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 believe the best way to represent the "hero" in a game with no individual/unique characters would to have a special rule called "HEROIC ACT". Passing the "heroic act" roll allows you to perform a certain pre-determined action; such as making a save, having an improbable shot hit, taking out a tank, ect. You could modify/define what it takes to perform the "heroic act" depending upon battlefield situations; such as lack of nearby HQ units, being outnumbered, being mortally wounded, ect.

http://www.kevos4.com/Simo_Hayha.htm

I'm not against powerful individuals as such, I just think to create a large scale wargame with 100s of figures -- only 2-6 of which actually make any difference -- is a waste of time and effort.

Play RPGs if you want a game that revolves around powerful individuals. It's great fun.

Fantasy revolves around heroes?

Try telling that to my Empire gunline or my Forest Goblin horde.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not against powerful individuals as such, I just think to create a large scale wargame with 100s of figures -- only 2-6 of which actually make any difference -- is a waste of time and effort.

Play RPGs if you want a game that revolves around powerful individuals. It's great fun.

Fantasy has kind of moved away from that now though. Certainly, even a Dragon Riding Character needs some luck to take on basic infantry head on. They need to inflict 6 casualties to win the combat, and sadly experience dictates it's usually something weedy that knacks your big thing!

And yet, the characters are what drive the game. The provide the moments of drama, bravely stepping forward to turn the tide. In my Empire army, I had a particularly feared unit of Pistoliers led by a lowly Empire Captain. But he gave them a sort of critical mass when it came to HTH, meaning the usualy tactic of challenging Fast Cavalry with the same or skirmishers didn't work. Led by him, they performed a rear charge into a unit of Dwarf Ironbreakers and promptly ran them down. I have since sold that army off (being unemployed sucks!) but I do intend to revisit it at some point. Like when I have a new job. And one thing I will do is write it and convert it so that the characters contained within it have specific regiments which are very much their own men, the most loyal and adept retainers at their disposal. So at this point, the characters genuinely do live up to their monicker, as they then drive the character of my army.

Sure, some characters, ala Heralds seem to fly in the face of the demise of Herohammer. Yet, their main use is of course bolstering the regiment they have joined. So although they have a profound effect on the army, it's not so much single handed. Without their regiment, they are toast. Essentially, they are synergy keys.

My one complaint character wise, is that people seem disinclined to issue challenges, and when you do, they meet it with the lowest value character they can, typically a unit Champion. I don't like directing attacks. It takes the 'cool' out of combats, as their is nothing better than issuing a brave, if not foolhardy challenge, and watching your Hero pound the enemies into the dirt, swinging combat your way considerably. To be fair, this is primarily the fault of the rules for allowing it, but I find a quick gentlemans agreement to have directed challenges and all is well. If my opponent doesn't, then fairly do's. It is my prediliction after all, and it's not Cricket to berate them over not agreeing.

I'm too prosaic to care about such incidents.

In my view, if my crappy armoured spearmen do a good job and flank some knights, what's the difference if they have a leader called Pedro Alcazar or not? I'm not interested in that level of detail, in a mass wargame.

It wouldn't stop me playing it, but it wouldn't attract me, either.

I'm guessing it's the underlying magical beliefs that we still harbor. Like the "lucky dice" or "that one captain that is totally awesome and kickass but I'll forget about all the times he's screwed me over."

stonefox wrote:I'm guessing it's the underlying magical beliefs that we still harbor. Like the "lucky dice" or "that one captain that is totally awesome and kickass but I'll forget about all the times he's screwed me over."

Not everyone thinks like that though. (Not that it's wrong to think that way)

Kilkrazy wrote:...In my view, if my crappy armoured spearmen do a good job and flank some knights, what's the difference if they have a leader called Pedro Alcazar or not? I'm not interested in that level of detail, in a mass wargame.

It wouldn't stop me playing it, but it wouldn't attract me, either.

Agreed, and it actually does stop me from playing WHFB. Mass games are suppose to have figure scales, IE: 1 figure=10 or even 1=100.

That makes it seem silly that <hero> kills 10-100 men... (At least in mass combat games, individuals are for command/control, maneuver and morale benefit.)

(Why would Teclis, The Grand Theogenist, a Greater Demon, Emperor Karl Franz etc. show up for a battle for a single field and farmhouse? Silly.)

Well thank you everyone. I feel I've gleaned a lot from people's responses here, and I appreciate all the opinions. Thanks for adding to what, in my opinion, is one of the better discussions we've had around here. No flaming, even!

Of course, that doesn't mean the thread is locked now or anything...

Augustus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:...In my view, if my crappy armoured spearmen do a good job and flank some knights, what's the difference if they have a leader called Pedro Alcazar or not? I'm not interested in that level of detail, in a mass wargame.

It wouldn't stop me playing it, but it wouldn't attract me, either.

Agreed, and it actually does stop me from playing WHFB. Mass games are suppose to have figure scales, IE: 1 figure=10 or even 1=100.

That makes it seem silly that <hero> kills 10-100 men... (At least in mass combat games, individuals are for command/control, maneuver and morale benefit.)

