Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have noticed lately with codex DA and BA a trend toward less options in list optimization (min/max) and a standardization that resembles Warmachine and Hordes.  You get this many troops for this many points and you can add extra for Xpts.  Seems special characters are becoming a must in these newer versions  that seems similiar to caster characters.  PP recent successes seem to be having a effect on these changes.  Thoughts and opinions for or contrary.

Yes. I agree absolutely.

It's a pity since I like 40K and WFB, but I don't really care for Warmachine.

I'd rather see GW play to their strengths in options and customizability than pander to the WM crowd (who are unlikely to come back).

Unfortunately, I've noticed the similarity developing. Same goes for only a few combinations of characters and units being taken, so you get only a few armybuilds with maybe a tweak or two for flavor. That's very very Warmachine (and Magic before it) in my mind, and I hates it good.

- Boss Salvage

Is that a function of becoming 'too much like Warmachine' or is it because of the design team (run by Jervis) going back to it's 'herohammer' and 'herohammer 40,000' roots?

(By the way, I don't know if Jervis was behind 2nd ed. 40k's and 4th-5th ed WHFB's focus on Heroes, but they certainly were).

I really like WM and Hordes, but those systems were designed with heroes at the center from the ground up. Both 40k and Fantasy are focused on units and (in theory at least) combined arms at this point, rather than characters, and I'd like to see them stay that way.

Something else to keep in mind is the development team (some) are ex-GW persons. I think the success PP h as had recently may be a direct coralation if you look at the packaging, marketing, and end product. No quarter magazine lately has been a better overall product than White Dwarf magazine also IMO. Jervis recently said characters are what impressed his son. Hence the new found emphasis according to him on characters. (Maybe just malicious rumors?) When in actuality I am thinking it's the success of the character driven game play of WM & Hordes.

Posted By syr8766 on 05/02/2007 11:15 AM
Is that a function of becoming 'too much like Warmachine' or is it because of the design team (run by Jervis) going back to it's 'herohammer' and 'herohammer 40,000' roots?

(By the way, I don't know if Jervis was behind 2nd ed. 40k's and 4th-5th ed WHFB's focus on Heroes, but they certainly were).

I really like WM and Hordes, but those systems were designed with heroes at the center from the ground up. Both 40k and Fantasy are focused on units and (in theory at least) combined arms at this point, rather than characters, and I'd like to see them stay that way.

The DA codex is anything but "herohammer."  They have more focus on units than ever before.  To play DA effectively now, you have to rely on units and on combined arms approach, rather than a chaplain and a S6 power weapon.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/02/2007 12:03 PM
The DA codex is anything but "herohammer." 

Youre kidding right?

In order to play deathwing or ravenwing, you MUST use a special character.

I dare say 40K is becoming more and more like hero hammer with each passing codex by basically promoting such options. if indeed you can call them options.

I'd point to Eldrad as the ultimate expression of the philosophy so far.


WFB takes a middle road (most of the time). Karl Franz and Grimgor are powerful - but they balance out points-wise.

There are exceptions though. Both of the Dwarf Special Characters definitely lean in the direction of Herohammer. (And there's always a temptation for it when Chaos and High Elves, so we'll see.)

New BA characters are looking very good also. Especially Mephiston with his posiible 9 attacks on the charge, WS 6,12 inch jump movement and a force weapon. He looks like the ultimate CC monster when you throw on T5 against insta kills. So I would have to agree with the movement toward Herohammer.

I agree with the thought here. It will be very interesting to see what comes about when the 5th edition ruleset is released. I am hoping fervently that GW upper management cleans house in the development team before then.

- Greenie

Posted By Asmodai on 05/02/2007 12:21 PM
I'd point to Eldrad as the ultimate expression of the philosophy so far.
   

That's actually exactly what I was thinking of.

I honestly don't see that there's that much similarity.
-GW is still releasing models and rules by faction instead of waves for all factions periodically. They
re dabbling in a wave style release schedule but I doubt they will ever go that route fully (and IMHO is the main thing PP has on GW, next to better written rules).
-GW is still allowing choices in how units and their squad leaders are armed, while WM/Hordes has no flexible choice within units.
-GW heroes do not define the way an army will play in the same way as casters/warlocks do. Sorry but not even eldrad does that and his rules are the closest thing to a warcaster/warlock in all of 40k. Plus I think that eldar HQs have always been similar to warcaster/warlocks and vise versa.
-GW is about to release Apocalypse, which if rumors are true will make a very notable distinction between GW and their competition. No other company is supporting this kind of megabattle system. If they really were chasing PP they'd go the other way and support a skirmish type system beyond the limited rules for warbands, killteam and 40k in a flash.

The only thing you can point to is the rules supporting the use of special characters and I think that has more to do with profit then in trying to copy PP. Heck, Jervis pretty much came right out and said that was why the characters in DA were beefy and fully legal (shame to have offer models that no one uses).

DA resembling hero hammer? Heh. Just because you have to take the masters of those companies to field all of that force, does not make it hero hammer. The named characters are really not that powerful. They are rather balanced.

BA is a transition or "test" codex. Mephiston is suppose to be a supernatural bad ass. So we will see how that work in game.

It seems pointless to make named characters, that can't be played in games. If you are going to make the rules and models, you just as well make them useful in the game!

If you haven't noticed something about Jervis and what games he has worked on as of late. He seems to be more about smoother gameplay and balance. By removing a lot of unbalanced or pointless wargear options, and balancing out what is there, they can make things smoother in game. He is definitely trying to define each character and units place in game and balance it against the other choices.

GW has been through incarnations like this before. Look at the first lists they put out. They were quite defined on what you could or could not take. Later it got all crazy and became hero hammer. It is looking to me that it has just come full circle again.

You could just as easily say that GW is now resembling i-kore with Void 1.1, which required special characters for leaders.  I'm more snarky and think that GW's continual pushing of special characters (e.g. The Nemesis Crown) is to try to convince people to buy terribly overpriced (money-wise) miniatures, pure and simple.

Okay, that's too smarky.  There's also the fact that special characters provide cool-looking larger-than-life figures for players with which to identify, especially if they're coming from other hobbies.

I find it hard to believe that would be why. I think special characters sold well. I don't know how many tournaments and shops all over that I have been to, but in each there were always a lot of people using those named characters as their normal generals. The figs are just better. The fact that we couldn't use them as what they were made for didn't matter much. They were cool figs.

I think making the rules so that you can actually use these named characters is a much better way to do it.

Meh, in friendllies I'd just use the characters stats and rules with a different but similarly equiped model.
I'm sure you'd get away with in in tourneys too.

Posted By Da Boss on 05/04/2007 5:13 PM
Meh, in friendllies I'd just use the characters stats and rules with a different but similarly equiped model.
I'm sure you'd get away with in in tourneys too.

I agree. But I havent been able to test my perfectly repped Lysander at a tourney yet.

In the bad old, good old days (WHFB 1 and 2) there wasn't much point using troops, because the heroes and champions were so powerful. That and the magic made the game not worth playing as a battle game. (IMO.)