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 us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

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?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





I think they should be unique in their exact composition so they feel special, but individual important abilities should be replicatable elsewhere in the army.

Example, Trajan is the only way Custodes can get re-roll wounds. That shouldn't be the case. But his weapon profile, sure there's no problem that being unique, and maybe the re-roll wounds source wouldn't be on a shield captain it would be on something else.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

 Stux wrote:
I think they should be unique in their exact composition so they feel special, but individual important abilities should be replicatable elsewhere in the army.

Example, Trajan is the only way Custodes can get re-roll wounds. That shouldn't be the case. But his weapon profile, sure there's no problem that being unique, and maybe the re-roll wounds source wouldn't be on a shield captain it would be on something else.
I'd rather go further, as evidenced by the OP, but that seems a pretty reasonable stance to me.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





 JNAProductions wrote:
 Stux wrote:
I think they should be unique in their exact composition so they feel special, but individual important abilities should be replicatable elsewhere in the army.

Example, Trajan is the only way Custodes can get re-roll wounds. That shouldn't be the case. But his weapon profile, sure there's no problem that being unique, and maybe the re-roll wounds source wouldn't be on a shield captain it would be on something else.
I'd rather go further, as evidenced by the OP, but that seems a pretty reasonable stance to me.


Based on the thread on unique chapters, I know there are a few people here who will have that preference.

However I've played other games where the 'legendary' characters can be made using the normal rules and it's always struck me personally as really lame and underwhelming feeling.
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






I think having solid build options off generic characters is a great way to go. All the profiles for the unique characters should be built from that template. And then, with the options, players would be free to make their own characters for their own unique chapters.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 JNAProductions wrote:

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

You're not alone, it is a great idea and I've been thinking the same thing for a long time.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission




Tacoma, WA, USA

I am alright with them being unique. I am alright with them having unique options. I am not alright with them being better. There is no reason Calgar needs unique rules that make him better than any Ultramarines Chapter Master you can make with the rules.
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Douglasville, GA

I'm kinda in the middle on this one. I'm fine with unique characters having unique things. But I'd also like to be able to build a "kustom" Warboss named "Grumblestompa Da Kruul" and not have him be statistically the same as his Warboss Lieutenant "Starskreem".
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

 flandarz wrote:
I'm kinda in the middle on this one. I'm fine with unique characters having unique things. But I'd also like to be able to build a "kustom" Warboss named "Grumblestompa Da Kruul" and not have him be statistically the same as his Warboss Lieutenant "Starskreem".
Yeah-I think we can pretty much all agree, regardless of how you feel on unique characters, that 40k should have lots of customization in HQs.

I feel sorry for the Dark Eldar and Necron players. I mean, good lord, there are...

Regular (+/- Jump Pack)
Terminator
Primaris
Gravis
Bike
Phobos

At least six distinct Captains in Space Marines.

Necron Overlords have a choice of 5 different weapons and one binary wargear. There are as many generic Space Marine Captains as there are options on a Necron Overlord.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






 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.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Instigating Incubi




The dark behind the eyes.

 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?


No, I think this would be an excellent idea.

One of the reasons I'm for this change is because it would stop GW from stripping options and wargear from everything except special characters.

You want your characters to have cool rules and wargear? Fine. But regular HQs have to have access to them as well.

Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"



 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





 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.


That is essentially what everyone was doing in 8e anyway, at least before the new Successor rules.
   
Made in us
Potent Grey Knight Librarian





Fort Worth, TX

They should be unique in that they do have something extra special...for them. Not something extra special that they pass on to everyone else around them, in which case everyone now fields that character and they're no longer a special character. Remember those good old days when the only way to play certain armies was to take the special character that was required to unlock those armies?
I don't mind so much if Special Character Chapter Master Jim is marginally better than generic Chapter Master Bob as long as it's paid for and the only thing that's better is Jim gets an extra attack or is one higher strength or something like that it's fine, but if Jim is "all my dudes around me get +1 to everything because I'm cooler than Bob", that's a nope.

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





 Tannhauser42 wrote:
They should be unique in that they do have something extra special...for them. Not something extra special that they pass on to everyone else around them, in which case everyone now fields that character and they're no longer a special character. Remember those good old days when the only way to play certain armies was to take the special character that was required to unlock those armies?
I don't mind so much if Special Character Chapter Master Jim is marginally better than generic Chapter Master Bob as long as it's paid for and the only thing that's better is Jim gets an extra attack or is one higher strength or something like that it's fine, but if Jim is "all my dudes around me get +1 to everything because I'm cooler than Bob", that's a nope.