(Why would Teclis, The Grand Theogenist, a Greater Demon, Emperor Karl Franz etc. show up for a battle for a single field and farmhouse? Silly.)

Which is why I always sort of appreciated the "you can't use this guy unless your army is so many points or higher" rule.

Augustus wrote:Agreed, and it actually does stop me from playing WHFB. Mass games are suppose to have figure scales, IE: 1 figure=10 or even 1=100.

That makes it seem silly that <hero> kills 10-100 men...

You can always think of the hero as including a personal retinue.

As a lit major I have a good idea about heros:

whether or not a hero is of mythical power (marneus calgar) or just an ordinary eldar who happened to kill a carnifex with a lucky cc, every story has a hero. My heroic characters tend to be more ironic, meaning they die easier than the rest of my army. To me as well as nearly every book that has been printed in the last 2000+ years, the most exciting part is the hero. While wargaming is different, it still represents a story, picking, converting, building and painting your army is essentially giving an identity to them. Can you remember a time where you talked about a game of 40k, fantasy, necromunda, whatever and did not really have a specific hero that you talked about (even if it was a normal troop). What about the last time that you played monopoly? I hope you understand my point.

the hero archetype is needed to tell a story. Should there be dedicated heros? Only if the possible identity of the army is in question. with necromunda, every character can be the hero. Without heros in 40k it might just turn into a game of risk.

My 2 cents.

Quite right. Without the protagonists, the everybody would be antagonists and that would make for some lousy stories. IIRC, Rogue Trader was a narrative game, correct? A narrative games purpose could be construed that it is designed to enable the players to create their own story. No good story is complete without the hero (or anti-hero, if you are playing chaos!) and hero's tend to be more powerful than others just for the mere fact that they need to survive long enough to build rapport with the "audience". If the character dies too early in the story, the audience feels less emotional response from the death. By building a lot of rapport with the audience, they feel more connected to the antagonist and thus feel more remorse at his passing.

Therefore, heroes definitely have their place in the world of 40k, as it is a direct descendant of RT. Since RT was a narrative, it would make sense to keep some elements of that kind of play involved, so that the original players of RT do not quit the hobby due to the exaggerated change. Of course, during the evolution of the game, it can be said that the focus has definitely moved away from narrative gameplay, but in some ways it is still there. I am gladdened by this, for if the narrative gameplay was to die, then I would have to find another game system.

I agree with GKL, if they do away with heroic figures in GW, or the idea of heroism, then they will see a different kind of player base than it has now. You will see it as more competition, less storytelling. I.e. "Rise of the Powergamers, end of Humanity." I hope this does not happen.

Grey Knight Luke wrote:As a lit major I have a good idea about heros:

whether or not a hero is of mythical power (marneus calgar) or just an ordinary eldar who happened to kill a carnifex with a lucky cc, every story has a hero. My heroic characters tend to be more ironic, meaning they die easier than the rest of my army. To me as well as nearly every book that has been printed in the last 2000+ years, the most exciting part is the hero. While wargaming is different, it still represents a story, picking, converting, building and painting your army is essentially giving an identity to them. Can you remember a time where you talked about a game of 40k, fantasy, necromunda, whatever and did not really have a specific hero that you talked about (even if it was a normal troop). What about the last time that you played monopoly? I hope you understand my point.

the hero archetype is needed to tell a story. Should there be dedicated heros? Only if the possible identity of the army is in question. with necromunda, every character can be the hero. Without heros in 40k it might just turn into a game of risk.

My 2 cents.

You must be aware of anti-heroes. Philip K Dick's output mostly concerns anti-heroes, ordinary guys who get pushed into some weird situation and muddle through it by non-heroic means. Raymond Chandler's private eyes are Joe Schmoes with no special powers. The protagonist doesn't have to be a hero.

I agree Hero's are needed in 40k and WHFB. However if you don't want to use them you really don't have to, you can always build lists around using a special character. Also several tournaments may not allow special characters (or at least at my FLGS they dont).

For instance in my DA collection I have SMG Azeral, do I use him? No, I use Company Master Gidion and a currently unnamed Interrigator Chaplain.

My Tau have no named characters because well besides horrible rules, I just don't think they are necessary. I have a Shas'o, Shas'el and Ethereal that I switch around depending on the game.

In my Dark Elves I don't use any named characters, I have some of the models because they look cool. Perhaps in higher points games I will use them but at my current points lvl they are either not allowed (due to Lords limit) or I would rather spend the points somewhere else.

let me make an addendum to what I said,

when I said hero, I should have said hero/anti-hero. i have been living in an imperium world, where there are heros. However the anti-hero does exist. The anti-hero is as important as the hero and is as absolutely essential to the heroic journey that every player finds themselves on.

In the last few hours I have rethought what I said before... For power gaming (i.e. creating the strongest list possible with no thought to fluff) the player is essentially the hero, he defines the role of the army that he creates. In effect, because of the player's decision, he/she decides which character will be the hero or the villain (obviously this has to do with a lot of luck of the dice).

With regard to players who like fluff, who tell stories with their games, not just allowing their games to be purely tactical advancement, the hero is a predefined character, someone who is destined to do great things. The hero (or villain) is the best because they are the best, this is seen in stories such as Beowulf. There are games where an unlikely hero can win the day, the 20th century novel shows that all the time (Harry Potter anyone?).

The hero can't die. In the end the player becomes the hero and the hero lives on.

captain.gordino wrote:So, I'm always thinking about wargame design (don't expect a brilliant game from me in the near future though), and I wondered, does it add to the game to have ordinary human-sized individuals who are extremely powerful? It seems most war games have units like sorcerers or people who can call in orbital strikes or whatever who wield the same or greater power as a much larger unit, such as a tank or something. But would it detract from the game if these characters didn't exist? If the most powerful units were just the biggest heaviest pieces on the board?

What are your thoughts, oh Dakkaites? Please, philosophize and humorize (more of the former) at will.

Depends on the character. Those characters that reflect experienced individuals can add a lot of flavour to an army.
On the other hand, some can be just cheesy, pointless, and ultimately ruin the feel of an army.

My example of the latter: "Marbo", aka Rambo...the fething stupidest idea I've seen out of a Codex as of yet.

I'd prefer characters to be more for leadership than fighting. Sure abby's a badass. And that's why CSM's do what he says.

They are a good excuse to sculpt awesome over the top models.

Hi all.
I think alot of good points have been made so far.
But to me there apears to be 2 seperate features.I am not sure if the terminoligy is right so bear with me ...

'Heroics'.(Extra odinary acts of bravery -self determination.)
This can occur naturaly when extreem good luck makes an 'ordinary unit-model' perform extrodinarily well.
(Every one can remember this sort of event cant they?)

Or can be pre-programmed into the game by nominating bonuses to 'pre determined heroes.'

'Characterisation'.(The narrative theme, players personal choice of characterful units.)
This can occur naturaly when a player themes thier army-force , around thier own personal chioces.

Or it can be determined by the inclusion of 'predetermined characters' that determine a particular army -force-unit composition.


If a game has a wider selection of in game actions.Moral , leadership and psychology are represented as well as direct combat results.

It means you can have 'heroic' influences in the form of non combatant leaders ,( as well as characterisation of units by unit leaders.)

A game does NOT NEED to have 'heroic characters that exell at killing ordinary units.'

But all good games do include options for 'heroics' and 'characterisation' in some form or other.AFAIK.

I hope this makes sense to you?
If not Ill clarify futher.

Happy Gaming
Lanrak.

Oh having super "hero" types is totally necessary. It gives you a reason to fall in love with a particular army. It makes you want to think of fluff and cool stories of impossible but totally believable things that happen on the battlefield. It makes you go "oh man thats AWESOME!"
Like that one squad Sgt. marine in WW2 that single handedly captured like 100 Nazis and marched them all into ally territory. That sounds like a WFB/40k hero to me, and it really happened.

Individuality is the key.

Biggest issue I have with 40K is that they have pigeon holed all of thier "Hero"s.

Now it is going back to the old 2d edition way of "Revolve the game around Dante, or Iron Hand, or ---Insert name here--.
I wouldn't mind if they would step up thier lazy efforts and give people choice in the hero building department. Heck even som,ething as mudane as giving a couple of different optios of special abilities to some veteran's, or giving some additional freedom to the players would be an improvement to the evolution of 2d edition 2.0 that the game is going to.
How many times do we get to see Joe hero name clean up a whole side of the table by himself, and shrug off a battle cannon, because he's just that special.
The effect of Joe hero getting waxed doesn't even have an effect. its just like giving 1 guy an excuse to cost so much more just for the easy meat kills that they do.

I would like to see some rules for evolving your squad/ hero as in DOW2.

Best games I've played were along the lines of Necromunda, or ladder turnies where you grow your army along with the campaign.

Augustus wrote:(Why would Teclis, The Grand Theogenist, a Greater Demon, Emperor Karl Franz etc. show up for a battle for a single field and farmhouse? Silly.)

I always assume this represents the battle 'on the table' being the key skirmish of a much larger battle. That farmhouse could be the equivalent of the McClean house where the US civil war effectively ended. Of no value in and of itself, but it might bear witness to world-shaking events. Or it might just be where some hero makes a last stand.

I personally am not crazy with the 'mandatory special characters' of War Machine and (in some opinion) certain 40k lists. SCs seem like a fun character to use occasionally, but really should be used in 'special' games in my opinion.

I like the element of character creation 40k and Warhammer has. I don't like Warmachine and Confrontation's emphasis on named characters. However I do feel some armies should be based around a powerful individual. Ork & Chaos armies in particular are based around the retinues of great characters. I also feel that these individuals should both reflect and reflect upon the army. I like the Nurgle Daemon Prince commanding his personal host of Plague Marines, I don't like the Slaanesh Daemon Prince commanding an army of Nurgle and Tzeentch Marines with no Slaanesh troops whatsoever.