength on your weapon upgrade.
Every Battle Honour I've ever chosen has been related to the story events which generated the XP necessary to purchase it, because that's my preference, and the GM has always agreed that my choices were appropriate and granted approval on that basis.
And it still has very little to do with actual character development or storytelling. You're falling into the trap of GW bolter porn "lore", where characters are defined by their equipment choices and most impressive battlefield feats. We know nothing about who a character is as a person but we know he's equipped with a Primaris Bolt Rifle and Power Fist and he has killed over 9000 Chaos Space Marines.
And it still has very little to do with actual character development or storytelling. You're falling into the trap of GW bolter porn "lore", where characters are defined by their equipment choices and most impressive battlefield feats. We know nothing about who a character is as a person but we know he's equipped with a Primaris Bolt Rifle and Power Fist and he has killed over 9000 Chaos Space Marines.
Since you can't perfectly divorce mechanics from flavor, having a progression system is important for the same reason having it in DnD is important.
Hecaton wrote: Since you can't perfectly divorce mechanics from flavor, having a progression system is important for the same reason having it in DnD is important.
It's important in D&D because D&D is a skirmish-scale wargame with a flimsy story attached to set up the combats, when it succeeds at telling a compelling story it's usually in spite of the rules not because of them. Leveling up in D&D is cool because it makes you better at the dice game, not because it makes much narrative sense or is essential to having a good story.
Same thing in 40k. You absolutely do not need any kind of progression system to tell stories in 40k, it's just desired because people imagine how cool it will be for their best unit to get re-rolls and extra attacks and stack it with their favorite stratagem and character buffs.
Apple fox wrote: There is nothing really stopping spread freaks from having truck infantry, so that isn’t a sure issue above.
Should have been more precise. I was running the speed mob army of renown, and that specially excluded all infantry. Which wasn't really an issue for the first chapter of the campaign (three games), by the time we started the second chapter, the only way to get any infantry in my army would been to drop my entire army and start with a new one.
Also ruin the fun is itself two way, as a narrative event may have those rules to create a different environment for players who find something different fun.
I heavily disagree. Claiming that a specific model/unit/unit composition/pain job ruins your fun should never, ever be considered even remotely equal to someone not having fun because they are not allowed to bring their models, playing a game not worth playing or being outright being excluded from playing at all, despite them enjoying the play style.
There is no reason to consider the two sides equal, unless you consider your opponent's enjoyment irrelevant compared to yours and him to only be a necessary evil for your own enjoyment. Which makes you a bad person.
In the end, it’s healthy for a community to run different events in different ways for everyone to get something they like, even if they don’t join everything.
It should be part of the hobby as well.
Named characters and narrative games are not mutually exclusive. It's arbitrary gatekeeping which is absolutely not healthy for any community ever.
A curated experience with more restrictions is not arbitrary gatekeeping, if everyone wants to play something different or wants to try something different with an event or campaign, or let a organiser do something different.
It’s the same reason I don’t turn up to every tournament, a lot are run in ways I wouldn’t enjoy the games anyway. But i assume the players attending are having fun. Those days can be for them.
Apple fox wrote: A curated experience with more restrictions is not arbitrary gatekeeping, if everyone wants to play something different or wants to try something different with an event or campaign, or let a organiser do something different.
It is gatekeeping when the reasons for "curating" are arbitrary as they are with named characters. It's no different than "curating" an experience where marines (and only marines) are not allowed to take weapon upgrades on any of their units.
And if everyone wants to play without named characters then why do you need a rule banning them? Its like making up a rule banning Eldar for being overpowered when nobody in your group has or has any interest in getting an Eldar army.
Apple fox wrote: A curated experience with more restrictions is not arbitrary gatekeeping, if everyone wants to play something different or wants to try something different with an event or campaign, or let a organiser do something different.
It is gatekeeping when the reasons for "curating" are arbitrary as they are with named characters. It's no different than "curating" an experience where marines (and only marines) are not allowed to take weapon upgrades on any of their units.
And if everyone wants to play without named characters then why do you need a rule banning them? Its like making up a rule banning Eldar for being overpowered when nobody in your group has or has any interest in getting an Eldar army.
Sometimes the story being told is a certain way, sometimes we decide we want to not see certain things.
Then we open up events, and campaigns to others to join.
Not everyone wants to organise big events or campaigns but wants to join in, we haven’t had any issues and people still play as normal outside the event itself.
Apple fox wrote: Sometimes the story being told is a certain way, sometimes we decide we want to not see certain things.
There is no scenario where the rules for a named character can not fit into a story. The lore might not but that doesn't mean you can't use the rules to represent a character who is suitable for the story. What you're doing is no different from deciding that space marines in your story only have bolters and therefore marine players can't take anything but tactical squads with no upgrades.
Apple fox wrote: Sometimes the story being told is a certain way, sometimes we decide we want to not see certain things.
There is no scenario where the rules for a named character can not fit into a story. The lore might not but that doesn't mean you can't use the rules to represent a character who is suitable for the story. What you're doing is no different from deciding that space marines in your story only have bolters and therefore marine players can't take anything but tactical squads with no upgrades.
Sometimes that fits, sometimes that doesn’t. We decide case by case. Sometimes we do things specifically to see what will be done differently, how players adapt is part of the fun as well.
The terrain changes has a far bigger effect on the game, sometimes we only have a few army’s present at all. We switch it up, and have no issues with this.
We have even done campaigns with our Marine players where using tactical squads and drop pods as they’re only units. Specific and was lots of fun.
I'm late to the discussion, but I like named characters and will fight you about it.
My space elves have been alive a long time, and the average 40k game represents like, a minute or two of battle. (At least that's my take.) On a busy day, Baharroth and Lelith could wrack up a hundred games worth action.
And if I'm really having trouble making the lore work for having a given character present, I just headcanon that said character is actually some other generic guy that just happens to have a fighting style better represented by the named character's rules. That's not Baharroth, no. That's Exarch Fengalon of the Guilty Zephyr. All the autarchs are busy elsewhere, so he's been tasked with commanding operations in his little corner of the battlefield. That's not Eldrad; it's an Iybraesilian farseer who favors the rune of the Morai-Heg and thus has access to the Doom power rather than Guide.
I also never really grocked the take that named characters shouldn't be present for "every little skirmish." It's not a skirmish; it's a planet-spanning battle. The camera just happens to be focused on the little section of the battlefield your named character is standing on at the moment.
Wyldhunt wrote: I also never really grocked the take that named characters shouldn't be present for "every little skirmish." It's not a skirmish; it's a planet-spanning battle. The camera just happens to be focused on the little section of the battlefield your named character is standing on at the moment.
But then how will I complain about artillery tanks fighting at close range?
Hecaton wrote: Since you can't perfectly divorce mechanics from flavor, having a progression system is important for the same reason having it in DnD is important.
It's important in D&D because D&D is a skirmish-scale wargame with a flimsy story attached to set up the combats, when it succeeds at telling a compelling story it's usually in spite of the rules not because of them. Leveling up in D&D is cool because it makes you better at the dice game, not because it makes much narrative sense or is essential to having a good story.
Same thing in 40k. You absolutely do not need any kind of progression system to tell stories in 40k, it's just desired because people imagine how cool it will be for their best unit to get re-rolls and extra attacks and stack it with their favorite stratagem and character buffs.
It sounds to me like you enjoy the dice optimization aspect of gaming (maybe I'm wrong but that's what it sounds like from your posts), which is perfectly valid. I'm guessing you enjoy other aspects as well, but dice optimization seems to be an important aspect.
Some people enjoy the role play aspect where decisions are made not on the basis of what is most optimal but on what fits the narrative best. The dice then tell them whether they were successful or not. This is the same as in D&D. Whether or not actions were successful is irrelevant to conveying a character. Both 40k and D&D can be played as a role playing experience or a dice optimization experience and, as with 40k, both are valid. The key is to find a group to play with who also sees them as valid.
I also never really grocked the take that named characters shouldn't be present for "every little skirmish." It's not a skirmish; it's a planet-spanning battle. The camera just happens to be focused on the little section of the battlefield your named character is standing on at the moment.
Planet wide with nobody around beside them.
That big heroes wouldn't have that small group around and would have support.
Only people with zero clue about war would claim it makes sense.
It doesn't make sense. Not meant to. It's designed to get all your money from your wallet to gw's pocket.
You can justify however you want but named characters are to make gw money.
Or the battles will simply not be at the exact same time and place.
Also, you can always pick one of the following universal hand-waves: "eldar in disguise", "alpha legionaire", "it's a clone", "the warp screwed up time again" or "because Mork and Gork said so".
You know, just like official novels defining the very setting do.
The only reason to not have multiples is if they are in the same game, or you are using synchronous missions. Outside of that, you are just prioritizing your pet peeve over another player's enjoyment.
It beggars belief to have that as the norm in the campaign. It also gets away from the focus - which is developing your own fluff, like an rpg character.
As I alluded to above, I think it's fair to say that any notion of developing characters died with 9th edition.
Eh, at least when you are playing crusade, this isn't really true.
From one of the longest running crusade forces I played during 9th:
Spoiler:
Lord Vladimir Krukhov (LoV) is the current commander of the Plagueship Pallidus Ascensorem. His rival Master Karlman von Kronfeld of the Dark Angels (primaris captain in gravis armor), who in charge of a dark angels company consisting primarily of chapter rejects deemed unfit for the inner circle who were thus volunteered to test the highly faulty initial primaris conversion. The first met during the Charradon campaign during the rout at Okharium where Karlman heroically fought Vladimir and his bodyguard to a standstill, and despite suffering from terrible acid burns (battle wound: deep scars) and being left for dead, he managed to buy enough time for two squads of ravenwing outriders to escape and inform the nearby Ad Mech airforces who then drove back the death guard and recovered the dying Master (victory: dark angels).
Later, at Karlman identified Vladimir's vessel over the water world of Fathom and decided to take avenge is fallen brothers. Making planetfall, Karlman cut a path through Vladimir's commanders (killing a plaguecaster, a noxius blightbringer and a foul blightspawn) before facing off against Vladimir in a duel again. Despite trading blows for an eternity (3 rounds of combat), neither fell and the Death Guard were forced to retreat to the warp. For his heroic deeds, Karlman was given the honor to be enhanced with a relic from the dark age, a frenzone injector (crusade relic) to increase his speed in combat even further and he was also given the honor of being knighted (DA battle honor).
They clashed a third time during Typhus' final push to activate Miasmic Malignifers across the entire Charadon sector to wipe out all imperial defenders. Karlman climbed atop a central ruin to issue a challenge to the abomination which he had failed to kill twice so far. Vladimir met the challenge and they traded blows with their powerfists while the battle was raging around them. Vladimir eventually landed a lethal blow, knocking Karlman down. He reached into his guts and tore out the frenzone injector, to have it improved by the powers of nurgle and implant it into himself (Vladimir got the same crusade relic, Karlman got Battlescar: Lost Leg to represent losing the injector).
During a later campaign, they met on the battlefield two more times, but despite Karman looking for a rematch, Vladimir no longer deemed him a worthy opponent and just sent his subordinates after him who all get killed. Eventually this lead Karlman to swear an oath to kill Vladimir and directly attacked him with a squard of terminators and a chaplain in tow. While the deathwing terminators and the deathshroud were fighting, Vladimir killed Karlman and dropped his lifeless body into a scrapheap, just before the chaplain (name escapes me) strikes him down in the name of the emperor. The chaplain returns to the fleet with the broken body of Karlman. The wounded Vladimir returns to the Pallidus Ascensorem, just to find out that the dark angels had boarded it and planted bombs to blow it up (a series of Boarding Action games). After killing the judicar in charge or the boarding teams with his own hands and deactivating most of the bombs, he had to fight down an insurrection (DG played by a different player) before moving to a new battlefield.
Karlman was declared dead, with the interrogator chaplain taking charge of the company and a librarian becoming the DA player's new protagonist. Originally intended to be a backfield supporter, fueled by insane dice luck and hand-picked battle honors, turned into a legendary duelist that fought Magnus himself and walked away.
Our group actually refers to the two models as "Vladimir" and "Karlman" now, and due to popular demand, Karlman was returned as a redemptor dreadnaught to fight "one more battle". Vladimir managed to collect three boons of chaos by downing a GSC Patriarch, an Eldar Farseer and Ahriman in three consecutive games and ascended to daemonhood, though 10th has so far prevented him from testing his newfound powers.