That's more or less the crux of it for me.

An army buff shouldn't be contingent on a named character. Those abilities are too important to be gated like that.

But if they have a fancy sword or what have you, sure, whatever.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




sometimes unique stuff is really strange. Grey Knights have access to storm shields, but the only model that can take one is Draigo.
   
Made in gb
Instigating Incubi




The dark behind the eyes.

 Stux wrote:
That's more or less the crux of it for me.

An army buff shouldn't be contingent on a named character.


Nor an entire faction.

Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"



 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Hardened Veteran Guardsman




 Lance845 wrote:
I think having solid build options off generic characters is a great way to go. All the profiles for the unique characters should be built from that template. And then, with the options, players would be free to make their own characters for their own unique chapters.


I am basically in this camp. Give a list of a bunch of abilities, attack options, and defense options, and give them all prices, and then you can build your character from there. If necessary, make a cap on the number of choices allowed, or a couple of "if you take Ability C, you cannot take Ability G". If you end up with say 10 options to give your HQ, when combined with Warlord Trait and your Army Ability, you'll be able to make a fairly unique character of your own.

Then a named character could be someone with Abilities X, Y, and Z from the list, but is built off of the same base template as a generic.

After all, half the fun of the game is making up the story of your units and models - so having access to the abilities of a named character without having to bring that exact model is a boon.

Also, I just hate that certain abilities are locked behind a named character, and feel that you should be able to access that ability without having to bring the specific character to every fight.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





I’d be in favour of this. IIRC special characters started off like this - Ghazkull was just an Ork warboss with a particular combination of traits and wargear that happened to be used in a White Dwarf battle report back in the day (by Andy Chambers I think) and he decided to name his home brew warboss.

Either go back to this where the same loadout can be created as a generic character, or special characters should only be allowed with the consent of your opponent or in open/narrative games.
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






If the game had more avenues for rules, I'd say yes. Sadly we're right back to 7th edition where GW's entire playbook consisted of two types of rules:

1) Ignore ___________ (a basic rules component)
2) Re-roll ___________.

That's about it, sadly. Doesn't leave much room for unique characters. Also, unique characters would continue to be passed up for the best one (i.e. re-roll hits and re-roll wounds).

 
   
Made in nl
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller






your mind

they should be so unique that they do not see use in everyday non-narrative games.

   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think it all depends on how they are suppose to work in a list. A special scout sgt, special character, who maybe by interacting with specific adds something new to a list is okey, and can be fun. But such models or units should never be a must take, or over shadow other similar option to a point there are never taken.
Also making special characters out of something which should not be a thing. And armies build around special characters shouldn't be a thing ever, unless it the army is something like imperial/chaos knights.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I am just spitballing while I take my break, what if armies had character points and some armies got more than others to represent how special they were but paid more. Than you get a list of tables and can spend where you want. Any character in your army is eligible so if you want a bunch of +1 attack Sarge's or a tanky super HQ, or a master tankman you could do it. And those chapters that have few or eliminated options (DE) would get those back.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




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.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




I have to say I think unique should feel unique but in the same token you should be able to make pretty neat generic character as well to fit your style.

Sometimes your own hero just feels better.
   
Made in se
Member of the Malleus





They should always be unique but come with a costs. I have a philosophy that special characters should only ever be used in themed armies. Something akin to if you take Kharn the betrayer your army must include 4 units of Berzerkers, or if you take Lysander your army must include 4 squads of terminators. I’ve never used a named character because I believe they make the game and the lore less interesting. I do think it’s cool though when a special character is the central theme of an army I’m facing.

Edit: reminiscing about those very old rules where you could only take a special character with you opponents consent.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/01 07:24:23


His pattern of returning alive after being declared dead occurred often enough during Cain's career that the Munitorum made a special ruling that Ciaphas Cain is to never be considered dead, despite evidence to the contrary. 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






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.


You want the real answer? Because you can charge crazy money for a named unique hero...and people pay for it. Some of the Forge World Primarchs are over $100 now...lol. That's a real thing.

 
   
Made in dk
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot






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?
   
Made in fr
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor





France

Then they wouldn't be unique characters. I think that's one of the most weird idea I have ever heard from the 40k community, and I heard a lot of stuff lol

   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





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.
   
Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





 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?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: