Switch Theme:

Should Unique Characters Be Unique?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





BrianDavion wrote:
 Stux wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
I agree with the OP. So many characters would be better suited as generic options. I've also never really understood the appeal of unique characters because they kind of ruin my suspension of disbelief. The characters just feel too famous to reasonably fit into my narratives. Plus, more customization is always better.


I understand this opinion, but you surely realise that conversely many people get the most out of the game from being able to put these legendary heroes they've read about into their armies.

Neither side is correct as such, but it's better to have the option than not have it - that way everyone can play the way they want to.


playing devil's advocate (because I personally like unique chars) wouldn't it be more intreasting if unique characters where, essentially, just examples of what we could create witha robust points based character creation system?


For me, no. It takes away a lot of the special feeling if there isn't SOMETHING unique about them, and I'd hate to see that go. Though as I said above, that unique thing should never be a rule that is crucial to army composition.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





I think from a balance point of view the special characters allow powerful rules to be stacked against other sub-optimal choices to pad out their cost or limit their effectiveness.

Build your own either leads to min/maxed characters on the cheap, or the custom vehicle rules of everything being overpriced to account for minmaxing.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

A.T. wrote:
I think from a balance point of view the special characters allow powerful rules to be stacked against other sub-optimal choices to pad out their cost or limit their effectiveness.

Build your own either leads to min/maxed characters on the cheap, or the custom vehicle rules of everything being overpriced to account for minmaxing.
While I do agree that the more options there are, the more likely something is going to be borked, at the same time, GW is not known for balance. I'd rather have a bunch of options that are at least usable in casual play than a slight betterment of balance at the cost of most options.

Ideally, 40k would be balanced AND have a ton of options, but given GW's track record, I'll take options over their attempts at balance.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





 Insectum7 wrote:


It also used to be that the language around Special Characters was that they were not unique, and that Marneus Calgar could also represent your successor chapter Master, for example. I'm not sure how they're calling it now.


Now, with special characters you can't change their keywords. So the Doom Eagles could take Marneus, but he's still ULTRAMARINES and only gives rerolls to ULTRAMARINES.

Some things should be unique, some things should not be. Corvex (Sammael's Jet bike) should probably be unique, Sableclaw (His Land Speeder) should probably not be unique - especially since the Talonmaster has virtually the same just slightly less land speeder. The Gauntlets of Ultramar should probably be unique. Equipping a Captain with Gravis Armor, and two Auto Bolt Storm Gauntlets that will get you close should probably be a thing - like the Fist of Dorn is unique but you can still give a Captain a Thunderhammer and Stormshield.

Most of the unique things should just be slightly improved normally available things. The truly unique things that don't have a generic parallel should be rare and iconic. Captain Sicarius for example is too unique, having the Talassarian Tempest Blade, and Battle Forged Heroes.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





A.T. wrote:
I think from a balance point of view the special characters allow powerful rules to be stacked against other sub-optimal choices to pad out their cost or limit their effectiveness.

Build your own either leads to min/maxed characters on the cheap, or the custom vehicle rules of everything being overpriced to account for minmaxing.


This is a good point. Build your own will lead to most people taking the 'best' option.

We're already seeing it with Successors, with suddenly most successor chapters becoming Master Artisans overnight.
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




I see where you're coming from, especially in terms of balance. In regards to narrative though I really like how unique these different characters are. It would feel too copy and paste otherwise.
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





 Stux wrote:


For me, no. It takes away a lot of the special feeling if there isn't SOMETHING unique about them, and I'd hate to see that go. Though as I said above, that unique thing should never be a rule that is crucial to army composition.


Unless it's fluffy for that faction/subfaction. i.e. Azrael, Belial, or Sammael making Terminators/Bikers into Troops or a Wind Rider of Saim-Hann doing the same for Saim-Hann jetbikes.
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





Breton wrote:
 Stux wrote:


For me, no. It takes away a lot of the special feeling if there isn't SOMETHING unique about them, and I'd hate to see that go. Though as I said above, that unique thing should never be a rule that is crucial to army composition.


Unless it's fluffy for that faction/subfaction. i.e. Azrael, Belial, or Sammael making Terminators/Bikers into Troops or a Wind Rider of Saim-Hann doing the same for Saim-Hann jetbikes.


Sure, but then what about a Dark Angel Successor, surely they should have a 1st Company captain who leads Terminators in the same way?

