Named Characters and [factions]. Is there a better way?

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.

**Arbitrator**

It is pretty funny seeing one of the reasons Warmahordes got so much flak was because "I want to make my own characters, not have named special character leading them!!!" and then a few years later everyone was rocking up with Guilliman, Silent King, Abaddon etc.

The named characters all fall into the same sub-faction because it's the sub-faction Eavy Metal have painted and GW would rather take their limbs than allow a red-painted special character on the webstore/White Dwarf arm spread if the main sub-faction is blue.

I do prefer when it was Generic HQ vs Generic HQ rather than the Warhammer Cinematic Universe, but evidentially the success of those big, dynamic kits and peoples continued cries for another loyalist Primarch coming back ensure it's not going anywhere.

**vipoid**

Wyldhunt wrote:
vipoid wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:

As for tying characters to subfactions... I kind of think that tying special rules to subfactions (at least for non-marins) was a mistake. Instead, those rules should be tied to "army themes" that happen to correspond to some of the major factions. So if you want to play an eldar army with lots of wraith units, you shouldn't necessarily need to play Iyanden to get wraith-related bonuses. You should be able to just play a "wraith host" army theme that gives your wraith units benefits and happens to fit Iyanden's fluff well. Do that and get rid of the "<Craftworld>" keyword, and now you can use Yriel's datasheet to represent Yriel proper or some other space elf with a cool magic weapon.

I'd much prefer this to the current system.

That said, I'd also like to see the bonuses reworked in general so that they're not just straight buffs. I believe Catbarf had some good suggestions for this in a different thread.

Any chance you remember which thread it was? I, too, would like to see more rules that change playstyle rather than just making things more lethal.

Here you go:

catbarf wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
My Chapters/Legions are not just paint jobs, and never should be treated as such.

Personally, I like having subfaction differentiation, but I dislike the way GW has done it.

The way 40K currently does it:

Army-wide freebie trait: Discourages using 'incompatible' units and makes the optimal ones significantly more difficult to balance.
Warlord traits and relics: Provides a single stereotypical option for each subfaction. You either take the one associated with your subfaction, or you take generic ones.
Unique stratagems: This is at least thematic and leverages existing systems well, but tied to the messy stratagem system.

So in practice, the differences between a Cadian army and a Vostroyan army are that one shoots marginally better stationary and the other can shoot in melee, and beyond that it's pretty much all just listbuilding choices that you could make with or without that subfaction bonus.

I'd rather see a system like:

Catachans
-Catachan Devils available as a unique Elites choice.
-Infantry units can take Heavy Flamers as a heavy weapon.
-Any infantry unit can be upgraded to Deathworld Veterans, which costs X points and provides Y benefit.
-1-2 Catachan-specific stratagems.

Notice how there are no free benefits, just additional options. If you want to do Catachan heavy armor you are free to do so and won't lose out on anything. If you want to lean into the rough-and-ready jungle fighters theme, then you have relevant upgrades, with appropriately balanced points costs. You don't get penalized for not sticking to the flanderised depiction of the regiment, and it doesn't throw the game balance out of whack with some units getting very relevant upgrades for free.

**Dolnikan**

Karol wrote:
Dolnikan wrote:
Named characters always felt weird to me, so I personally don't use them. It just doesn't fit. But most can just be turned into wargear options or alternate sculpts for already existing models. There's no need to make all these special characters who somehow have this unique weapon of which there is only one in a whole galaxy or the like.

But then again, I'm also in favour of more simplified wargear in general, so no tiny differentiations of different versions of the same weapon that have one point more or less of something.

But there is only one Titan Sword, storm shield or the Blade of Antwer in the entire setting. They also happen to be carried by characters which or vastly superior to the non special characters version of HQ, for minimal pts cost.

Which makes no sense to me because there is no reason why there wouldn't be equivalent weapons laying around elsewhere. Sure, it would make 40k revolve less around central characters but to me, that seems more like a good thing. And besides, many special weapons are just normal weapons +1. They don't fundamentally change anything.

**warhead01**

ERJAK wrote:
Nazrak wrote:
The better way is to simply not use named characters because they're boring and unimaginative, and instead make up your own guys.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
IN MY OPINION

Making up characters is cringe for weebs. In my opinion.

I feel the same way about people playing Special Characters.