Note that this is just the story of those two models because it turned out to be particularly epic, but there were many more. Like the kopta unit which has their koptas plated with stormshields after successfully collection four out of five dark angel weapon crates, the one-eyed disgraced big mek who tried to take over the job of the speedboss twice (and got krumped twice because of that), the genius admech techpriest that abandoned all of her army and her allies to die in order to secure and escape with two pieces of dark age technology, the rhino whose machine spirit was named "Speedy" for outracing a deffkilla wartrike or the necron lord who specifically took measures to armor his command barge after being dragged off his ride and being beaten to scrap by horde units on four different occasion.
All of that happened on the tabletop, mostly enabled and supported by official GW narrative rules. The campaigns played were from the Book of Rust and two homebrew campaigns using various rules and missions from the campaign publications. We had some house rules in place, but none really affected the story in a meaningful way.
Both the LoV and the gravis captain(at the time) had zero options and were just generic dudes when they started out. They still managed to create their story, have unique wargear (weapon enhancements, crusade relics), have battle scars and made a name for themselves. None of that was planned or scripted, it was all just 40k rules and dice.
During the campaigns (especially during the big battles at the end of a campaign), Vladimir fought alongside Mortarion, Abaddon, Rottigus, Cypher and Be'lakor. Karlman has fought with Azrael, Belial and Tor Garadon. The have faced countless named foes, some named by publications, others by players, many of them multiple times.
TL;DR: Essentially the "developing characters" part of the narrative has moved from the listbuilding stage to an actual narrative framework. And GW managed to do it surprisingly well. In fact, they did it so well that some greedy managers swarmed in to ruin it again for 10th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Planet wide with nobody around beside them.
That big heroes wouldn't have that small group around and would have support.
Only people with zero clue about war would claim it makes sense.
It doesn't make sense. Not meant to. It's designed to get all your money from your wallet to gw's pocket.
You can justify however you want but named characters are to make gw money.
Have you ever read any 40k novel? Like a single one?
40k is a setting by people who have zero clue about war, for people with zero clue about war.
At this stage, realistic application of tactics and rational decisions by leaders should be considered immersion breaking
Special characters are just little rulepacks not different from non-named characters. Yoy can use these rules for your own models and characters if they fit the idea in your head well, exactly as you would customizable ones.
For example if rules for Calgar represent your own idea of a character better than a non-named option you can use them even if it isn't actual Calgar or even if your army isn't Ultramarines. Just try to keep the model WYSIWYG when it comes to equipment.
(For example you want your army of Chaos primaris to be led be a twin power fist badass chaos lord - just use the rules)
Cyel wrote: Special characters are just little rulepacks not different from non-named characters. Yoy can use these rules for your own models and characters if they fit the idea in your head well, exactly as you would customizable ones.
For example if rules for Calgar represent your own idea of a character better than a non-named option you can use them even if it isn't actual Calgar or even if your army isn't Ultramarines. Just try to keep the model WYSIWYG when it comes to equipment.
(For example you want your army of Chaos primaris to be led be a twin power fist badass chaos lord - just use the rules)
See, that is *very* close to my opinion, but coming from the other way. I think characters/leaders should have a bunch of wargear, rules, ability options that you can then customize them with. Then special characters are a way to show off the zany things you could do with said options. Here is Marneus Calgar, for him we took the dual power fist and honor guard wargear options, and the inspiring leader ability.
usernamesareannoying wrote: I tend to avoid them as I’m always afraid tourneys won’t allow them or people will get annoyed at their use. Do you guys run them or ever see any pushback?
Just a HH player's opinion here. I think that if you're bringing a Primarch or a character that can significantly alter an army (Sevatar, for example), you should tell your opponent. It's just good sportsmanship, IMHOP.
In 40K, the primarchs - at least the loyalist ones - don't really significantly alter the army. Even last edition it was more often the named captains that did that (I'm thinking mainly the two DA Captains) - and I wouldn't be surprised to see something in the codex that wrangles extra OC to Ravenguard and/or Deathwing based on a Strat, Belial/Sammael or some such to represent their non-standard "org chart"
Ermmm...ok? I was specifically talking about 30k, where Primarchs and high level characters (like Sevatar) can completely change an army because of their inclusion. But, whatever.
Cyel wrote: Special characters are just little rulepacks not different from non-named characters. Yoy can use these rules for your own models and characters if they fit the idea in your head well, exactly as you would customizable ones.
For example if rules for Calgar represent your own idea of a character better than a non-named option you can use them even if it isn't actual Calgar or even if your army isn't Ultramarines. Just try to keep the model WYSIWYG when it comes to equipment.
(For example you want your army of Chaos primaris to be led be a twin power fist badass chaos lord - just use the rules)
See, that is *very* close to my opinion, but coming from the other way. I think characters/leaders should have a bunch of wargear, rules, ability options that you can then customize them with. Then special characters are a way to show off the zany things you could do with said options. Here is Marneus Calgar, for him we took the dual power fist and honor guard wargear options, and the inspiring leader ability.
Back in 5th a buddy tried to create a crusade via house rules and we all made custom protagonist characters. Unfortunately, either he was a bit too generous with the character creation or I was a bit too by the books about it. Most of the group came up with ideas and had him assign points costs to them. I did a bit of that, but mostly used the wargear rules in the 5e Imperial Guard Codex to buy all of the gear for my character. He ended up being horribly overcosted compared to his rivals, but it was still fun to do. My character was based on a drunk commissar character from an old white dwarf issue a buddy had told me about. At the time commissars could only execute within the unit they were attached to. My guy could execute w/in 12 inches (pistol range). He also had a plasma pistol and a rule called "Here, you fix this" where he'd toss the pistol to someone else whenever it failed it's Gets Hot check. I'll also note that there was a minimum battle size for including our characters, although I forget what that was. We also wanted to involve battlefleet gothic in the campaign in a way that would influence the ground battles (determining who goes first or decides on the size of battle, etc), but never got around to it.
Long story short, in some codices, you had some of the tools to describe what you are talking about once upon a time. GW just needed to take it a step farther and add stuff for abilities.
I don't get the fuss about events banning named character. As far as I am aware, nobody is pointing a gun in your direction forcing you to take part. Go play elsewhere with people whose rules you like. Event organisers are free to do what they fancy.
If their events are so riddled with gale breaking atrocious and stupid rules I guess nobody will attend them and it'll die out on its own. Simple.
As for the interpretation of camera zooming in in a specific moment of a wider battle... I mostly agree. There lacks some overall en ironment to make it 100% immersive to me but I think it is not a stupid point to make. As is the one about how short of a time span a tabletop game actually represents.
I'm not a combat veteran at all so take it with a pinch of salt, but surely manoeuvres when your the patrol ahead or the last tank of the platoon with a few infantrymen holding a crossing sure looks like this in a way. I'll let vets give their better opinion on this and stay careful.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: It sounds to me like you enjoy the dice optimization aspect of gaming (maybe I'm wrong but that's what it sounds like from your posts), which is perfectly valid. I'm guessing you enjoy other aspects as well, but dice optimization seems to be an important aspect.
Some people enjoy the role play aspect where decisions are made not on the basis of what is most optimal but on what fits the narrative best. The dice then tell them whether they were successful or not. This is the same as in D&D. Whether or not actions were successful is irrelevant to conveying a character. Both 40k and D&D can be played as a role playing experience or a dice optimization experience and, as with 40k, both are valid. The key is to find a group to play with who also sees them as valid.
No, you have that backwards. The "focus on dice optimization stuff" is a criticism of D&D and how it has some major failures as a narrative system, catering to players who prefer skirmish-scale combat and character optimization at the expense of players who want a focus on the story and people.
This is Colonel John Doe of the Cadian 209349039053460943906905409690546546905th Cannon Fodder. He is great at leadership and commands his regiment from his horse. Here are all the stories of his battles.
vs.
This is Colonel John Doe of the Cadian 209349039053460943906905409690546546905th Cannon Fodder. He is great at leadership and has a plasma pistol and power sword. Here are all the stories of his battles.
How exactly is one "developing your own fluff" but the other isn't? Are you confusing "developing your own fluff" with "picking upgrades from an option table"?
No. Players in the campaign I ran were writing short narratives after battle, giving their forces' motivations for doing what they were doing, developing rivalries, etc.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: It's important in D&D because D&D is a skirmish-scale wargame with a flimsy story attached to set up the combats, when it succeeds at telling a compelling story it's usually in spite of the rules not because of them. Leveling up in D&D is cool because it makes you better at the dice game, not because it makes much narrative sense or is essential to having a good story.
Same thing in 40k. You absolutely do not need any kind of progression system to tell stories in 40k, it's just desired because people imagine how cool it will be for their best unit to get re-rolls and extra attacks and stack it with their favorite stratagem and character buffs.
I used DnD as an example because it's the most well-known rpg; even games like Vampire have progression systems. They add something to roleplaying experiences that most players enjoy.
Hecaton wrote: No. Players in the campaign I ran were writing short narratives after battle, giving their forces' motivations for doing what they were doing, developing rivalries, etc.
What does that have to do with whether you use the rules for a generic unit or for a named unit to represent your character? You're proving my point here.
I used DnD as an example because it's the most well-known rpg; even games like Vampire have progression systems. They add something to roleplaying experiences that most players enjoy.
They enjoy it because of the dice game and how it makes their characters better at winning it, not because of story needs.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: What does that have to do with whether you use the rules for a generic unit or for a named unit to represent your character? You're proving my point here.
Because the rules for a named character represent that named character, not someone like them.
Hecaton wrote: Because the rules for a named character represent that named character, not someone like them.
Nope. "This is my new character using the rules for the named character" has existed for as long as named characters have existed.
RPGs aren't just story, and they aren't just games. You need game *and* narrative. Narrative campaigns are similar in that way.
Neither of these things requires leveling up like in D&D. It's a product of players who are focused on "make my dice math numbers bigger" over anything else and the cultural dominance of D&D, where people struggle to even imagine an RPG that doesn't work like D&D.
Neither of these things requires leveling up like in D&D. It's a product of players who are focused on "make my dice math numbers bigger" over anything else and the cultural dominance of D&D, where people struggle to even imagine an RPG that doesn't work like D&D.
Progression systems are near-ubiquitous across RPGs, even ones without level systems. You might want to think about why that is.
Why? Is it also a "cheap cop out" to use a Cadian model with the Tallarn regiment doctrine in 8th? Do you get outraged if someone brings an old Mars-pattern Shadowsword when the rules clearly represent a different pattern?
And IIRC using named character rules to represent your army's version of the idea was even suggested by GW.
Progression systems are near-ubiquitous across RPGs, even ones without level systems. You might want to think about why that is.
I know why it is: players want to make their dice math numbers bigger.
Hecaton wrote: Progression systems are near-ubiquitous across RPGs, even ones without level systems. You might want to think about why that is.
Except you are playing an army, not a single character. Your army can progress just fine even if you run named characters.
I'd also like to point out that almost every single one of your posts in this thread is "because I, Hecaton, say so". There is literally no reason discuss any of them.
Nope. "This is my new character using the rules for the named character" has existed for as long as named characters have existed.
Right, and it's a cheap cop-out.
I'm all for using named character rules to represent your own character. If I want to run a tau commander who heavily favors kau'yon and consequently prefers to utilize a suit with stealth technology, then I don't think it's unreasonable to use Shadowsun's rules instead of those of a crisis commander. If I want to field an army themed around an incubus shrine but don't want to have it lead by literally Drazhar, I might use Drazhar's rules but fluff him as a hierarch with his own personality and goals. You're entitled to your opinions, but it kind of feels like your opinions might be based in some bias based on past experience or something?
Neither of these things requires leveling up like in D&D. It's a product of players who are focused on "make my dice math numbers bigger" over anything else and the cultural dominance of D&D, where people struggle to even imagine an RPG that doesn't work like D&D.
That feels about as disingenuous as Hecaton's "cheap cop-out" claim. Not every RPG has a progression system. People who like progression systems aren't just obsessed with bigger numbers. While progression systems in RPGs do you usually translate to more power and thus more freedom to explore power fantasies, they can also be useful for demonstrating that a character has become more competent or built up connections over time as a result of his experiences. If I havea bunch of dots in allies and contacts in Vampire because I spent a bunch of xp to represent the network of people I've buddied up with over time, that can be great for exploring character connections even if it doesn't make me better at juggling motorcycles. Or if I did put dots into super strength so I can juggle motorcycles, it might be a physical representation of the growing competence/confidence my newly-turned vampire is developing as they acclimate to their new existence.
I'm sure there are less-popular RPGs that do it in a better way but D&D and the RPGs that follow the D&D model (IOW, most RPGs) have a progression system heavily focused on "make the numbers bigger" as the only character development. You start at level 1 with small numbers, you make the numbers bigger, and simultaneously all the enemy numbers get bigger to match. So at level 20 you still need the same roll on the D20 to hit but you've "advanced" by having +40 to hit against AC 55 instead of +1 to hit against AC 16 like you had at level 1. It encourages a mindset where a character is defined by their combat abilities (as represented in the mechanics) and list of monsters killed, not by personality or social relationships or anything that would really define a story.
I know why it is: players want to make their dice math numbers bigger.
That's a common component of many games. The "g" in rpg stands for game. 40k is a game. Deal with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: Except you are playing an army, not a single character. Your army can progress just fine even if you run named characters.
In our campaign, it was both. It was assumed your alter ego was your main warlord.
Jidmah wrote: I'd also like to point out that almost every single one of your posts in this thread is "because I, Hecaton, say so". There is literally no reason discuss any of them.
Nah. I'm pointing at the vast body of game design canon here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThePaintingOwl wrote: I'm sure there are less-popular RPGs that do it in a better way but D&D and the RPGs that follow the D&D model (IOW, most RPGs) have a progression system heavily focused on "make the numbers bigger" as the only character development. You start at level 1 with small numbers, you make the numbers bigger, and simultaneously all the enemy numbers get bigger to match. So at level 20 you still need the same roll on the D20 to hit but you've "advanced" by having +40 to hit against AC 55 instead of +1 to hit against AC 16 like you had at level 1. It encourages a mindset where a character is defined by their combat abilities (as represented in the mechanics) and list of monsters killed, not by personality or social relationships or anything that would really define a story.
Games with less of a combat focus oftentimes have a progression system that allows for other things. A progression system is still there - hence the "game" part of "roleplaying game." It's not *necessary*, but it is a good element to have in a game that will help people to have fun.
Over the years, pen and paper role-playing games are the ones where I've engaged with the greatest number of different games by different makers. I've been playing P&P RPGs for 42 years, and pretty consistently. I've played related forms of RPGs, such as LARPs, and convention-based RPGA Living City events; 0-20 campaigns, 20-30 Epic Campaigns, and stand-alone convention games.
The closest of ever come to what Owl might be aiming for is Chronicles of Amber (diceless role-playing, whose challenges were resolved via a bidding system) and Puppetmaster (a system that used some dice, but worked with a very loose progression system that allowed the malign entities possessing puppets to either possess additional puppets, or augment a particular puppet- progression is "loose" because it isn't the malign entity that changes over the course of the game, merely the puppets that said entity possesses).
The thing about these games is that I didn't particularly like them compared to other games; they felt less like games and more like pure Improv. Now, I'm a trained and licensed Secondary School drama teacher, so I've got a healthy respect for Improv as an art form, but it's not what I want to do when I get together to play a game. Don't get me wrong: Improv is an important ELEMENT of an RPG, and you don't actually have an RPG without out it. But Role-Playing GAMES, as an artform, DO include both Role Playing elements (varying degrees of of immersive Improv) and game-mechanic elements.
The RPGs that I find MOST satisfying are those where sometimes you can guide the narrative with Improv alone, sometimes you can guide the narrative with mechanics alone and most of the time you're using a combination of those two things.
Now, RPGs typically include progression. D&D's progression system, being Level-Based, is IMHO a weak progression system, and truth be told, the only time in RPG history that MOST RPGs used a Level-Based system was the open gaming license heyday of D&D 3 and 3.5, when every company took a crack at a d20 system under the OGL- most noteably, the West End Games Star Wars porting to a D20 System, along with Legend of the Five Rings... Both of which were better and more immersive when using their own mechanics.
MOST games actually use skill/ability based progression, where you don't have to reach a set threshold of experience to gain a set suite of improved abilities, but rather your XP form a pool from which you can make purchases of new skills or abilities at any time. This system more closely resembles what we see in Crusade. In fact, Crusade takes it further by using not one, but two separate progression currencies- RP and XP.
Skill/ Ability based progression systems are more immersive and intuitive than level based systems. They allow GMs to connect the narrative to the skill being purchased; when I GMed, every player knew that I would never allow them to improve a skill or ability until they had attempted to use that ability often enough that improvement in the skill fit the narrative.
This is STILL how I determine my progression in Crusade; if I destroy a unit with shooting attacks, and that pushes me over the XP threshold for a battle honour, I consider it immersion breaking to take a melee battle honour. This is why our GM lets me pick my Honours rather than roll them randomly- he knows it would drive me flying rodent gak crazy to roll a battle honour that didn't match the narrative.
The point is that game mechanics are a part of the format for narrative gaming. Suggesting that people who have a healthy interest in the mechanical components of the game in order to facilitate the narrative component are number-crunchy types the way Owl does is, quite frankly, an insulting oversimplification.
SOME players will be number crunchy power gamers looking for the best combo they can find. But others will be system-hoppers who seek the most immersive mechanics, and enjoy exploring the interactions between narrative and mechanics.
And some members of both camps have such well developed role-playing and storytelling skills that they can mask their preferences beneath lairs of performance- one of the crunchiest combo-seeking players I've ever met is also a fantastic role-player, so that anyone who observes him in games would never guess that he spends as much time as he does running the numbers.
In my experience the vast majority of generalizations fall apart at the extreme ends of the spectrum, so I don't find them particularly useful, and I tend to avoid them. Which is why I find childish generalizations about ALL narrative players, or ALL competitive players to be beneath the level of discourse I look for in forums for grown-ups.
So, any "discussion" of how dnd plays seems to be framed in a very 4th ED+ lens here. 5th Certainly is about rolling huges tracks of dice, and making your DM cry.
1st, or ADnD, or even Arnesson's Adventures catalogue were never about making it to a higher level to make bigger spells and damage. It was about literally surviving to make it to that level. If you made it to level 20 as a druid, your weren't just a level 20 druid, you were the LITERAL ARCH DRUID. Gygax invented DnD to be a grueling slog for players, where skill mattered over dice. Dice helped RP, not so much in combat, where most characters would be dead in round 3.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Calling D&D a "skirmish-scale wargame" is a bridge to far on the road to reductive descriptions for my liking...
Why? D&D started as an expansion for adding fantasy characters to a wargame and it retains an overwhelming focus on the mechanics of combat, with its storytelling aspects being little more than a framework to justify the combat. Countless pages of elaborate combat mechanics, every social encounter reduced to "roll Diplomacy against DC 35".
H.B.M.C. wrote: Calling D&D a "skirmish-scale wargame" is a bridge to far on the road to reductive descriptions for my liking...
Why? D&D started as an expansion for adding fantasy characters to a wargame and it retains an overwhelming focus on the mechanics of combat, with its storytelling aspects being little more than a framework to justify the combat. Countless pages of elaborate combat mechanics, every social encounter reduced to "roll Diplomacy against DC 35".
Have you played modern D&D?
You CAN play it that way. Just like you can play 40k with a GM adjudicating out-of-rule actions.
But that's not how I or anyone I know plays it.
PenitentJake wrote: Don't get me wrong: Improv is an important ELEMENT of an RPG, and you don't actually have an RPG without out it. But Role-Playing GAMES, as an artform, DO include both Role Playing elements (varying degrees of of immersive Improv) and game-mechanic elements.
I think you're getting confused between two things: mechanics and advancement.
An RPG absolutely requires mechanics of some kind for it to be a game, rather than just a free-form improvisational writing exercise.
An RPG does not require advancement in the traditional D&D sense where your character grows by improving its capabilities within the dice game. You do not have to start at the bottom and work your way up to max level/skill. In fact, for many stories this would be completely inappropriate. A trained professional soldier is not going to get meaningfully better at shooting just because he has a few fights. Skill advancement in shooting would be purely a matter of the player wanting a reward for their time invested: bigger numbers in the combat system, even if it makes no narrative sense for those numbers to increase. And it encourages a GW bolter porn style of story where characters are defined by their equipment and combat statistics, not by their personality or social relationships or anything else that can't be quantified in a stat line.
Or, to put it in 40k terms, a typical space marine squad is already a veteran of countless battles. Crusade's XP system makes no sense in a narrative context for the marine squad, by that point in their careers they are not gaining any meaningful improvement in skills from fighting one more battle. The XP system is meant to appeal to the character optimization types who enjoy tinkering with exactly what combination of buffs is better. It's no better from a purely narrative point of view than using a named character that does not participate in the advancement system, it's just more interesting for the build optimization fans.
You CAN play it that way. Just like you can play 40k with a GM adjudicating out-of-rule actions.
But that's not how I or anyone I know plays it.
Yes, I've played modern D&D and it's exactly as I described: elaborate rules for combat and optimizing your dice math, with anything outside of combat either treated as another dice math optimization problem or handwaved away as "the DM should do something here". It still very much encourages a gameplay style of kick the door down, kill the monsters (generated from a random encounter table based on the party's level), take the loot, with characters being defined by what they are capable of doing in combat rather than who they are as people.
JNAProductions wrote: I won't knock you for enjoying that style of D&D, but again-it's not the norm where I play.
I didn't say I enjoy it, I said that's what the rule system encourages. D&D can have more than that but it's almost always a case of success in spite of the rules not because of them.
Why? D&D started as an expansion for adding fantasy characters to a wargame and it retains an overwhelming focus on the mechanics of combat, with its storytelling aspects being little more than a framework to justify the combat. Countless pages of elaborate combat mechanics, every social encounter reduced to "roll Diplomacy against DC 35".
You're sidestepping the fact that many rpgs which don't focus on combat have progression systems as well, and it makes it look like you're being deceptive in your argument.
Hecaton wrote: You're sidestepping the fact that many rpgs which don't focus on combat have progression systems as well, and it makes it look like you're being deceptive in your argument.
The fact that some less-popular RPGs have non-combat progression is irrelevant because my whole point is that progression systems are not required for a story. Named characters not getting Crusade progression is bad for people who care about tinkering with buff combinations to figure out the best dice math, it's completely irrelevant for narrative purposes. And in fact the entire Crusade progression system is bad for most narrative purposes and should be discarded.
That they are not necessary doesn't change the fact it is a satisfying aspect of narrative play.
The thing is you're trying to argue about tastes here. You can't argue about tastes. You can argue about how objectively bad a design is because it has this or that consequence (as others in this thread have done) however.
From the beginning you've more or less been arguing I don't like it therefore this can't be good. Bad foundations for a healthy discussion.
I'm not the one trying to impose my tastes on anyone else. If you need character advancement to enjoy the game then don't play named characters in your Crusade army. That doesn't justify making a house rule banning other people from taking them.
It does. It's a proposition of a rule you make to other, considering they will be like minded and accept, even enjoy it. If they don't like it then they should let you no and not play. Simple.
You know, people relationships are not computers or codex articles, you're always free to walk up to somebody and discuss the matter with them. Douches of such stratospheric levels they wouldn't hear out "I only have that named character as a HQ may I play him as a warboss anyway" and tell you to gak off I assume must be few and far between.
You're turning this simple question into a lawyers argument. Really, I don't think it deserves it. Then you may dislike it. I have no problem with that.
So, no offense, but trying to explain to people their tastes and preferences in running their campaigns are unsound and illegal is lame.
You misunderstand how it works. You do not dictate because people do not have to play with you in the first place. You dictate if you round them up with a gun and tell them they're gonna play your game, that they like it or not. Which I'm pretty sure never happens.
In our case, every one is free to house rule stuff and all others are free to refuse and walk away or agree and play.
Then what, X tournament wants me to play 2k games but I want to play only 500 points games so their dictating me their rules and so it is bad? Ridiculous. I'd turn the offer down and say I'm not interested and let people who are have fun. Piece of cake.
That's dodging the question. Why does it matter to you that other people use named characters? Why would you refuse a game against someone who does? Why do you need this "no named characters" house rule?
That's not dodging the question at all. My answer to it is considering their is no rule police out you are free to attend what event you like and skip what events you don't like. And if need be talk about it like well behaved and respectful people to see what the organiser is willing to change.
That is my point.
As for what does it matter to me? It doesn't. I'm not in support specifically of this rule but of people being totally legit about implementing it if they wish so.
As for why people would impelment such a rule, examples and thoughts from people who did would have been cited across all the topic. If you've at least tried to read them I haven't got more than they do to say why I wouldn't mind such a rule.
I'll make a quick summary because otherwise you are going to whine that I dodge something.
-Feeling your battle is not the concern of bigger official characters to make more focus on yours
-Have them get skills/weapons/special rules good or bad to reflect their character development
-going full RPG and using them as an avatar
-playing in a timeframe or place that would more or less invalidate a character in some way shape or form.
You might like them or not but in and on themselves none of this is illegal or dumb.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: That's not dodging the question at all. My answer to it is considering their is no rule police out you are free to attend what event you like and skip what events you don't like. And if need be talk about it like well behaved and respectful people to see what the organiser is willing to change.
"You don't have to attend if you don't like the rule" has nothing to do with the question of whether or not it's a good rule. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play in the event, and also water is wet.
As for why people would impelment such a rule
Those are reasons for choosing not to take a named character in your own army. They are not valid reasons for banning other people from taking named characters in their armies.
Why should it not be valid? It is a choice made in amending the rules it is as valid as any.
I consider any ruling valid as long as it is not abusive of other players by being a way to have them lose to you or take their fun out of the game at your profit. Apparently, that's not the point made so far by anyone saying that you may implement such a rule.
Give us the full list of set valid and not valid possible alterations to the game in that case if it is set in stone, clear cut and being out of it is being dumb and not valid.
You keep confusing "I don't like" with "it's not good".
Personally, I would prefer if characters could be customized with war gear and named characters would be a possible combination of this gear. Unfortunately that's not the path GW has taken.
I can understand people not wanting to fight against characters that have no reason being where the campaign takes place. Guilliman hasn't fought in the Badab wars so why would he be there. (Primaris weren't there either, but this is a separate discussion).
I'm rather lenient and have used Azrael a lot, because I liked the character. I even converted a Primaris version before GW released one. In my group of players the discussion about named characters hasn't come up, but most of us pay factions that don't really have named characters or can be played without them very well.
For the same reason that "squats can only bring 1500 points to a 2000 point game" is a stupid rule.
or take their fun out of the game at your profit
And right there is your reason why it's not a valid rule. You are taking away their enjoyment of using the named character because you want them to play the game your way instead of accepting that named characters are part of the game.
Give us the full list of set valid and not valid possible alterations to the game in that case if it is set in stone, clear cut and being out of it is being dumb and not valid.
No.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brickfix wrote: Guilliman hasn't fought in the Badab wars so why would he be there.
Because the character is not Guilliman, it's the chapter master of one of the involved chapters using the rules for a named character to represent a different character.
Brickfix wrote: Guilliman hasn't fought in the Badab wars so why would he be there.
Because the character is not Guilliman, it's the chapter master of one of the involved chapters using the rules for a named character to represent a different character.
I would think a different profile would work better but if someone wants to pay a character with a rare and powerful armor, it can be justified. It's just something to discuss with the campaign organiser.
Different tastes and what people want out of the game, I suppose.
I think you're getting confused between two things: mechanics and advancement.
This is a fair statement, but it's also true that progression uses existing mechanics to express itself. To use the D&D example, getting a stat adjustment or feat every 4 levels isn't something that would be possible if stats and feats didn't exist as core mechanics to the game.
An RPG does not require advancement in the traditional D&D sense where your character grows by improving its capabilities within the dice game.
This is true too- one off role-playing sessions (convention style RPGing) certainly exist, and those absolutely don't need progression. And yes, it's true you can run a campaign without progression if you really want to- I would choose not to play in such a campaign, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't run one if that's the way you and your group want to play.
You do not have to start at the bottom and work your way up to max level/skill. In fact, for many stories this would be completely inappropriate. A trained professional soldier is not going to get meaningfully better at shooting just because he has a few fights.
That a progression system exists does not mean you are required to start at the beginning; it provides a mechanism for differentiating experienced characters from inexperienced ones. If you run a campaign where the party consists of trained professionals, the fact that a progression system exists allows you to say, "Okay guys, create level 6 characters." A progression system allows you a way to reflect any experience level within the range it covers.
And yes, a trained professional WON'T gain as much by having a few extra fights, which is why MOST progression systems are designed with arithmetically increasing experience thresholds. To go from level 1 to 2, you might need 1k XP. To get from 19th level to 20th, you might need 100k xp. This is a mechanical way to reflect the real world phenomenon of diminishing returns on skills training.
And it encourages a GW bolter porn style of story where characters are defined by their equipment and combat statistics, not by their personality or social relationships or anything else that can't be quantified in a stat line.
Some people will think of progression in mechanical terms only; others will incorporate the progression into their character. And progression based mechanics CAN affect the role-play conditions of the game regardless of whether the player chooses to reflect the mechanics in the personality they exhibit.
For example: if an encounter is set up so that 3 successful persuasion checks to get the information from the NPC, a level 6 character who has funelled points from progression into their persuade skill to reflect their experience in the art of persuasion will have an easier time getting the information than a level one character. And this isn't arbitrary, it's a mechanic that represents an element of the story- at level 1, a character hasn't done a whole lot of persuasion, so they aren't as good at it.
This prevents the player/ character mismatch situation. Some of my friends are good liars, and some of them are bad liars. But in an RPG, what's important isn't how good a liar the PLAYER is, it's about how good a liar the CHARACTER is. So if my good liar is playing a level one character, the progression system gives me a method to separate the player's skill at lying from the character's ability to lie. And conversely, it allows the level 20 character, who has a ton of experience and practice to successfully lie, even when the player lacks the skill to adequately roleplay an effective lie.
Real world sports have a progression system- not a lot of high-schooler basketball teams are playing against NBA teams, and yellow belts don't spar with 5th dan black belts. It's ridiculous to contemplate building rules for an RPG that don't reflect this real world truth.,, But again, if you choose to set a campaign in bizarro world where experience doesn't play a role in the development of expertise, that's fine- the rules of whatever game you are playing should be flexible enough to allow you to do that.
Or, to put it in 40k terms, a typical space marine squad is already a veteran of countless battles.
This is incorrect on a lot of levels. In the Space Marine army list, there are Scouts- folks so green they don't even have the full suite of Space Marine extra organs yet; there are tactical marines, who can use bolters, there are Assault Marines who can use pistols and close combat weapons, there are devastators, who have extra training with heavy weapons, there are bikers, who have training to ride vehicles in combat, there are veterans, there are lietenants, there are captains, there are chapter masters.
The fact that these units exist implies that there is a path from Scout, to Tactical, to Assault, to Devastator, to Lieutenant, whether there are mechnics to reflect that or not. What Crusade does is to provide a way for people to explore that if they choose to; as an optional system, it also allows people to choose to ignore that element of the fictional universe.
Crusade's XP system makes no sense in a narrative context for the marine squad, by that point in their careers they are not gaining any meaningful improvement in skills from fighting one more battle.
There's an assumption here. In 40k, a Scout who completes the final operation, gets the full suit of armour and goes through the Chapter's Ceremonial acknowledgement is represented by the Tactical squad profile, as is a unit that has fought five battles in the same theatre of war, as is a unit that has fought dozens of battles in multiple theatres of war.
What Crusade does is allow differentiation between those three types of unit without creating a new unit entry to do it.
I'd argue that the base 40k rules are the things that don't make sense in a narrative game, because a green tactical unit should NOT perform at the same level as a battle-hardened unit with combat experience in multiple theatres of war. The base 40 game is the game that insists those two things are the same, when clearly they are not. But again, people who aren't interested in exploring that level of minutiae in their games should not be compelled to do so, which is why Matched Play must continue to exist alongside Crusade play.
The XP system is meant to appeal to the character optimization types who enjoy tinkering with exactly what combination of buffs is better. It's no better from a purely narrative point of view than using a named character that does not participate in the advancement system, it's just more interesting for the build optimization fans.
Also inaccurate, or at least extremely oversimplified. Yes, some "character optimization types" will be drawn to Crusade's progression system to facilitate their interest. People who enjoy abilities being connected to story events that are played out on the battlefield will also be drawn to Crusade's progression system. All rain is precipitation, but not all precipitation is rain.
Yes, I've played modern D&D and it's exactly as I described: elaborate rules for combat and optimizing your dice math, with anything outside of combat either treated as another dice math optimization problem or handwaved away as "the DM should do something here".
A person who is telling their first lie is not as good at as someone who has been lying for six months and that person is not as good as someone who has been lying for two decades. I would say that anyone advocates for a game system that does not acknowledge this fundamental truth is the one who is "handwaving things away" as opposed to the people who desire a system complex enough to express this.
What would you propose to mechanically reflect the fact that practice affects skill level? Should a yellow belt and brown belt and a blackbelt be three different character classes? And if so, do the people who want to play a story where their characters start as yellow belts and finish as black belts tear up their yellow belt character sheet and generate a new character from the brown belt character class once they arrive at that point of the ongoing story? And if so, isn't that just a slightly different progression system ?
For the same reason that "squats can only bring 1500 points to a 2000 point game" is a stupid rule.
or take their fun out of the game at your profit
And right there is your reason why it's not a valid rule. You are taking away their enjoyment of using the named character because you want them to play the game your way instead of accepting that named characters are part of the game.
Give us the full list of set valid and not valid possible alterations to the game in that case if it is set in stone, clear cut and being out of it is being dumb and not valid.
No.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brickfix wrote: Guilliman hasn't fought in the Badab wars so why would he be there.
Because the character is not Guilliman, it's the chapter master of one of the involved chapters using the rules for a named character to represent a different character.
1- In the absence of a clear cut list or valid/not valid chart, therefore nothing is valid or not and it doesn't make it an issue. It's entirely subjective.
2- If you say 1500 ptd squats Vs all others 2000 points, and a squat player shows up and plays for any reason, we'll assume his agreeing otherwise he'll tell you te get stuffed.
3-What's more in narrative playing a side in disadvantage can totally be a thing under certain circumstances.
You're gatekeeping while we say anybody is free to get what it wants from the game with like minded peers. Because it's not a constitution it's a game.
Then you might not like it and say no, I wouldn't play this way, which nobody has anything against.
Little digression as far as "professional soldier doesn't get better at shooting because he saw a fight". Indeed it freaking does. Because shooting at the range with the adjudant is telling you that you suck and shooting in the middle of a firefight were the other side is actively trying to kill you is not the same. Better BS totally represents tougher nerves to get better concentration and shots in combat.
There is an old, often misquoted, saying that applies here:
In matters of taste, the customer is always right.
If the group enjoys playing a campaign in the far reaches of the Galaxy where the named characters are not around, then they are right to enjoy it. No other reason for banning named characters is necessary.
alextroy wrote: There is an old, often misquoted, saying that applies here:
In matters of taste, the customer is always right.
If the group enjoys playing a campaign in the far reaches of the Galaxy where the named characters are not around, then they are right to enjoy it. No other reason for banning named characters is necessary.
That's a non-issue though.
The issue at hand is that quite a few people have voiced that they are in favor of excluding even fully committed narrative players from narrative events unless they change their army and leave their beloved models behind, even if the named character fits the setting.
PenitentJake wrote: This prevents the player/ character mismatch situation. Some of my friends are good liars, and some of them are bad liars. But in an RPG, what's important isn't how good a liar the PLAYER is, it's about how good a liar the CHARACTER is. So if my good liar is playing a level one character, the progression system gives me a method to separate the player's skill at lying from the character's ability to lie. And conversely, it allows the level 20 character, who has a ton of experience and practice to successfully lie, even when the player lacks the skill to adequately roleplay an effective lie.
You're still missing the point here.
An RPG requires mechanics that separate character abilities from player abilities. Your character can be good or bad at telling lies regardless of the player's talents, just like you don't resolve a character's attempt to break down a door by having the player break down a door. And obviously for the game to make any sense different characters will be better or worse at different things.
An RPG does not require a progression system where those abilities improve over the course of the game. It is perfectly fine, and often most realistic, for characters to have fixed abilities at the start of the game and never make their numbers bigger.
But again, if you choose to set a campaign in bizarro world where experience doesn't play a role in the development of expertise
It's not bizarro world, it's simply a story that doesn't capture the initial training period. For example, in standard 40k there is no progression. Your Eldar do not start off at level 1 fighting against PDF, improve their skills to level 2 and fight guard, then level 3 and fight marines, etc. It's presumed that every army in a tabletop battle is well trained and at the height of their skills. And the same can happen in any other setting. You simply assume that by the time characters are involved in the story they have already developed their skills to the point where no meaningful improvement will happen over a time period as short as the average story.
But this is what I mean about struggling to see beyond the concepts of D&D. Because D&D does this way you're assuming that pretty much every setting must have characters starting as fumbling newbies and an exponential growth curve from level 1 to max level where a max level character is an untouchable god of whatever they have chosen to focus in rather than being 5% better than a trained but inexperienced starting character. It's only in this D&D mindset that a progression system is an important part of the game, that as you play the game you unlock significant buffs to your chosen focus and vastly outperform a lower-level character.
This is incorrect on a lot of levels.
No it isn't. You simply missed that I said a typical squad, not every single squad. A typical marine squad has already had considerable experience and is not going to gain a 15% improvement in melee and shooting effectiveness (re-roll 1s) from fighting a couple platoon-scale skirmishes. They are already at the point where a platoon-scale skirmish might improve their effectiveness by 0.000001%, where playing a game a week for the entire life of the edition might with some luck give enough experience to justify adding a single Crusade rank to the unit.
There's an assumption here. In 40k, a Scout who completes the final operation, gets the full suit of armour and goes through the Chapter's Ceremonial acknowledgement is represented by the Tactical squad profile, as is a unit that has fought five battles in the same theatre of war, as is a unit that has fought dozens of battles in multiple theatres of war.
Except Crusade doesn't do that. It gives re-roll 1s to hit at level 1, -1 AP on the sergeant's pistol at level 2, etc. There is no general mechanic for units to be promoted to veteran versions. No amount of battles fought by a LRBT will ever make it into a tank commander. No amount of battles fought will ever let a fire warrior shas'ui receive their trial by fire and be promoted to a crisis suit squad. Etc.
The base 40 game is the game that insists those two things are the same, when clearly they are not.
No, the base 40k game insists that the two are not sufficiently different to be represented in a system where a space marine veteran and a basic guardsman have a shooting skill difference of a single increment on the D6. In fact, this is an excellent example of Crusade's flaws. A terminator squad newly added to your army has BS 3+, a guard infantry squad that survives a single platoon-scale skirmish can gain the same BS 3+. Crusade caters to the people who love tinkering and list optimization at the expense of the lore.
What would you propose to mechanically reflect the fact that practice affects skill level? Should a yellow belt and brown belt and a blackbelt be three different character classes?
Simple: brown and yellow belts never leave the training gym because they aren't ready for real combat. They exist in the world but are purely background NPCs. Every character that is relevant to the story is already a black belt with extensive training and will not gain any significant improvement in their abilities over the relatively short duration of the typical story.
The issue at hand is that quite a few people have voiced that they are in favor of excluding even fully committed narrative players from narrative events unless they change their army and leave their beloved models behind, even if the named character fits the setting.
That is not acceptable behavior, period.
I think that's being hyperbolic. Almost everyone against named characters has specified that they're against using named characters in their own army (with either no comment on tgeir opponent's army or explicitly stating they are okay with named characters in their opponent's army). One person said that they've played in a crusade where they were banned by mutual agreement (the present discussion sprung out of this). And I think there might have been one who said they would refuse to play against an army with a named character (I go back and make an actual tally, but I'm on my phone).
PenitentJake wrote: This prevents the player/ character mismatch situation. Some of my friends are good liars, and some of them are bad liars. But in an RPG, what's important isn't how good a liar the PLAYER is, it's about how good a liar the CHARACTER is. So if my good liar is playing a level one character, the progression system gives me a method to separate the player's skill at lying from the character's ability to lie. And conversely, it allows the level 20 character, who has a ton of experience and practice to successfully lie, even when the player lacks the skill to adequately roleplay an effective lie.
You're still missing the point here.
An RPG requires mechanics that separate character abilities from player abilities. Your character can be good or bad at telling lies regardless of the player's talents, just like you don't resolve a character's attempt to break down a door by having the player break down a door. And obviously for the game to make any sense different characters will be better or worse at different things.
An RPG does not require a progression system where those abilities improve over the course of the game. It is perfectly fine, and often most realistic, for characters to have fixed abilities at the start of the game and never make their numbers bigger.
Most long form stories include character development. I'm not talking a single novel or movie, but a series of novels or movies. A Crusade campaign is such a long form story as are many RPG campaign. Complaining about them including a standard element of long form stories is missing the point of what they are.
Additionally, advancement is a type of reward for participation in such a RPG-style game. It is something to look forward to during the journey.
The fact that some less-popular RPGs have non-combat progression is irrelevant because my whole point is that progression systems are not required for a story. Named characters not getting Crusade progression is bad for people who care about tinkering with buff combinations to figure out the best dice math, it's completely irrelevant for narrative purposes. And in fact the entire Crusade progression system is bad for most narrative purposes and should be discarded.
You will find that your opinion that the Crusade progression system is bad and should be discarded will, in fact, be discarded, for the same reason that someone bursting into a DnD group and telling them they need to stop leveling up their characters will be ignored.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThePaintingOwl wrote: If it's all about personal taste then why do you need to dictate what other people play in their own armies?
It's my personal taste that my girlfriend doesn't sleep with other men. If she disagrees with that, she doesn't have to date me. I hope you'll forgive me for imposing my personal taste on her.
The issue at hand is that quite a few people have voiced that they are in favor of excluding even fully committed narrative players from narrative events unless they change their army and leave their beloved models behind, even if the named character fits the setting.
That is not acceptable behavior, period.
feth yeah it's acceptable. No organizer has to let people into their league or event that they don't want to. Different events have different rules; "no named characters" is entirely reasonable considering the history of the game and the context of whatever the narrative is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: A story like All Quiet on the Western Front is long-form, and could be just as much about a guardsman as about a World War 1 German soldier.
You don't need a progression system to retell All Quiet On The Western Front despite the book being a war-book, and replicable in a wargame.
Could use a sanity system like Call of Cthulhu though lol
Unit1126PLL wrote: A story like All Quiet on the Western Front is long-form, and could be just as much about a guardsman as about a World War 1 German soldier.
You don't need a progression system to retell All Quiet On The Western Front despite the book being a war-book, and replicable in a wargame.
Exactly. Nobody with any sense whines about how terrible the book is because the protagonist's skill levels don't increase over the course of the story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote: You will find that your opinion that the Crusade progression system is bad and should be discarded will, in fact, be discarded, for the same reason that someone bursting into a DnD group and telling them they need to stop leveling up their characters will be ignored.
Ok, let me clarify then:
If you want to add another layer of list optimization to your matched play games Crusade is an excellent system.
If you want a narrative game that accurately represents the lore of Warhammer 40k then Crusade is a terrible system, in large part because of how its advancement mechanics go blatantly against the established lore.
It's my personal taste that my girlfriend doesn't sleep with other men. If she disagrees with that, she doesn't have to date me. I hope you'll forgive me for imposing my personal taste on her.
So now using special characters is equivalent to cheating in a relationship?
feth yeah it's acceptable. No organizer has to let people into their league or event that they don't want to. Different events have different rules; "no named characters" is entirely reasonable considering the history of the game and the context of whatever the narrative is.
How exactly is it reasonable? The only argument you've been able to make in defense of the ban is pointing out the obvious fact that once you remove everyone who doesn't like the rule the remaining players agreed to use it.
How exactly is it reasonable? The only argument you've been able to make in defense of the ban is pointing out the obvious fact that once you remove everyone who doesn't like the rule the remaining players agreed to use it.
And it's reasonable that a group of people would want to do an enjoyable social activity together. This isn't rocket science. Even if that was my only argument (It's not, and you keep strawmanning me, for which you should apologize), it's a great argument. Hobbies aren't about forced socialization; I'm fine with gatekeeping.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Exactly. Nobody with any sense whines about how terrible the book is because the protagonist's skill levels don't increase over the course of the story.
You wouldn't tell a story in that form in the narrative of a ttrpg or wargame, however. If you want to read a novel you read a novel.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: in large part because of how its advancement mechanics go blatantly against the established lore.
That's a whole different argument that you haven't supported. Come again?
I think his point was, rather than the lore actually advancing someone along the power structure made for them (e.g. a Leman Russ tank commander becoming a Leman Russ Tank Commander, becoming a Baneblade gunnery officer, then a Baneblade commander, and becoming a Baneblade Tank Commander at the end of it, he instead learns to ignore the penalty of firing his Vanquisher cannon while in close combat or the like.
People, already highly trained in most factions, pick up skills with extreme snappiness (woo, my Keeper of Secrets born before time and with more battles under her belt than stars in the sky is Battle-Hardened after my first campaign battle, and her sword becomes Str 9!).
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think his point was, rather than the lore actually advancing someone along the power structure made for them (e.g. a Leman Russ tank commander becoming a Leman Russ Tank Commander, becoming a Baneblade gunnery officer, then a Baneblade commander, and becoming a Baneblade Tank Commander at the end of it, he instead learns to ignore the penalty of firing his Vanquisher cannon while in close combat or the like.
People, already highly trained in most factions, pick up skills with extreme snappiness (woo, my Keeper of Secrets born before time and with more battles under her belt than stars in the sky is Battle-Hardened after my first campaign battle, and her sword becomes Str 9!).
Promotions are not the same thing as skills - and combat readiness is a thing irl. There's a difference between being trained well and actually seeing combat.
You wouldn't tell a story in that form in the narrative of a ttrpg or wargame, however. If you want to read a novel you read a novel.
Why not? You can do it with At the Sharp End, the Chain of Command campaign supplement (adding their WW1 expansion).
You can tell Band of Brothers as a wargame...
Really, any story with combat in it that is conducted by groups of soldiers can be told as a wargame. You could get your ancients out and retell battles from the Bhagavad Gita or the campaigns of Joshua as a wargame, if the right rules exist.
Hecaton wrote: That's a whole different argument that you haven't supported. Come again?
I already explained this in my discussion with PenitentJake in this thread. An assault terminator squad, veteran of decades to centuries of near-constant war, gaining +1" to advance and charge moves because it fought a single platoon-scale skirmish is blatantly against the lore. That's a massive skill increase based on an incredibly tiny amount of experience for such a veteran unit.
(It is, however, an interesting list optimization problem for some people. Do you use Marked for Greatness to get your terminators the vital +1" charge distance or to give your tank a powerful relic weapon?)
You misunderstood the analogy. Take another try at it. I assume you're from the West and are familiar with how relationship structures work over here?
I understood the analogy, it's just a stupid analogy and your condescending attitude does not redeem it. Cheating in a relationship is almost universally agreed to be unethical and harmful behavior. Using named characters in a 40k game is just something you personally don't like doing.
And it's reasonable that a group of people would want to do an enjoyable social activity together. This isn't rocket science. Even if that was my only argument (It's not, and you keep strawmanning me, for which you should apologize), it's a great argument. Hobbies aren't about forced socialization; I'm fine with gatekeeping.
So you admit there is no justification for the ban beyond "I have the ability to do so and you can't stop me"?
You wouldn't tell a story in that form in the narrative of a ttrpg or wargame, however. If you want to read a novel you read a novel.
Why not? Why can't you have a Krieg army (WWI in space) fight a campaign without gaining stat increases?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think his point was, rather than the lore actually advancing someone along the power structure made for them (e.g. a Leman Russ tank commander becoming a Leman Russ Tank Commander, becoming a Baneblade gunnery officer, then a Baneblade commander, and becoming a Baneblade Tank Commander at the end of it, he instead learns to ignore the penalty of firing his Vanquisher cannon while in close combat or the like.
People, already highly trained in most factions, pick up skills with extreme snappiness (woo, my Keeper of Secrets born before time and with more battles under her belt than stars in the sky is Battle-Hardened after my first campaign battle, and her sword becomes Str 9!).
Promotions are not the same thing as skills - and combat readiness is a thing irl. There's a difference between being trained well and actually seeing combat.
Yes, in real life, with real humans, that's true.
What that experience does, though, has almost nothing to do with Crusade. A marksman in a unit remains the marksman even if other members of the unit have seen combat.
It's not like the thing that made Easy Company more elite than the infantry of the 3rd Armored was that they rerolled ones-to-hit and higher AP on their garands.
Nevelon wrote: I’m old enough to have “only with your opponent’s permission” stuck in the back of my head regarding them. Which is stupidly long ago at this point.
lol I’m glad it’s not just me ?
Guess i need to get that out of my head.
Thanks guys.
I had one regular opponent, back in the day, who would say "no" to any named character. Nice guy, but didn't like those heroes. I got in the habit of bringing the extra models to swap stuff out in case I got him in our random pickup matches
I'd point out that any bonuses ever in tabletop REPRESENT something.
I stress this word because I think it is important not to forget that you're +1 AP to Garand doesn't necessarily represents an overpowered garand. It can recreate better marksmanship on part of the involved soldiers, better ammo being given, maybe a new space tactic to shoots hails of fire more effectively... Whatever.
If your terminators in this campaign go plus 1 inch, it,'s not that they suddenly become fitter. It is that they adapted to the campaign and moved on to apply more agressive tactics and rushing of the codex astartes instead of careful ones.
If you're giving a better weapon to a dude, it can be awarded to him, entrusted to him, have been captured, have been taken from a fallen comrade... Examples are endless and I guess you'd get me.
The point is: when you apply a bonus to a character, in narrative play, you don't focus on the ability itself, but on how/what it allows you to transfer from the story to the tabletop and the other way around.
I can give the unit +1 BS or -1 AP... if they both represent shooting better, then the only reason they exist is to present the player with a fun optimization problem (-1 AP is better in this unit, +1 BS is better on that unit).
In all campaign systems, you can usually recognize veterans somehow. But that is usually a small part of the system, allowing them a single ability to represent a slight improvement in combat prowess. It isn't the sum total of the entire campaign system.
I mean what does making a Keeper of Secrets Sword strength 9 represent? After a literal timeless eternity of conflict she finally hits people better? And then better still with an additional -1 AP after 3 battles? Boy where was this growth spurt an infinite number of battles ago...
ThePaintingOwl wrote: I already explained this in my discussion with PenitentJake in this thread. An assault terminator squad, veteran of decades to centuries of near-constant war, gaining +1" to advance and charge moves because it fought a single platoon-scale skirmish is blatantly against the lore. That's a massive skill increase based on an incredibly tiny amount of experience for such a veteran unit.
No it's not. Fluff it as these 5 terminators, who came from different squads, learning to work together as a team to maintain mobility.
I understood the analogy, it's just a stupid analogy and your condescending attitude does not redeem it. Cheating in a relationship is almost universally agreed to be unethical and harmful behavior. Using named characters in a 40k game is just something you personally don't like doing.
No, you didn't understand the analogy, you strawmanned it, and thus the condescension is justified. Cheating in a relationship is like joining a league that disallows named characters and then sneaking one into your list anyway. Not joining a league where someone wants to disallow named characters is fine; it's like "Hey, we should be exclusive." and then someone being like "No, I don't think we should."
They do, but it doesn't matter what exactly they represent. A unit with centuries of experience in warfare should not be gaining meaningful improvements of any kind by fighting a single platoon-scale skirmish against guard/orks/etc, an enemy they have fought countless times already.
What that experience does, though, has almost nothing to do with Crusade. A marksman in a unit remains the marksman even if other members of the unit have seen combat.
It's not like the thing that made Easy Company more elite than the infantry of the 3rd Armored was that they rerolled ones-to-hit and higher AP on their garands.
Rules are an abstraction, so using the analogy with Easy Company so ham-fistedly doesn't really work. Various things can make a unit elite - better equipment, better training, better teamwork, etc, and the rules have various ways of representing that (sometimes imperfectly).
I can give the unit +1 BS or -1 AP... if they both represent shooting better, then the only reason they exist is to present the player with a fun optimization problem (-1 AP is better in this unit, +1 BS is better on that unit).
In all campaign systems, you can usually recognize veterans somehow. But that is usually a small part of the system, allowing them a single ability to represent a slight improvement in combat prowess. It isn't the sum total of the entire campaign system.
I mean what does making a Keeper of Secrets Sword strength 9 represent? After a literal timeless eternity of conflict she finally hits people better? And then better still with an additional -1 AP after 3 battles? Boy where was this growth spurt an infinite number of battles ago...
Really, the best answer to this is... it's up to you, as you write you story. You are right however, and multiples rules can overlap and more or less adequatly go for any instance, but that's more a matter of ruleset versus story. I explain myself: the game, its rules, are meant to give you tools to represent things on the tabletop. As such, they are more or less generic and "vague" in nature. On the other side of the coin, you have your story, your campaign, with very precise instances. Thise particular instances have to be trasnfered onto the table using the rules, but, as stated, those are generic.
So, in very few cases will you find one rule that perfectly represents what you intend, not overdoing, not underdoing it.
Otherwise, you can houserule it, but let's be honest, any housruling is at list inspired by said generic and can be far from perfect either.
They do, but it doesn't matter what exactly they represent. A unit with centuries of experience in warfare should not be gaining meaningful improvements of any kind by fighting a single platoon-scale skirmish against guard/orks/etc, an enemy they have fought countless times already.
I think they should. Most engagements in real life, or 40k, are not fair - they are asymmetric. The interesting battles are the ones in which the outcome is in doubt - that's the ones that we actually play out. A Terminator squad is going to learn a lot less in countless engagements where they roflstomp orks using teleportation so that the orks can't bring their numerical advantage to bear, compared to the times when they are actually in a "fair" fight against the greenskins. You learn more from failure - or near failure - than success.
Hecaton wrote: No it's not. Fluff it as these 5 terminators, who came from different squads, learning to work together as a team to maintain mobility.
The fact that you can come up with a rationalization for one specific case, ignoring all of the other terminator squads which don't have the same origin story having only base charge distance, doesn't make it a good system. Your lore explanation is nothing more than a rationalization for something that is primarily about matched play list optimization.
it's like "Hey, we should be exclusive." and then someone being like "No, I don't think we should."
And that's still a stupid analogy. Using named characters is a minor detail, deciding whether or not to have a monogamous relationship is a major life-defining thing.
No, I do not, and you should apologize for failing to respond appropriate to my comment.
Then present the justification instead of weaseling around with "you can't stop me from having the ban if I want one". When all you can come up with is the weakest of defenses the inevitable conclusion is that you have no other ones.
You could
And now finally you acknowledge that the D&D model of storytelling is not the only option and progression systems are not required for narrative play. You may enjoy tinkering with another layer of list optimization and find it lots of fun, that doesn't mean it's essential for other people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote: I think they should. Most engagements in real life, or 40k, are not fair - they are asymmetric. The interesting battles are the ones in which the outcome is in doubt - that's the ones that we actually play out. A Terminator squad is going to learn a lot less in countless engagements where they roflstomp orks using teleportation so that the orks can't bring their numerical advantage to bear, compared to the times when they are actually in a "fair" fight against the greenskins. You learn more from failure - or near failure - than success.
That's a nice theory but the reality of Crusade is that you get the fastest progression from 100-0 massacres where victory is inevitable and you can carefully arrange all of your agendas and XP farming to maximize your chosen unit's benefits. That terminator squad with centuries of experience will gain more from a 100-0 massacre of a platoon of generic guardsmen than from a 30-65 loss against a Tau army featuring a brand new battlesuit design the Imperium has never encountered before.
If you're going to willfully ignore the points which show you to be incorrect, and fail to apologize when you misrepresent my points, there's no use talking to you. Keep your opinion to yourself; it's based on lies and useless to anyone else.
Hecaton wrote: If you're going to willfully ignore the points which show you to be incorrect, and fail to apologize when you misrepresent my points, there's no use talking to you. Keep your opinion to yourself; it's based on lies and useless to anyone else.
And here we have it: more weaseling and condescending accusations, no attempt to provide any justification for a ban on named characters beyond "you can't stop me from banning them".
And here we have it: more weaseling and condescending accusations, no attempt to provide any justification for a ban on named characters beyond "you can't stop me from banning them".
Everyone can see the points I made throughout the thread; you just look like a dishonest twit for ignoring them and trying to act like I haven't made any points.
Hecaton wrote: Everyone can see the points I made throughout the thread; you just look like a dishonest twit for ignoring them and trying to act like I haven't made any points.
Then name them. Name your reasons for banning named characters, other than "if we want to ban them you can't tell us what to do".
Then name them. Name your reasons for banning named characters, other than "if we want to ban them you can't tell us what to do".
I already did. You can go back and read them if you're so interested. However, it's clear you don't care, you're going to misrepresent my argument in an ill-fated attempt to discredit me. You're lying and arguing in bad faith; I'm not going to go through it again so you can ignore it and misrepresent what I'm saying again. I'll save my effort for people who aren't liars.
Regarding specifically the crusade rules, it is not a matter of narrative/not narrative play, it is a state of rules at a given moment. That certain rulesets edited by GW suck and don't bring satisfaction as a player - I'll give you this eagerly.
Once more, the point is not so much about rules itself than a spirit and a way of enjoying the game.
In the exact same spirit, Veterancy of 4th edition rulebook is quite comfortable to use in my opinion. If you find a complementary ruleset that suits you, then the question is out and the matter again revolves only about tastes and preferences in the end, and the full right of anyone to play the game like they want to.
Hecaton wrote: I already did. You can go back and read them if you're so interested. However, it's clear you don't care, you're going to misrepresent my argument in an ill-fated attempt to discredit me. You're lying and arguing in bad faith; I'm not going to go through it again so you can ignore it and misrepresent what I'm saying again. I'll save my effort for people who aren't liars.
Lots of weaseling and accusations, no arguments of any substance. You've now spent more time complaining about how you don't have to provide answers than it would have taken you to list those answers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Once more, the point is not so much about rules itself than a spirit and a way of enjoying the game.
The rules are relevant because the original reason progression systems came up was the claim that a ban on named characters is justified by their inability to participate in Crusade's advancement system.
Lots of weaseling and accusations, no arguments of any substance. You've now spent more time complaining about how you don't have to provide answers than it would have taken you to list those answers.
Right, because I'm not going to spend the time listing those answers when they're already in the thread, you read them, realized you do not value truth or good faith argumentation at all, and acted like I never said them because it would poke holes in your reprobate outlook.
The rules are relevant because the original reason progression systems came up was the claim that a ban on named characters is justified by their inability to participate in Crusade's advancement system
Which is true in a way since they don't benefit that much from the rules as designed.
But that's not actually the main point, and if I may, it was mostly cited as a reason why the ban on named characters was not a catastrophic blow to an army more than an outright argument in favor of dropping them.
But that's not actually the main point, and if I may, it was mostly cited as a reason why the ban on named characters was not a catastrophic blow to an army more than an outright argument in favor of dropping them.
You forgot, he's ignoring that part and pretending nobody said it because it makes his argument worse.
Hecaton wrote: Right, because I'm not going to spend the time listing those answers when they're already in the thread, you read them, realized you do not value truth or good faith argumentation at all, and acted like I never said them because it would poke holes in your reprobate outlook.
Insults, weaseling, and continuing to spend more time insisting that you don't need to provide arguments than it would take for you to clarify your position (if you have any interest in good-faith discussion rather than winning the debate bro e-sport).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: But that's not actually the main point, and if I may, it was mostly cited as a reason why the ban on named characters was not a catastrophic blow to an army more than an outright argument in favor of dropping them.
Then what exactly is the "main point" that justifies a ban on named characters, other than "I want to and you can't stop me"?
I'll make a quick summary because otherwise you are going to whine that I dodge something.
-Feeling your battle is not the concern of bigger official characters to make more focus on yours
-Have them get skills/weapons/special rules good or bad to reflect their character development
-going full RPG and using them as an avatar
-playing in a timeframe or place that would more or less invalidate a character in some way shape or form.
Main point: because keeping them at bay might be part of a complementray houserules set to try and steer a common story, defining its boundaries and goals. As for what they may be, see non complete list above, quoting myself a few post above, already summarising a few of the reasons given.
Insults, weaseling, and continuing to spend more time insisting that you don't need to provide arguments than it would take for you to clarify your position (if you have any interest in good-faith discussion rather than winning the debate bro e-sport).
Insults can be accurate, and I'm saying the most bold-faced honest thing in the thread by calling you out. You can go do the work if you care to understand my position; it's clear that you don't, and given that you've been blatantly misrepresenting my posts it's obvious to anyone that you're the one more concerned with "winning" a debate. I'll stick to caring about truth.
Hecaton wrote: Insults can be accurate, and I'm saying the most bold-faced honest thing in the thread by calling you out. You can go do the work if you care to understand my position; it's clear that you don't, and given that you've been blatantly misrepresenting my posts it's obvious to anyone that you're the one more concerned with "winning" a debate. I'll stick to caring about truth.
I have seen you give many arguments for why you do not use named characters in your own army. I have yet to see a single valid argument justifying banning other people from using them, only "I want to and you can't stop me".
I have seen you give many arguments for why you do not use named characters in your own army. I have yet to see a single valid argument justifying banning other people from using them, only "I want to and you can't stop me".
That's incorrect, you have seen them, you just don't want to admit that you have because it would mean that you'd have to admit that you're wrong. It's utterly dishonest and bad faith argumentation. The fact that you won't even say that they're bad reasons, but straight up ignoring that they've been made, tells me that you're absolutely dishonest on this topic.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: -Feeling your battle is not the concern of bigger official characters to make more focus on yours
-going full RPG and using them as an avatar
-playing in a timeframe or place that would more or less invalidate a character in some way shape or form.
Irrelevant because we're talking about using rules, not lore, and there is a long tradition of using the rules for a named character to represent a character from your own chapter/regiment/etc.
-Have them get skills/weapons/special rules good or bad to reflect their character development
But we've already concluded that advancement is desirable for some players in their own army, not a necessary thing that every unit in everyone else's army must participate in.
Hecaton wrote: That's incorrect, you have seen them, you just don't want to admit that you have because it would mean that you'd have to admit that you're wrong. It's utterly dishonest and bad faith argumentation. The fact that you won't even say that they're bad reasons, but straight up ignoring that they've been made, tells me that you're absolutely dishonest on this topic.
Then name them. Stop making post after post complaining about how you shouldn't have to clarify your position and just post the reasons. This weaseling around is not impressing anyone.
Talking about lore on the subject of "how do name character fit or not in my NARRATIVE campaign" is not quite irrelevant. Nor mutually exclusive for that matter.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Again, if some things are "valid" and some are "not valid", then, give me the chart from the Rules Policing Brigade repertoriating them.
The subject is bans on named characters, not some bad-faith attempt to derail the thread into "ANSWER EVERY RULE QUSTION EVER OR ADMIT DEFEAT".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Talking about lore on the subject of "how do name character fit or not in my NARRATIVE campaign" is not quite irrelevant. Nor mutually exclusive for that matter.
It is absolutely irrelevant because, once again, named character RULES and named character LORE are two very different things. Using the rules for Lord Solar Leontus to represent Colonel John Doe of the Cadian 203499438609430960945th is a well-established tradition.
Then name them. Stop making post after post complaining about how you shouldn't have to clarify your position and just post the reasons. This weaseling around is not impressing anyone.
I explained my position in a good amount of detail. Everyone who wanted to read them already has; the fact that you're dishonestly pretending I haven't doesn't matter. *You're* going to have to do the work if you want anything approaching respect; as of right now you've lost any of it I had for you with your lies and bad faith discussion.
Yes the subject is, can you ban named characters. The answer we provide is yes, it is within reason, here is why.
Considering no official statment or ruling forbids them at the current time, apparently their is no reason these thoughts on why not use them should not be valid. Or else, show me proof of it. It don't know what's so incredible about this.
Hecaton wrote: I explained my position in a good amount of detail. Everyone who wanted to read them already has; the fact that you're dishonestly pretending I haven't doesn't matter. *You're* going to have to do the work if you want anything approaching respect; as of right now you've lost any of it I had for you with your lies and bad faith discussion.
It would take you far less time to simply post a brief list of your reasons and clarify your position than you've spent insulting me and ranting about how you don't have to do it.
It would take you far less time to simply post a brief list of your reasons and clarify your position than you've spent insulting me and ranting about how you don't have to do it.
If you treated me with respect I would treat you with respect. I have no reason to do so when the information is available and you've already discarded it to preserve your ego and gakky ideas about narrative and gameplay.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Yes the subject is, can you ban named characters. The answer we provide is yes, it is within reason, here is why.
Considering no official statment or ruling forbids them at the current time, apparently their is no reason these thoughts on why not use them should not be valid. Or else, show me proof of it. It don't know what's so incredible about this.
If you want an official statement then the official statement is that they are part of the game and can be used like any other unit. You are proposing a house rule to ban them.
And the question of what other house rules might be valid is off-topic and a bad faith attempt to Gish gallop your way out of acknowledging that named character bans are not justified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote: If you treated me with respect I would treat you with respect. I have no reason to do so when the information is available and you've already discarded it to preserve your ego and gakky ideas about narrative and gameplay.
There we go again, more insults and weaseling instead of simply posting a brief list to clarify your position. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe there is genuine misunderstanding across the contents of a 15-page thread and you could resolve this by simply making a brief statement of your position?
There we go again, more insults and weaseling instead of simply posting a brief list to clarify your position. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe there is genuine misunderstanding across the contents of a 15-page thread and you could resolve this by simply making a brief statement of your position?
It occurred to me, but your statements match someone who's willfully misinterpreting what others are saying and trying to poison the well of discussion rather than someone arguing in good faith, so I rejected the idea. I already stated my position; you can go back and read it if you were interested.
It wouldn't resolve the thread, because you'd just ignore and/or misinterpret it again. I have no reason to reframe my arguments for someone who's not interested in hearing them, who would be furious when someone told them "I'm running a narrative league with no named characters." That kind of person has a bad attitude about gameplay and socialization.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Yes the subject is, can you ban named characters. The answer we provide is yes, it is within reason, here is why.
Considering no official statment or ruling forbids them at the current time, apparently their is no reason these thoughts on why not use them should not be valid. Or else, show me proof of it. It don't know what's so incredible about this.
If you want an official statement then the official statement is that they are part of the game and can be used like any other unit. You are proposing a house rule to ban them.
And the question of what other house rules might be valid is off-topic and a bad faith attempt to Gish gallop your way out of acknowledging that named character bans are not justified.
Great! Go sue GW for there 2012 orbital station scenarios where they explecitly said they banned all non demons not wearing helmets for lore reasons. Obviously that's unjustified because you're cutting half armies from playing it and removing all named characters that don't wear a helmet while they're a part of the game.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Great! Go sue GW for there 2012 orbital station scenarios where they explecitly said they banned all non demons not wearing helmets for lore reasons. Obviously that's unjustified because you're cutting half armies from playing it and removing all named characters that don't wear a helmet while they're a part of the game.
Ah yes, because "GW did a stupid scenario once you should sue them" is not hyperbolic nonsense.
6th edition rule book, page 350, for reference (french version)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Of course sue is hyperbolic, I didn't think i'd have to say this...
Anyway, considering the company selling and writing the game seems to be ok with this kind of rules, so far, no reason you and your buddies in a garage couldn,'t do the same, by lore, or by rules.
Edit: added that my book is the french version but I'm confident pages are 100% matches and that it is the same page in the english version. GW still actually cared to sell use properly translated versions
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Anyway, considering the company selling and writing the game seems to be ok with this kind of rules, so far, no reason you and your buddies in a garage couldn,'t do the same, by lore, or by rules.
Aside from the fact that the mission in question was over a decade and several editions of the game ago, "can" and "should" are not even remotely the same thing.
Unit1126PLL wrote: A story like All Quiet on the Western Front is long-form, and could be just as much about a guardsman as about a World War 1 German soldier.
You don't need a progression system to retell All Quiet On The Western Front despite the book being a war-book, and replicable in a wargame.
I find it rather hilarious that you pick a book where the protagonist goes from a raw recruit to a battle-hardened veteran to be one that can be depicted without an advancement system.
I can't point to anything specific to support this, but I get the feeling GW has been moving away from encouraging people to their own fluff for a named character over the years. That feels like something they might have encouraged 20 years ago...then again, that was also the GW that required all wargear options to be physically represented on your models. Granted, just because GW doesn't encourage it doesn't mean we can't do something. Either way, I'm curious when the last time GW mentioned replacing their character lore with your own for a named character. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if it was relatively recent, but my expectation is it's been some time.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: I can't point to anything specific to support this, but I get the feeling GW has been moving away from encouraging people to their own fluff for a named character over the years. That feels like something they might have encouraged 20 years ago...then again, that was also the GW that required all wargear options to be physically represented on your models. Granted, just because GW doesn't encourage it doesn't mean we can't do something. Either way, I'm curious when the last time GW mentioned replacing their character lore with your own for a named character. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if it was relatively recent, but my expectation is it's been some time.
I think that the existence of Crusade is very much evidence that GW encourages people to create their own fluff. By the time a unit reaches Legendary status, it will have an equivalent, or in some cases greater number of special abilities or special gear than most named characters. The battles you fought in, win or lose, the Agendas you achieved... Those become your lore.
In 9th ed, every faction had a set of build your own Chapter/ Order/ Kabal rules, which would also encourage someone to generate their own fluff.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: I can't point to anything specific to support this, but I get the feeling GW has been moving away from encouraging people to their own fluff for a named character over the years. That feels like something they might have encouraged 20 years ago...then again, that was also the GW that required all wargear options to be physically represented on your models. Granted, just because GW doesn't encourage it doesn't mean we can't do something. Either way, I'm curious when the last time GW mentioned replacing their character lore with your own for a named character. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if it was relatively recent, but my expectation is it's been some time.
I think that the existence of Crusade is very much evidence that GW encourages people to create their own fluff. By the time a unit reaches Legendary status, it will have an equivalent, or in some cases greater number of special abilities or special gear than most named characters. The battles you fought in, win or lose, the Agendas you achieved... Those become your lore.
In 9th ed, every faction had a set of build your own Chapter/ Order/ Kabal rules, which would also encourage someone to generate their own fluff.
True. I know Imperial Guard has had build your own regiment for a long time (although I'm not sure how consistently it was around). I was wondering more about them officially encouraging folks to overwrite the lore of a named character rather than giving them tools to construct their own. It's possible that they've never officially sanctioned it...
Unit1126PLL wrote: A story like All Quiet on the Western Front is long-form, and could be just as much about a guardsman as about a World War 1 German soldier.
You don't need a progression system to retell All Quiet On The Western Front despite the book being a war-book, and replicable in a wargame.
I find it rather hilarious that you pick a book where the protagonist goes from a raw recruit to a battle-hardened veteran to be one that can be depicted without an advancement system.
That was the point! What crusade upgrades did he take?
DeadliestIdiot wrote: I can't point to anything specific to support this, but I get the feeling GW has been moving away from encouraging people to their own fluff for a named character over the years. That feels like something they might have encouraged 20 years ago...then again, that was also the GW that required all wargear options to be physically represented on your models. Granted, just because GW doesn't encourage it doesn't mean we can't do something. Either way, I'm curious when the last time GW mentioned replacing their character lore with your own for a named character. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if it was relatively recent, but my expectation is it's been some time.
I think it's less a time thing and more a philosophy of individual designers. Through 4th/5th edition, the studio encouraged over-writing existing special characters to make your own. But prior to that, I recall a White Dwarf rant by (I think) Ric Priestly way back in 2nd edition about people doing that, and he was not a fan. His view was that it was horribly uncreative, and people should create their own special characters from scratch instead. Of course, that was never going to fly in tournaments or the like, which is probably why the studio later went the other way on it.
That was the point! What crusade upgrades did he take?
This a rough approximation based on the Wikkipedia article since I haven't read the book.
Wikki says Paul endures the treacherous and filthy conditions of trench warfare.
I'd represent that with an AP reduction against enemy fire when in cover, to represent experience of making use of the trench. You could also make a case for a toughness bump to represent resistance to to trench conditions.
When Paul returns to the front after visiting mom, he kills a man in hand to hand. That's a WS buff.
It mentions Paul's deadened emotions after watching his friends die; that sounds like a morale buff- those who are dead inside don't flinch, and those with nothing to lose do not fear death.
Unit1126PLL wrote: A story like All Quiet on the Western Front is long-form, and could be just as much about a guardsman as about a World War 1 German soldier.
You don't need a progression system to retell All Quiet On The Western Front despite the book being a war-book, and replicable in a wargame.
I find it rather hilarious that you pick a book where the protagonist goes from a raw recruit to a battle-hardened veteran to be one that can be depicted without an advancement system.
That was the point! What crusade upgrades did he take?
The book is a novel, so there is no rules system involved. However, if you translated the book into a series of adventures or battles, Paul's character sheet would look much different from his first days on the battlefield until his final battle. This is because he became a much more experienced solider who was more skilled and willing to do what was necessary to fight and live.
That was the point! What crusade upgrades did he take?
This a rough approximation based on the Wikkipedia article since I haven't read the book.
Wikki says Paul endures the treacherous and filthy conditions of trench warfare.
I'd represent that with an AP reduction against enemy fire when in cover, to represent experience of making use of the trench. You could also make a case for a toughness bump to represent resistance to to trench conditions.
When Paul returns to the front after visiting mom, he kills a man in hand to hand. That's a WS buff.
It mentions Paul's deadened emotions after watching his friends die; that sounds like a morale buff- those who are dead inside don't flinch, and those with nothing to lose do not fear death.
Pretty apt
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't think GW ever took back the idea that you should get creative and create or change stuff, however from what I see on the internet and the description of 9th rules I got (for honesty purpose, I don't play 9th myself, but I have second hand experience of my brother who did), the games seems to be steered more evidently on a competitive logic.
Which I find odd, if I may. On the one hand, as rightly stated in another thread, 40k draws many people out there for the lore, who don't even play. If I were them, I would on the contrary push the lore/RPG aspect as I used to to appeal to them, more than show myself as a competition beast.
I might simply haven't quote caught there communication so don't quite me on that.
How it links up to topic is that talking about creating you're own characters from scratch would be great. I don't know in your countries but RPG communities grow by the day here, after all!
DeadliestIdiot wrote: I can't point to anything specific to support this, but I get the feeling GW has been moving away from encouraging people to their own fluff for a named character over the years. That feels like something they might have encouraged 20 years ago...then again, that was also the GW that required all wargear options to be physically represented on your models. Granted, just because GW doesn't encourage it doesn't mean we can't do something. Either way, I'm curious when the last time GW mentioned replacing their character lore with your own for a named character. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if it was relatively recent, but my expectation is it's been some time.
I think that the existence of Crusade is very much evidence that GW encourages people to create their own fluff. By the time a unit reaches Legendary status, it will have an equivalent, or in some cases greater number of special abilities or special gear than most named characters. The battles you fought in, win or lose, the Agendas you achieved... Those become your lore.
In 9th ed, every faction had a set of build your own Chapter/ Order/ Kabal rules, which would also encourage someone to generate their own fluff.
True. I know Imperial Guard has had build your own regiment for a long time (although I'm not sure how consistently it was around). I was wondering more about them officially encouraging folks to overwrite the lore of a named character rather than giving them tools to construct their own. It's possible that they've never officially sanctioned it...
I know the 5th edition Marine book explicitly allowed you to take the named characters, change their names, and make them your own to use in other chapters. Just as long your you made sure your opponent knew what they count-as.
That was the point! What crusade upgrades did he take?
This a rough approximation based on the Wikkipedia article since I haven't read the book.
Wikki says Paul endures the treacherous and filthy conditions of trench warfare.
I'd represent that with an AP reduction against enemy fire when in cover, to represent experience of making use of the trench. You could also make a case for a toughness bump to represent resistance to to trench conditions.
When Paul returns to the front after visiting mom, he kills a man in hand to hand. That's a WS buff.
It mentions Paul's deadened emotions after watching his friends die; that sounds like a morale buff- those who are dead inside don't flinch, and those with nothing to lose do not fear death.
Interesting, I would not have interpreted any of the book that way - the endurance is not ever characterized as a buff, nor is the numbness to death. But I guess the point is that it doesn't matter if it's a *good* thing, a buff is a buff is a buff.
You got me on the WS thing though. I literally laughed out loud imagining Paul doing some kung fu that made him as good in CC as a Space Marine.
Lol- yeah, from an optimisation POV, a WS buff on Guardsmen isn't great. But if he killed a dude in Hand to Hand, and that XP gain is what pushed him over the threshold, it's what I'd take, because I'm a purist that way.
I don't expect other people to play like that, but I do.
I kinda want to read the book now though- it sounds crazy grimdark... Like just, the death of innocence and the extinguishing of hope.
It's interesting to think about the game vs the reality. That cold, detached thousand-yard stare might make you a great soldier (buff), but when you come off the field and try to go back to your wife and kids, and try to be happy again, what's a buff on the field is now mental illness.
As a teacher, I meet a lot of folks with ADHD, and I always ask them if they'll be a part of my survival team when the Zombie Apocalypse comes. Everyone knows I'm joking of course, but the point is that folks with ADHD tend to be better at noticing movement in their peripheral vision. It sucks in class, because it distracts them from the thing they need to focus on, but in a theatre of war that's a trait that could save your life.
PenitentJake wrote: Lol- yeah, from an optimisation POV, a WS buff on Guardsmen isn't great. But if he killed a dude in Hand to Hand, and that XP gain is what pushed him over the threshold, it's what I'd take, because I'm a purist that way.
I don't expect other people to play like that, but I do.
I kinda want to read the book now though- it sounds crazy grimdark... Like just, the death of innocence and the extinguishing of hope.
If you want understand the horror of trench warfare and the fatalistic mindset it creates, read All Quite on the Western Front. It is a masterfully written book that should be required reading for anyone having anything to do with the military or politics.
Why not just talk to dudes that were pulled off a front like 2-6 weeks ago? 5 min with them and you know, why every society that was smart did everything in their power to never ever have rank and file soliders return. Victory or not.
-playing in a timeframe or place that would more or less invalidate a character in some way shape or form.
You might like them or not but in and on themselves none of this is illegal or dumb.
GW has even hinted at this - they suggested not mixing Cassius with Primaris because he was in the Deathwatch and back before they released. They haven't said anything about this with Tycho, but it wouldn't be out of place.
Ive a Black Legion army since 2003. Abaddon has sat on my painting table since then unused in favour of multiple characters of my own creation. That side of it is more fun to me.
Ive a Crimson Fist army. Will never take Kantor.
Ive a Necron army. Will never take any named characters. I once said that if I was ever doing my own podcast it would be called "No Named Characters".
I much prefer running my own characters with their own history/stories and thats probably a throwback to starting in 3rd Edition when you needed an opponents permission to use them or needed minimum 2000/3000 points. Our whole group was similar in outlook thankfully and only in Armaggeddon themed battles did Yarrick and Gazhgull show up.
I hate how the approach is a lot of decent builds basically require a named character and you are handicapping yourself if you dont take one. Abaddon being a perfect example of being in nearly every single Chaos list since the 9th edition codex came out because it makes no sense to not take him. Seeing said Abaddon painted as Alpha Legion though and there being no plausible lore reason why though is what drives me insane.
Only time I ever used a named character was (if I recall correctly) was Huron from the Chaos 4.0 codex and that was heavily converted to have 2 axes and just counted as Huron. Think it might just have been because the model was cool and my opponent was using Shrike as well so it balanced out.
That being said I do think its a pretty rubbish move these days to refuse games with named characters. Your opponent spent money and time on that model only for you to say they cant use it? Eh no, not really ok.
5th -7th Edition using Typhus was the only defining thing to make a Death Guard army. He also had one of the coolest models in 40K so I used him occasionally. Since 8th DG got their own Codex and Typhus has a crappy model since then, so I haven't used him (that's not really the reason as I'll continue to use the cool old model of course). With 10th he needs zombies or Terminators to be used and I don’t have any Terminators and only 10 Zombies. He'll probably sit on the shelf.
My snakebite orks have received 2 chars in 9th, but I haven't finished painting them, but I'm planning to use Mozrog soon.
Coming from lotr I don’t get the Opposition to chars in 40K. In fact, when I started the game and read the background I was surprised to find very few of the named characters in the rules. Additionally, from 5th to 7th characters usually were just 50 shades of different beatsticks, they weren't that interesting. Since 8th there are at least rules showing that they're leaders.
Coming from lotr I don’t get the Opposition to chars in 40K. In fact, when I started the game and read the background I was surprised to find very few of the named characters in the rules. Additionally, from 5th to 7th characters usually were just 50 shades of different beatsticks, they weren't that interesting. Since 8th there are at least rules showing that they're leaders.
I get this. I have strong opinions about what makes a named character "well-designed" or not, and there are a ton of special characters that really don't need to exist. To me, a named character datasheet should exist if the character in question can't be properly represented by another datasheet in the codex. So Shadowsun, being a commander in a stealth suit with a knack for Kauyon, probably warrants her own datasheet. If GW released a "commander in stealth suit" datasheet, she probably wouldn't still need one of her own. Eldrad, as a counterpoint, has traditionally basically just been a farseer on foot, but better. Which is a bit boring and makes every other farseer in the galaxy seem less competent by comparison and ultimately just ends up encouraging people to use Eldrad's stats for the "super seer" in their own craftworld's lore.
Lots of marine named characters fall into the Eldrad problem. Most (almost all?) marine characters are basically just a more powerful version of a generic datasheet. At best, such units are expensive enough that they're considered less efficient than the generic version, in which case they're pretty harmless and their greatest sin is just contributing to bloat. But at worst, you end up with situations where (let's say) Dante is the bestest melee chapter master with a jump pack who ever melee'd with a jump pack, and every chapter master from every other chapter is statistically less good at fighting than he is.
If the only thing that differentiates your named character from a generic character is that he has a slightly better weapon or a slightly better version of a special rule, there's probably an argument to be made that your character doesn't really need his own datasheet.
(Note: I'm mostly speaking with 5th-9th edition in mind. I haven't actually looked very carefully at 10th edition marine rules yet.)
But Danta isn't just s "slighly" better space marine chapter masters. I mean what is next Angron is just being a different bloodthirster? I don't understand how can core items of factions that exist for decades, can be call bloat?
I will say if I played 10th, I would use the Lord Solar.
Not *as* the Lord Solar - rather, as Lord General Katerina Malinenko, who runs my superheavy tank regiment. But there is all kinds of weird stuff with her, so I just can't run her at all.
Not to mention how awkward 10th is to run Baneblades in, lol.
Karol wrote:But Danta isn't just s "slighly" better space marine chapter masters. I mean what is next Angron is just being a different bloodthirster? I don't understand how can core items of factions that exist for decades, can be call bloat?
Other than belonging to a chapter that happens to get a lot of spotlight, what makes Dante more different from a generic chapter master than two generic chapter masters are from each other? Presumably the chapter master of the Mentors and the chapter master of the Black Dragons probably have radically different approaches to things, yet both are apparently sufficiently covered by the options available on the generic character datasheets. What makes Dante so unique compared to any other chapter master from a melee-oriented chapter that he needs his own bespoke rules? Same with Logan. Same with Seth. I get that they all have their own pet preferences for melee weapons, but that just sounds like a reason to give the generic chapter master access to an eviscerator; not a reason to prop up the guys who already get more spotlight as being straight up better at their jobs than every one of their peers in the galaxy.
Similarly, what canonical traits does Angron possess that can't reasonably be present in another greater daemon of Khorne? Does he really behave/fight in a way that's so different from a generic bloodthirster that we need a whole extra datasheet for it? Or do we just feel compelled to make him extra double super special because he showed up in some BL novels?
Special characters should aim to be different rather than better. Otherwise, they make every generic version of whatever they are just seem less impressive by comparison. "Oh, your guy is good at melee? Well, he's not that good, right? I mean, he's no Dante."
Doohicky wrote:As a Deathguard player a named character isn't really any different from a normal lord as all the DG non characters are set builds anyway.
So named or not named from an in game view is not really any different.
This is a fair point. For all my complaining, I'm mostly talking from a 5th-9th perspective. From what I've seen so far, 10th does seem to generally give named characters unique gimmicks/niches. Eldrad being the only way to get Doom and having Doom in place of another farseer power means that he's different from other farseers; not straight up better at the same job.