So you could have a generic 1st Company captain who does stuff for Terminators, then Belial has a fancy sword/duelist special rule or something on top of that.
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





 Stux wrote:
Breton wrote:
 Stux wrote:


For me, no. It takes away a lot of the special feeling if there isn't SOMETHING unique about them, and I'd hate to see that go. Though as I said above, that unique thing should never be a rule that is crucial to army composition.


Unless it's fluffy for that faction/subfaction. i.e. Azrael, Belial, or Sammael making Terminators/Bikers into Troops or a Wind Rider of Saim-Hann doing the same for Saim-Hann jetbikes.


Sure, but then what about a Dark Angel Successor, surely they should have a 1st Company captain who leads Terminators in the same way?

So you could have a generic 1st Company captain who does stuff for Terminators, then Belial has a fancy sword/duelist special rule or something on top of that.


They have bigger issues with successor chapters. Successor Chapters right now can't even make a generic fluffy Second Company Master. I don't mind if it's a Warlord Trait (other than you couldn't Raven/Death Combi-wing with only one Warlord Trait) or some such. I do think they'd have to word in a way so your Green Wing (or Guardians whatever) get displaced by the Terminators/Bikes/Jetbikes. And in such a way that you could run Raven- and Death- wings together with Belial and Sammael to get both. You shouldn't be able to make a Dark Angels 5th Company army with First Company support, stick your fifth company Master in Terminator Armor and make the 1st Company Objective Secured. Of course, I'm not sure why Terminators under Belial would know how to secure an objective better than they would when they're supporting Master Charlemagne of the Fifth Company. And I absolutely don't understand why 10 Terminators can't secure an objective from 11 traitor guardsmen.

Basically there are certain sub-factions that lean to a Non-Batallion army. These subfactions are no less a Special Character than the actual special characters, and we should be able to make those lists without being punished on CP Generation or ObSec
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





I did actually play with an all Deathwing army just last week! My opponent took a fairly janky list too (by arrangement) but even so having only 5cp is extremely restrictive. It felt like more of an issue than the power level of Terminators in all honesty.
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





 Stux wrote:
I did actually play with an all Deathwing army just last week! My opponent took a fairly janky list too (by arrangement) but even so having only 5cp is extremely restrictive. It felt like more of an issue than the power level of Terminators in all honesty.


I like to give GW the benefit of the doubt and figure they work pretty hard to points balance stuff. They're just not very good at it. Then they do a couple truly stupid things that make me doubt that benefit. Objective Secured and CP both are ridiculously not tied to points or power level, but basically model count. You don't get 6CP for 500 points of Guard and 500 Points of Marines. Guard can already be looking at 13 CP, Marines are lucky to land 8. CP should have just been a flat generation based on game size. At 500 Points you get 6-8... whatever is a decent number to SOMETHING every battle round plus a couple emergencies. At 2,000 you should be looking at about 12-15. Enough to do a couple SOMETHING's each battle round plus a couple emergencies. I'm not entirely sure how we ended up with guard being more "commandable" than Space Marines.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince





West Lafayette, IN

I immediately picture Captain Cortez in every army and I think this is a bad idea. Not every Craftworld has a Farseer analogous to Eldrad. If you're THAT hung up on taking other peoples' stuff, play Unbound.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in ca
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot



Canada

Interesting logic in the thread title - "should unique characters be unique?" Of course unique characters should be unique, and long cats should be long. Anyhoo.

Way back in 2nd Ed I recall that Special Characters were pretty much on "with your opponent's permission" status and were not allowed in GW Grand Tournaments. Clearly that's changed. I have to admit that in 8th I rarely run my Dark Angels without one of the unique characters. Run Hellblasters without Azrael? Ain't nobody got time for that! Should that be the case? I think that's a valid question. Some might find it odd that Azrael is in every scrap. It doesn't bother me all that much from an immersion perspective - you can always head-cannon your way around it. Its a Chapter Master in the past or future. I think that the Dark Angels' designers missed a trick by not giving Belial and Sammael the ability to make Deathwing/Ravenwing squads "Troops" choices. I am sure that there are other examples in other armies.

All that to say, I like Unique Characters from a gameplay and lore perspective. Heck, my community has a annual tournament where your Warlord has to be a unique character! Its good fun (exceptions are made for armies that don't have them).

