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'm sure everyone has noticed the running trend in more than a few codices that many of the named characters tend to all fall into a single faction. It's not a huge problem, but I've personally felt it to be a bit stifling when trying to build armies. So I'm curious what everyone else's opinions are. Should more named characters not be tied to certain factions? I've heard a few people in the past mention just having a more customizable HQ and using them as a counts-as.

I personally like the idea of limiting a codex to a single named character per faction. Like with the special relics and stratagems to give everyone a splash of character.

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

I don't think NCs are an issue, just the spread of them. Some armies have a much bigger pool of characters to pull from and others tend to languish, especially with Subfactions getting more traction (which I like btw).
HH and AoS both do the NCs a lot better than 40k because the spread is so much better (in most cases). There might be one or two armies/factions that don't have a character but the majority have a good selection to choose from while also still having a load of generic options (plus Anvil of Apotheosis for AoS).

 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

Issue with that is customization is being pared back... A lot, in some cases.

What I would like is a lot more customization, especially on Characters (but still on non-Characters too!) and have "unique" characters just be a specific build.

So, Calgar, for instance, is a Gravis Chapter Master with two Power Fists and Master Crafted Bolter. You can just build him using existing options.

A few exceptions are okay (there shouldn't be a generic Primarch, for instance) but by and large named characters should be a specific build made with existing options.

I preferred the 5th edition named characters, where they encouraged you to file the names off and make them your own. Of course, this was before chapter tactics, and lead to issues where if you wanted to play salamanders with special flamer/melta rules, you were pidgin-holed into taking Vulcan. But you could do things like take Lysander, paint him blue, and field him as Cpt. Agmemon and field a Ultramarine 1st company force. Or Talion in a RG force, etc.

 JNAProductions 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

Issue with that is customization is being pared back... A lot, in some cases.

What I would like is a lot more customization, especially on Characters (but still on non-Characters too!) and have "unique" characters just be a specific build.

So, Calgar, for instance, is a Gravis Chapter Master with two Power Fists and Master Crafted Bolter. You can just build him using existing options.

A few exceptions are okay (there shouldn't be a generic Primarch, for instance) but by and large named characters should be a specific build made with existing options.

Oh yeah, characters deffo need to be more customisable as well.

I think it depends how you like to play, some people will want to play out stories for their favourite Characters but others want to tell their own story.

I think my problem with names characters is that there is always seems to be one that is standout much better than the rest and the rest then do t seem like they are worth taking.

All named characters should be equally appealing a encourage a different style of play. And there should be an option to make your own character of equal value.

I don’t really like the god level characters like RG

 Nevelon wrote:
and lead to issues where if you wanted to play salamanders with special flamer/melta rules, you were pidgin-holed into taking Vulcan. But you could do things like take Lysander, paint him blue, and field him as Cpt. Agmemon and field a Ultramarine 1st company force. Or Talion in a RG force, etc.

And these are not issues.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
and lead to issues where if you wanted to play salamanders with special flamer/melta rules, you were pidgin-holed into taking Vulcan. But you could do things like take Lysander, paint him blue, and field him as Cpt. Agmemon and field a Ultramarine 1st company force. Or Talion in a RG force, etc.

And these are not issues.

At the time there were a lot of people complaining that if they wanted the rules for their faction they needed to take the named character. Sure, you could play without, but if you wanted your imperial fists to be stubborn, you were locked in.

In earlier editions named characters were usually just a fluff choice or a tool to run a themed army as many of them were worse than generic characters with good equipment/ relics.

Now that GW curbs the options on generic HQs more and more due to no model no rules the named characters tend to become more interesting. However, we haven't had subfaction rules since about 4th edition so GW never had to care about the subfaction their characters were in (nearly every named Ork character but the new one is in Ghazgkulls Waaagh, for example). So in the end this is a problem of GW changing their rules faster than they can produce models or fluff. I'm expecting to see more named characters for other subfactions in the future (so not the usual Ultramarines, Black Legion (GW, noone asked for that Haarkon guy!), Goffs, T'au and so on), but this will happen once we're finished replacing failcast. So let's say 12th edition.

Nobody wants to hear it (because no one ever does), but Crusade does a great job of allowing you to create your own special characters and at the same time, disincentivizes taking named characters- they aren't excluded from the game, which is nice, but they can't grow or change over time, which makes them less interesting to play.

I think some factions do better than others with special Characters- SoB are pretty OoOMLcentric. Space Marines, of course, have a fair bit of variety.

Characters without subfaction keywords are interesting. Their rank has reached a level where it transcends subfaction. They are able to effectively lead forces composed of multiple subfactions. Forces like this are legal in Crusade, but I'm not sure if they're playable in the new Matched season or not.

 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

Opinion seconded without hesitation.

 JNAProductions 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

Issue with that is customization is being pared back... A lot, in some cases.

What I would like is a lot more customization, especially on Characters (but still on non-Characters too!) and have "unique" characters just be a specific build.

So, Calgar, for instance, is a Gravis Chapter Master with two Power Fists and Master Crafted Bolter. You can just build him using existing options.

A few exceptions are okay (there shouldn't be a generic Primarch, for instance) but by and large named characters should be a specific build made with existing options.

This would be my preferred solution as well.

*laughs in Tyranid".

I loved those character creation rules from chapter approved years ago, 2018 I think. Lots of fun.

 JNAProductions 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

Issue with that is customization is being pared back... A lot, in some cases.

What I would like is a lot more customization, especially on Characters (but still on non-Characters too!) and have "unique" characters just be a specific build.

So, Calgar, for instance, is a Gravis Chapter Master with two Power Fists and Master Crafted Bolter. You can just build him using existing options.

A few exceptions are okay (there shouldn't be a generic Primarch, for instance) but by and large named characters should be a specific build made with existing options.

Yup, basically this. Give lots of customization for characters between weapons (both melee and ranged), armor type, wargear, and special rules and make all named characters specific builds of them. That way you can go cheap with what is essentially a bog standard version of the character, go full on into buffs, go full on into weaponry, mix it up, etc. Maybe bring back point limits like 3rd edition had to not make super characters, or make things get more expensive the more upgrades you put on them etc.

A Guard Company Commander in carapace armor toting a plasmagun and purchasing an ability that unlocks a new order is more interesting than essentially choosing which melee options your character who you want out of melee at all costs will take.

 Nevelon wrote:
At the time there were a lot of people complaining that if they wanted the rules for their faction they needed to take the named character. Sure, you could play without, but if you wanted your imperial fists to be stubborn, you were locked in.

It was, surprisingly, one of the very few things that the 4th Edition 'Chaos' Codex did get right. They didn't make Slaaneshi forces dependant on having Lucius, or Khornate forces require Kharn, and so on.

Of course it also removed Legions, so you win some and you lose some...

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I'm sure everyone has noticed the running trend in more than a few codices that many of the named characters tend to all fall into a single faction. It's not a huge problem, but I've personally felt it to be a bit stifling when trying to build armies. So I'm curious what everyone else's opinions are. Should more named characters not be tied to certain factions? I've heard a few people in the past mention just having a more customizable HQ and using them as a counts-as.

I personally like the idea of limiting a codex to a single named character per faction. Like with the special relics and stratagems to give everyone a splash of character.

I really like named characters but also have strong feelings about how they ought to be handled. Basically, I feel like special characters should bring an unusual mechanic or statline to their faction that you don't necessarily want to see multiples of in a given army. If a named character is basically just a generic datasheet with a slightly different weapon, then that named character probably doesn't need its own datasheet. Lieutenant Cool Pistol and just use the standard pistol rules and be a standard lieutenant, or else his pistol can be made into a generic wargear option that others can use. I feel like marines are the main offenders here.

Similarly, if a named character is just a better version of a generic datasheet, then one is probably redundant with/overshadowing the other, and the named datasheet probably doesn't need to exist. Eldrad Ulthran is kind of just a bikeless farseer but better. We could probably lose his datasheet and/or turn his better invuln, extra powers, etc. into generic upgrades for generic farseers. Illic Nightspear is better because he offers a sniper HQ that doesn't exist elsewhere in the army, although the case could be made that he should be replaced with a generic sniper HQ instead of a named one. In contrast, the Parasite of Mortrex is a pretty solid named character because it brings a unique mechanic that you might not want to have three units using at the same time (because it would get busy). Ditto that psychic battle sister and her harlequin pal. The phoenix lords are mostly-good but kind of borderline for me; some of them can offer unique playstyles or new ways to use your aspect units, but others are kind of just generic beatsticks/force multipliers in a similar vein to generic autarchs.

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.

 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.

Sisters of battle only have 1 faction locked special character. They just made it so that every subfaction can use them without breaking keywords due to their own unique keyword: Sanctified.

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.

Posting totally unrelated image:


Also in 2nd ed they published rules to make your own Chapter Masters, complete with a selection of special rules you could give them.

Wait, that's 9th edition? They can have Jump Packs?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Wait, that's 9th edition? They can have Jump Packs?

Might be from the dataslate prior to this latest one that came around the time of CSM codex.

 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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Posting totally unrelated image:


Also in 2nd ed they published rules to make your own Chapter Masters, complete with a selection of special rules you could give them.

A lot of that is still there though with Warlord Traits and Relics, simply you just don't pay for those in points.

Now I WOULD argue for a system where you can give a character a lesser relic and then pay CP (or points) for a regular relic (all with Warlord Traits) for a decent amount of customization available.

^"A lot"?

 Insectum7 wrote:
^"A lot"?

Depending how you look at it, yeah. As of now you have:
. Legion Rules
. Warlord Trait
. Relic

What youre arguing for is how much you're able to stack on a single model. My proposed system offers a lot without a bunch of stacking for Chapter Master Smashfether.

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.

Personally, I'd like to see more characters get Agent of the Imperium. Such as:

- Roboute Guilliman: He's the defacto leader of the Imperium right now, but using him in the tabletop breaks all mono-faction abilities unless you take him with Ultramarines.

- Belisarius Cawl: He has an ability that repairs ANY Imperium vehicle, but taking him also breaks all mono-faction abilities unless you take him with Ad-Mech.

- Celestine: Has an ability to give ANY Imperium infantry unit a 6++ save but also breaks any mono-faction abilities unless you take her with Sisters.

- Trajann Valoris: He's the champion of the Imperium, who has the ability to refund any CP you spend on a 5++ but is locked to Custodes.

Obviously all these characters would be better when they're taken with their respective faction, and they are (literally) but the option to have them fighting side by side with the Imperiums armies should exist.

In terms of thematic options:
- Astropaths: Every faction uses them. They're the linchpin of the Imperiums communication network.

- Tech-priest Enginseers: Custodes, Sisters, and Knights have no units that can repair vehicles. Tech-priests are basically the mechanics of the Imperium and should be able to use their repair abilities on every vehicle. With their +1 to Hit ability being limited to non-titanic vehicles.

Many of these characters could be easily fixed by just adding Agent of the Imperium to their datasheets.

 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.