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.

We'll, I guess as long as the 30k Ultras learn more towards Captain Titus than Cato Sicarius, then I should be good.

 Bi'ios wrote:
What’re they supposed to say? “Captain Hero of the 3rd company is a gakky tactician and leader, who’s destined to die an unknown death and he succeeded by an equally unqualified individual. But at least he’s personable”

I think it just comes down to quality of writing and unfortunately GW seems to be very simplistic with their character development. Instead of having characters with a mixture of strengths and weaknesses that have to work to improve or overcome challenges, a lot of GW's characters just sorta succeed because they are that good and never seem to struggle or have real limitations on what they can do. For example if Sicarius was treated as a glory hog and had that hunger for glory come around and bite him in the rear or result in some humbling experiences then his character would be a lot more well rounded. Instead he is just a mary(marty) sue type character with no real flaws that can do no wrong and lacks room for any potential for character development.

 Vankraken wrote:

 Bi'ios wrote:
What’re they supposed to say? “Captain Hero of the 3rd company is a gakky tactician and leader, who’s destined to die an unknown death and he succeeded by an equally unqualified individual. But at least he’s personable”

I think it just comes down to quality of writing and unfortunately GW seems to be very simplistic with their character development. Instead of having characters with a mixture of strengths and weaknesses that have to work to improve or overcome challenges, a lot of GW's characters just sorta succeed because they are that good and never seem to struggle or have real limitations on what they can do. For example if Sicarius was treated as a glory hog and had that hunger for glory come around and bite him in the rear or result in some humbling experiences then his character would be a lot more well rounded. Instead he is just a mary(marty) sue type character with no real flaws that can do no wrong and lacks room for any potential for character development.

Damnos was exactly that.

 Vankraken wrote:

 Bi'ios wrote:
What’re they supposed to say? “Captain Hero of the 3rd company is a gakky tactician and leader, who’s destined to die an unknown death and he succeeded by an equally unqualified individual. But at least he’s personable”

I think it just comes down to quality of writing and unfortunately GW seems to be very simplistic with their character development. Instead of having characters with a mixture of strengths and weaknesses that have to work to improve or overcome challenges, a lot of GW's characters just sorta succeed because they are that good and never seem to struggle or have real limitations on what they can do. For example if Sicarius was treated as a glory hog and had that hunger for glory come around and bite him in the rear or result in some humbling experiences then his character would be a lot more well rounded. Instead he is just a mary(marty) sue type character with no real flaws that can do no wrong and lacks room for any potential for character development.

I mean the dude got cut in half by a Necron Lord because he's a glory hog. I'm not sure what more you want.

Also you're using Marty Stu wrong. Marty Stus aren't just powerful characters you don't like, and not everyone needs a flaw shoved in your face every 5 minutes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

 Bi'ios wrote:
What’re they supposed to say? “Captain Hero of the 3rd company is a gakky tactician and leader, who’s destined to die an unknown death and he succeeded by an equally unqualified individual. But at least he’s personable”

I think it just comes down to quality of writing and unfortunately GW seems to be very simplistic with their character development. Instead of having characters with a mixture of strengths and weaknesses that have to work to improve or overcome challenges, a lot of GW's characters just sorta succeed because they are that good and never seem to struggle or have real limitations on what they can do. For example if Sicarius was treated as a glory hog and had that hunger for glory come around and bite him in the rear or result in some humbling experiences then his character would be a lot more well rounded. Instead he is just a mary(marty) sue type character with no real flaws that can do no wrong and lacks room for any potential for character development.

I mean the dude got cut in half by a Necron Lord because he's a glory hog. I'm not sure what more you want.

Also you're using Marty Stu wrong. Marty Stus aren't just powerful characters you don't like, and not everyone needs a flaw shoved in your face every 5 minutes.

Indeed a character whose flaws are on display too much isn't all that compelling. because they feel eaither Phony, or are just unlikeable.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

pm713 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

locarno24 wrote:
Sicarius was the most egregious example of this.

I'd agree on Sicarius purely on how he's portrayed in the Codex, but in the books where he features (Damnos and the Ventris novels), he's treated a lot less like a hero, and his smugness is given depth and actually treated like negative traits on his character.

He's absolutely treated like a "spiritual liege" in the codex, but when viewed from the perspective of other characters in the setting, his flaws and ugly traits come to the fore, making him a more developed character than a majority of Space Marines.

and in fairness Sicarius is a pretty typical thing in a lot of codices the "captain whose the awesome heir apparent to the chapter"

Ragnar Blackmane's descriptor reads almost exactly the same "this captain is super! he's so exceptional and rose to leadership so fast! he's ana amazing commander, and an amazing duelist and everyone expects he'll be the next chapter master" not saying it's not bad but that it seems to be common eneugh. Also if you dislike the Ultramarines purely for that character he's currently not around anymore, even in the current timeline he's "missing likely dead"

The difference is that Ragnar's stated to be unsuitable for the job at the moment. (At least in M41). While Sicarius just looks like a total d bag who is for some reason the next in line to Chapter Mastery rather than the standard 1st Captain being next up.

They do say why a lot of rumours support it - because Sicarius is damn good at what he does.

He is, like it or not, a very good fighter, commander and tactician, with a strong slew of victories to his name. Is he flawless? Heck no. Is he good enough to possibly take over as Chapter Master? Yes - whether Calgar would choose him over his "traditional" second in command is unknown, but that won't need to be answered any more.

Guilliman himself seemed to take a liking to Sicarius, making him the head of his Victrix Guard instead of Agemman (although that may have been because Agemman was a Tetrarch at this point).

I remember him not liking Sicarius that much in Dark Imperium, but that he had potential. Uriel reminded him of Thiel, since Uriel also went against rules and tradition.

Guilliman leaves Calgar and Agemman back in Ultramar because he trusts them with his house.

I think the main difference presented between Ragnar and Cato in the the descriptions on the previous page is that Ragnar has a possible heroic flaw mentioned while Cato doesn't. Ragnar has his anger which causes Wolf Priests to worry. We don't know if it will be as big of a problem as say Herakles's anger, but it's at least mentioned as a flaw. All Cato gets is that he's so good he might be making the guy who would normally be taking over as Chapter Master worried that he's going to get passed over for that job when the time comes. That's the same flaw a lot of elves have in fantasy, the "I'm too good" flaw with no real indication that they believe that about themselves.