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






 JNAProductions wrote:
To elaborate, what I mean is should someone like Calgar be mechanically unique?

I'm of the opinion that you should be able to build unique characters just from existing options. So, Calgar, for instance, would be an Ultramarines Chapter Master with Relic Power Fists, Master-Crafted Bolter, Artificer Gravis Armor and whatever a half-damage thing would be called.

Spoiler:
Aun'Va would just be an Ethereal Supreme with Paradox Of Duality and some bodyguards.

Canis Rex would just be a Master Knight Preceptor with a Relic Fist, and the option to hop out when the Knight goes kablooey.

So on and so forth.


Now, there should be SOME exceptions. Primarchs, for instance, I'm okay with being truly unique. Maybe Ghazgul (though he should REALLY be buffed up, by a lot, to merit true unique status in the rules).

Am I alone in this? Or is this a good idea to most?


I agree with the entirety of your post really but this part in particular I think resonates with me most. Primarchs and other epic level characters should be the only ones to allow truly unique mechanics.
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

As a victim of Herohammer in the past, I have a strong distaste for unique characters.

If the pointing and methodology for building custom characters could be trusted, I’d like to see a system akin to the one in Chapter Approved for building your own. Unique characters would be something I would still expect to see, especially with some unique abilities you can’t roll up/purchase.

Unfortunately, I don’t trust GW one whit for building characters, so you’ll never see them in any games I play.

It never ends well 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






 vict0988 wrote:
There are rules for custom unique characters in Chapter Approved. I don't think they should be allowed in competitive and I do like unique hq choices having unique rules. Unique characters allows gw to attempt to balance individual combos of stat buffs, relics and abilities instead of trying to balance thousands of combos by the cost of their individual upgrades. Take Anrakyr the Traveller my favourite Necron hq, why would I ever put a hunter killer missile on a melee support unit? I'd build a character with the +1 atk aura and save pts by not taking the other upgrades, Anrakyr would be pointless if his main job of adding +1 attack could be done cheaper by a generic HQ. Instead I am forced to take a bunch of unnecessary but fun upgrades and GW can balance that package instead of balancing the various individual upgrades.

GW can be a little shady at the best of times and incompetent the rest of the time so all unique units are not created equal but I think build your own hq would be easy to break. Let me ask all of you, do you regularly take your bad WL traits, chapter tactics and relics? Does the competitive community?


In short, yes? I have a custom written Chapter Master for my Renegade Space Marines. He has a mediocre Warlord trait, and two of his five special rules are actually penalties. He's not a Chaos believer (though half has Chapter has more or less fallen), so he cannot summon via daemonic ritual - ever., and <CHAOS> psykers within 6" of him suffer a -1 to their casting rolls. He has a pretty bland weapon combination. Custom characters don't have to mean curb-stomping-all-powerful douche bags.

That being said I do think 94% of the 40K gamers would end up with extremely overzealous and overpowered characters doing the same thing. This is obvious just glancing through the "Proposed Rules" section of this forum when custom stuff is suggested. Almost all of it is wildly powerful or super-obnoxiously-biased. Most gamers confuse "flavor" with "power".

However, even with all those considerations, I still heavily encourage people to create their own stuff. GW doesn't control how you play the game. Your opponents are all that matter. If you don't play at tournaments, use whatever you want. Even in the Chapter Approved make-your-own character bit, there are some seriously broken combinations. But if your friends are fine with it...go for it.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
To elaborate, what I mean is should someone like Calgar be mechanically unique?

I'm of the opinion that you should be able to build unique characters just from existing options. So, Calgar, for instance, would be an Ultramarines Chapter Master with Relic Power Fists, Master-Crafted Bolter, Artificer Gravis Armor and whatever a half-damage thing would be called.

Aun'Va would just be an Ethereal Supreme with Paradox Of Duality and some bodyguards.

Canis Rex would just be a Master Knight Preceptor with a Relic Fist, and the option to hop out when the Knight goes kablooey.

So on and so forth.

Now, there should be SOME exceptions. Primarchs, for instance, I'm okay with being truly unique. Maybe Ghazgul (though he should REALLY be buffed up, by a lot, to merit true unique status in the rules).

Am I alone in this? Or is this a good idea to most?


It also used to be that the language around Special Characters was that they were not unique, and that Marneus Calgar could also represent your successor chapter Master, for example. I'm not sure how they're calling it now.

I mean, for all intents and purposes, that's basically how it worked for the 6th-7th edition codices. It didn't matter what Chapter name they had as long as they had the same functioning Chapter Tactic.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Personally, I like like unique characters with unique abilities, but they should actually be unique. If a unique character's gimmick is that they're just a generic character but better, they probably don't need to exist. Similarly, if they're just a generic character but with an extra buff slapped on that could probably be an option instead, they probably don't need to exist.

Eldrad Ulthran, for instance, is basically just a generic on-foot farseer but with a better invul save, and a slightly different weapon and superior psychic ability. He's not different from a generic footseer so much as he's just better. Eldrad, cool as I think he is, probably doesn't need to exist. You could make his superior psychic abilities into a "High Farseer" stratagem or a points cost upgrade and get pretty much the same result.

That necron guy who transforms mid-fight and whose name I"m blanking on, on the other hand, has a complicated gimmick that would be pretty tricky to balance as a generic option in a toolbox. It's cool that he exists, and I wouldn't want his transformation thing to be purchasable as a strat or piece of wargear.

Now, there can be exceptions to this. Lelith Hesperax's fluff is that she's just an extra special super duper talented succubus. But that's her thing, and the fluff kind of acknowledges it. It's not just Chapter Master X being arbitrarily better at punching that Chapter Master Y; being better at raw combat antics is her gimmick, and that gimmick is backed up by a couple of unique special rules that I probably wouldn't want to see turned into a generic, purchasable option. If you could purchase the special rules meant to make Lelith seem uniquely talented, then any piece of fluff claiming she's the peerless champion of the arenas rings hollow.


TLDR; special characters usually shouldn't be generic characters +, and I like the idea of bringing back more character customization options.
   
Made in us
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot





Holy Terra

If anything they should be more unique, not less.

Abilities should not always be open for replication.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Stux wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
I agree with the OP. So many characters would be better suited as generic options. I've also never really understood the appeal of unique characters because they kind of ruin my suspension of disbelief. The characters just feel too famous to reasonably fit into my narratives. Plus, more customization is always better.


I understand this opinion, but you surely realise that conversely many people get the most out of the game from being able to put these legendary heroes they've read about into their armies.

Neither side is correct as such, but it's better to have the option than not have it - that way everyone can play the way they want to.


To expand on my statement, I will use Tau characters to explain what I would like (since I know them best):

- Take Longstrike: he is currently the only Tank Ace in the Tau empire which is both a little silly and also annoying since it requires me to play T'au instead of Vior'la to use him. Instead, he should just be replaced with a "Tank Commander" datasheet that is open to every Sept. His special suit can be made a relic and so if you want to field him you take "tank commander" and give him the relic. Rules wise nothing is lost and we've created a whole new way to play Tau for other septs.

- Next Darkstrider: Same problem as above. There should just be a pathfinder veteran for all septs to use. You can even call them "darkstriders" in honor of the original, who would also be dead by now. His analyzer then becomes a relic.

- Aun'shi: Can honestly just be an ethereal with an awesome honour blade relic and a combat warlord trait (and I say that even though I love the character).

- Aun'va: Should be an "Ethereal Supreme" datasheet. He's dead already, and his successor can just use his old model because the difference doesn't matter, and then we can finally get past the hologram nonsense. I'd also have him not have the <SEPT> keyword kinda like Celestine since he commands the entire Tau Empire, thus letting us put him in any army. He could even be a LoW if you give him the right abilities, and he'd be a one per army unit.

Which only leaves Farsight and Shadowsun. Both should stay unique imo. And as mentioned earlier, most of these characters should be dead except for Farsight (and maybe Shadowsun depending on how it's done), so making them generic lets us actually move on with the timeline. If you want to recreate old battles you use the appropriate datasheets and relics to do so. Nothing is actually lost, and we gain narrative and gameplay freedom.

While I'm on the subject, Admech should do the same to Cawl by just having an "Archmagos" datasheet, limiting it to one per army, then having Cawl's super laser be a relic. Now every forgeworld can trot out their Archmagi to fight. (I'd also make this one a LoW too, mostly just because they are literally the Lords of the Imperium's war machine, also Mars is the God of War and I think that would be cool and fitting, plus I just feel they're too powerful for being HQs)
   
Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





Longstrike represents a bit of an issue yeah, space marines have the same issue with Chronus, I'd honestly love to see him be replaced with a generic tank commander. (and I say this as a UM fan)

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in gb
Freaky Flayed One





My opinion on this is that you shouldn't have unique characters unless a generic version exists for all the sub-factions, even if said version can't perfectly mimic the specific character. One example given (I think) was Orikan the Diviner. The Stars are Right is a cool ability that differentiates him from a regular Cryptek, but you can still take a regular Cryptek. Compare this with Imotekh the Stormlord - him existing is fine, but him being the only available Phaeron datasheet is not. I would say Shadowsun is an example of this - of all the factions, the Tau seem the least likely to get cute about only having one commander who wears a stealth-suit.
The only exceptions I can think of are the truly top dogs - there's not going to be a generic Ultramarine Primarch datasheet or a generic Herald of Ynnead, nor should there be. For many of these unique characters, if you took away the things that made the unit truly unique from their contemporaries (statted or not), would they be significantly different in play-style or just inferior?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/04 02:41:43


 
   
Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





I dunno that can get a bit silly if you're talking about a Prmarch.

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in jp
Longtime Dakkanaut





Breton wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


It also used to be that the language around Special Characters was that they were not unique, and that Marneus Calgar could also represent your successor chapter Master, for example. I'm not sure how they're calling it now.


Now, with special characters you can't change their keywords. So the Doom Eagles could take Marneus, but he's still ULTRAMARINES and only gives rerolls to ULTRAMARINES.



This would be a better argument if the average Doom Eagle player didn't have the (ULTRAMARINES...but really Doom Eagles, I pinky swear) chapter trait.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




BrianDavion wrote:
I dunno that can get a bit silly if you're talking about a Prmarch.


Well, judging by this:

The only exceptions I can think of are the truly top dogs - there's not going to be a generic Ultramarine Primarch datasheet or a generic Herald of Ynnead, nor should there be.

I'd say, not an issue?
   
Made in dk
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot






Wyldhunt wrote:
Personally, I like like unique characters with unique abilities, but they should actually be unique. If a unique character's gimmick is that they're just a generic character but better, they probably don't need to exist. Similarly, if they're just a generic character but with an extra buff slapped on that could probably be an option instead, they probably don't need to exist.

Eldrad Ulthran, for instance, is basically just a generic on-foot farseer but with a better invul save, and a slightly different weapon and superior psychic ability. He's not different from a generic footseer so much as he's just better. Eldrad, cool as I think he is, probably doesn't need to exist. You could make his superior psychic abilities into a "High Farseer" stratagem or a points cost upgrade and get pretty much the same result.

That necron guy who transforms mid-fight and whose name I"m blanking on, on the other hand, has a complicated gimmick that would be pretty tricky to balance as a generic option in a toolbox. It's cool that he exists, and I wouldn't want his transformation thing to be purchasable as a strat or piece of wargear.

Now, there can be exceptions to this. Lelith Hesperax's fluff is that she's just an extra special super duper talented succubus. But that's her thing, and the fluff kind of acknowledges it. It's not just Chapter Master X being arbitrarily better at punching that Chapter Master Y; being better at raw combat antics is her gimmick, and that gimmick is backed up by a couple of unique special rules that I probably wouldn't want to see turned into a generic, purchasable option. If you could purchase the special rules meant to make Lelith seem uniquely talented, then any piece of fluff claiming she's the peerless champion of the arenas rings hollow.


TLDR; special characters usually shouldn't be generic characters +, and I like the idea of bringing back more character customization options.

I don't think you explained very well the difference between Lelith and Eldrad, both are at the very top of their game, Lelith will use completely normal daggers to cut through ceramite like butter and Eldrad is among the top 10 psykers in the galaxy. Should every legendary hero be a superhero? There is nothing terribly unique about a lot of greek heroes, they were just really good at fighting or commanding, superior to even other legendary heroes, but not in any unique way, they didn't see the future or know every fighting style common to men, they just swung a sword well. These kinds of generically powerful HQs also exist in 40k, I love my Necron unique characters especially because they are all supervillains, but Eldrad and Ahriman are uniquely powerful but not necessarily powerful in unique ways. I don't think it's arbitrary that one Chapter Master is a better melee fighter than another, is it arbitrary when one Primarch is a better fighter than another?

I know that some people like to introduce their own Mary Sue characters into settings, I like custom characters to a small degree but they should be part of the setting, the setting should not revolve around them because then it stops being the same setting. When you can make your psyker as powerful as Eldrad which I believe should be the strongest Aeldari psyker, then it's not your character put into the 40k universe, it's you shaping the 40k universe around your preferences. GW made a large push in CA2018 to make more Unique characters viable in 8th and I think they went too far in too many cases so you might be thinking "hey those abilities and buffs are really cool, I want my Craftworld to have access to those exact same rules", but I don't think it's the uniqueness of the rules that is a problem, they are just too cheap and you might not even want a super Farseer if it was costed appropriately. Maybe I'm just too much of a robot to understand.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well not sure how it was for other factions, but for GK draigo was already taken in most armies. When they gave him a huge point drop, he just became an auto include. Specially if someone was considering a non NDK chaptermaster or a captin. I mean who would not take, for almost no extra points, a guy with better stats, the only stormshield in your entire army. only thing that stops him from being taken as the only HQ, is the fact he has the wrong warlord trait, as GK have only one worth taking. But the same happened to the NDK too, there is a non character version of it. It has lower stats, not a character, and was never taken pre CA, over a GMNDK. But somehow in the CA GW decied to drop the point cost of the GM NDK, and not the never taken normal one. Hilarious IMO .

Same with Voldus and a GK librarian. For no points at all you get a GK librarian that is just better. It is the same unit, doing the same thing, but just plain better.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/04 09:58:40


 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





BrianDavion wrote:
playing devil's advocate (because I personally like unique chars) wouldn't it be more intreasting if unique characters where, essentially, just examples of what we could create witha robust points based character creation system?


A "robust points based character creation system" is what we have right now for many eldar and marine HQs plus relics. Yet, you keep seeing the same configurations over and over, often just changing by one or two wargear items because you needed to sink points somewhere and bought your warlord a fancy weapon.

Unique characters need unique rules, otherwise they are just losers or winners in the race for optimization.

Unique characters have two downsides - they are locked into a sub-faction and you can have only one. This creates lots of design space for things you can do with them.
One core aspect of unique characters is that they can provide rules that would be absolutely toxic if you could field multiple of them them - for example the swarmlord's move twice ability or Chronus as ultramarine tank commander.
Another thing you can do is provide a character that is a monster in close combat, an exceptional marksman or psyker or has some other overpowering rules that fit your sub-faction (for example Skarbrand's Rage Embodied aura). Since only one of them is allowed, this prevents you from stacking multiple powerful characters for maximum efficiency. This kind of gets blown out of the window though when you can field Gulliman, Tigurius, Chronus, Calgar, Talion, Chronus, Sicarius and Cassius, but luckily half of those suck right now.

What you can do as well is putting some army/unit-warping ability on a character, for example Straken or Pedro Cantor who improve the close combat abilities otherwise rather ranged focused units

What GW has done for many years was putting some sort of unique ability on characters that make certain units that makes units around them better at what they are already doing. Which in turn means that they either make units viable which weren't before, or make already good units great.
In either case, this makes the character a mandatory inclusion to your and army that fields the units they are supposed to support.

TL;DR: Named characters should have unique and creative rules which are unattainable otherwise. They can also serve as a limiter on rules which would be broken if fielded in multiples. Force multipliers should not be unique to named characters.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




BrianDavion wrote:
Longstrike represents a bit of an issue yeah, space marines have the same issue with Chronus, I'd honestly love to see him be replaced with a generic tank commander. (and I say this as a UM fan)

I'm still trying to work out why Chronus is one of the smurfs not an Iron Hand honestly.

I don't particularly mind unique characters but the way they work with the sub faction system doesn't work so I'd say either there needs to be a substitute for most unique characters or we need to get rid of the sub faction system. Personally I'd prefer the first choice.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in gb
Instigating Incubi




The dark behind the eyes.

 Jidmah wrote:

A "robust points based character creation system" is what we have right now for many eldar and marine HQs plus relics.


Except that the current system is not remotely robust and is only partially point-based.

Artefacts in particular don't use points at all - so powerful, army-buffing artefacts cost the exact same amount as a random pistol. Not to mention that every army (except for Space Marines because they're too extra special awsome to play be normal rules) is limited to just 3 artefacts, and even that will set you back 3CPs.

Hence, you're inevitably pushed towards taking only the 1-2 most powerful artefacts available every time.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: