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.

Actually I think you have a point. I prefer generic and highly customizable characters than Special Characters with names. But at the same time I use Special Characters as templates. My Saint Celestine isn't Celestine. He has a different helmet, a different paint job and a different weapon.

 streetsamurai wrote:
yeah, the models were fine, but I have an immense dislike of special characters. I come from the old school of gaming where you'd have to ask the permission to your opponenet before playing with SC. I feel like they restrict the creativity of the players

Yeah, because with generic characters being so prevalent in editions past we didn't have such things as the "Smashfether" build...

Special characters are fine. They always really have been nothing but overcosted, overspecialized versions of generic characters tied to specific armies. I welcome more special characters, if only so that we can start getting parity between existing factions.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
yeah, the models were fine, but I have an immense dislike of special characters. I come from the old school of gaming where you'd have to ask the permission to your opponenet before playing with SC. I feel like they restrict the creativity of the players

Yeah, because with generic characters being so prevalent in editions past we didn't have such things as the "Smashfether" build...

Special characters are fine. They always really have been nothing but overcosted, overspecialized versions of generic characters tied to specific armies. I welcome more special characters, if only so that we can start getting parity between existing factions.

Well it appears that at least in 40k most special named characters are now Underpriced compared to similarly built generic characters. that and id say Girlyman is not fine.

 Desubot wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
yeah, the models were fine, but I have an immense dislike of special characters. I come from the old school of gaming where you'd have to ask the permission to your opponenet before playing with SC. I feel like they restrict the creativity of the players

Yeah, because with generic characters being so prevalent in editions past we didn't have such things as the "Smashfether" build...

Special characters are fine. They always really have been nothing but overcosted, overspecialized versions of generic characters tied to specific armies. I welcome more special characters, if only so that we can start getting parity between existing factions.

Well it appears that at least in 40k most special named characters are now Underpriced compared to similarly built generic characters. that and id say Girlyman is not fine.

Nah, thats like "Forgeworld is OP": Most special characters are mediocre, balanced or bad. But the 10-15% that are OP are the ones people always point as a generic problem of special characters. Funnily enough, I haven't seen anyone argue that troops are OP because conscripts.

Well i didnt say they were op.

 Desubot wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
yeah, the models were fine, but I have an immense dislike of special characters. I come from the old school of gaming where you'd have to ask the permission to your opponenet before playing with SC. I feel like they restrict the creativity of the players

Yeah, because with generic characters being so prevalent in editions past we didn't have such things as the "Smashfether" build...

Special characters are fine. They always really have been nothing but overcosted, overspecialized versions of generic characters tied to specific armies. I welcome more special characters, if only so that we can start getting parity between existing factions.

Well it appears that at least in 40k most special named characters are now Underpriced compared to similarly built generic characters. that and id say Girlyman is not fine.

This is absolute hogwash. You talk about Guilliman, a character who is for all intents and purposes being used as just a Buffmander by another name, but neglect to call out Mortarion and Magnus?
Or hey, tell me what Shrike brings to the table that a Captain or Chapter Master outfitted with the same kit brings?
What's the Relic that Creed brings with him? Hint: You'll have to dig back two or three editions to find out what it is; it's his two Hellpistols. They were signature items when the character was first introduced and ever since then, that's effectively been his "Relic".

In any regards, we're not talking about 40k. We're talking about AoS.

I prefer special characters for AoS, because when a character has a ton of options like a Freeguild General or an Orc Warboss, they have only 1 one price, so theres just one way to use them efficiently.

For example, all my Orc Warbosses are nearly useless. Because the best one is the one on a Boar with the Waaagh! Banner. The model is priced for that. But if you use them on foot, or with an axe, or shield, etc... then is very overpriced for what he gives you.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
yeah, the models were fine, but I have an immense dislike of special characters. I come from the old school of gaming where you'd have to ask the permission to your opponenet before playing with SC. I feel like they restrict the creativity of the players

Yeah, because with generic characters being so prevalent in editions past we didn't have such things as the "Smashfether" build...

Special characters are fine. They always really have been nothing but overcosted, overspecialized versions of generic characters tied to specific armies. I welcome more special characters, if only so that we can start getting parity between existing factions.

Well it appears that at least in 40k most special named characters are now Underpriced compared to similarly built generic characters. that and id say Girlyman is not fine.

This is absolute hogwash. You talk about Guilliman, a character who is for all intents and purposes being used as just a Buffmander by another name, but neglect to call out Mortarion and Magnus?
Or hey, tell me what Shrike brings to the table that a Captain or Chapter Master outfitted with the same kit brings?
What's the Relic that Creed brings with him? Hint: You'll have to dig back two or three editions to find out what it is; it's his two Hellpistols. They were signature items when the character was first introduced and ever since then, that's effectively been his "Relic".

In any regards, we're not talking about 40k. We're talking about AoS.

Oi hang on there champ. you are the one bringing up 40k in the first place. i made a statement that it appears characters in 40k are cheaper than previous editions compaired to a similarly kitted out generic character. nothing more nothing less. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

ok wait yeah i did put out that girlyman line but that does not mean everyone is op or up or anything. thats just me hating on him specificly.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
yeah, the models were fine, but I have an immense dislike of special characters. I come from the old school of gaming where you'd have to ask the permission to your opponenet before playing with SC. I feel like they restrict the creativity of the players

Yeah, because with generic characters being so prevalent in editions past we didn't have such things as the "Smashfether" build...

Special characters are fine. They always really have been nothing but overcosted, overspecialized versions of generic characters tied to specific armies. I welcome more special characters, if only so that we can start getting parity between existing factions.

would be a start to actually adress the point i make instead of something completely different (you do realise that the creativity aspect is not only relative to the gears, but also (mainly) to his background)
Not that there is much to argue here. I know that my dislike of SC is completely subjective

 Galas wrote:
I prefer special characters for AoS, because when a character has a ton of options like a Freeguild General or an Orc Warboss, they have only 1 one price, so theres just one way to use them efficiently.

For example, all my Orc Warbosses are nearly useless. Because the best one is the one on a Boar with the Waaagh! Banner. The model is priced for that. But if you use them on foot, or with an axe, or shield, etc... then is very overpriced for what he gives you.

Take 40k, remove all the points, and base everything off power levels. That's AoS. The only reason people put up with it is that the alternative was literally nothing.

 Desubot wrote:

Oi hang on there champ. you are the one bringing up 40k in the first place. i made a statement that it appears characters in 40k are cheaper than previous editions compaired to a similarly kitted out generic character. nothing more nothing less. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

I mentioned Smashfether, "champ". That was pointing out a specific example of how generic characters tend to have popularized builds thanks to (spoiler here, "champ") number-crunching goons and netlisters.

That isn't really a thing in AoS and it makes the nonsensical complaining that Streetsamurai is doing about special characters(of which there are fairly few in AoS--Stormcast have two of them[only one of whom, Naeve Blacktalon, is tied to a specific subfaction--she's Hammers of Sigmar] at the moment, Chaos has a fair number of them, Sylvaneth have two, Death have a fair few, Overlords have 1, and Destruction has 1 maybe 2) a difficult thing to rebut without dipping into other examples.

You're also wrong about "previous editions compared to a similarly kitted out generic character". Creed is double the price of a Company Commander and gets an additional Order and zero access to Relics to buff himself up--and that's just a top of my head example from a book I've been working on listbuilding from recently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
yeah, the models were fine, but I have an immense dislike of special characters. I come from the old school of gaming where you'd have to ask the permission to your opponenet before playing with SC. I feel like they restrict the creativity of the players

Yeah, because with generic characters being so prevalent in editions past we didn't have such things as the "Smashfether" build...

Special characters are fine. They always really have been nothing but overcosted, overspecialized versions of generic characters tied to specific armies. I welcome more special characters, if only so that we can start getting parity between existing factions.

would be a start to actually adress the point i make instead of something completely different (you do realise that the creativity aspect is not only relative to the gears, but also (mainly) to his background)
Not that there is much to argue here. I know that my dislike of SC is completely subjective

You complained about the lack of creativity.
I countered that argument fairly well with the example of how "creativity" becomes netlisting/number-crunching.

Background means absolutely nothing outside of your little circle of friends.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Oi hang on there champ. you are the one bringing up 40k in the first place. i made a statement that it appears characters in 40k are cheaper than previous editions compaired to a similarly kitted out generic character. nothing more nothing less. calm your tits.

I mentioned Smashfether, "champ". That was pointing out a specific example of how generic characters tend to have popularized builds thanks to (spoiler here, "champ") number-crunching goons and netlisters.

That isn't really a thing in AoS and it makes the nonsensical complaining that Streetsamurai is doing about special characters(of which there are fairly few in AoS--Stormcast have two of them[only one of whom, Naeve Blacktalon, is tied to a specific subfaction--she's Hammers of Sigmar] at the moment, Chaos has a fair number of them, Sylvaneth have two, Death have a fair few, Overlords have 1, and Destruction has 1 maybe 2) a difficult thing to rebut without dipping into other examples.

You're also wrong about "previous editions compared to a similarly kitted out generic character". Creed is double the price of a Company Commander and gets an additional Order and zero access to Relics to buff himself up--and that's just a top of my head example from a book I've been working on listbuilding from recently.

you seems to have trouble understanding the simplest of argument, and to be unnecessarily abrasive. To the ignore list you go


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Oi hang on there champ. you are the one bringing up 40k in the first place. i made a statement that it appears characters in 40k are cheaper than previous editions compaired to a similarly kitted out generic character. nothing more nothing less. calm your tits.

I mentioned Smashfether, "champ". That was pointing out a specific example of how generic characters tend to have popularized builds thanks to (spoiler here, "champ") number-crunching goons and netlisters.

That isn't really a thing in AoS and it makes the nonsensical complaining that Streetsamurai is doing about special characters(of which there are fairly few in AoS--Stormcast have two of them[only one of whom, Naeve Blacktalon, is tied to a specific subfaction--she's Hammers of Sigmar] at the moment, Chaos has a fair number of them, Sylvaneth have two, Death have a fair few, Overlords have 1, and Destruction has 1 maybe 2) a difficult thing to rebut without dipping into other examples.

You're also wrong about "previous editions compared to a similarly kitted out generic character". Creed is double the price of a Company Commander and gets an additional Order and zero access to Relics to buff himself up--and that's just a top of my head example from a book I've been working on listbuilding from recently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
yeah, the models were fine, but I have an immense dislike of special characters. I come from the old school of gaming where you'd have to ask the permission to your opponenet before playing with SC. I feel like they restrict the creativity of the players

Yeah, because with generic characters being so prevalent in editions past we didn't have such things as the "Smashfether" build...

Special characters are fine. They always really have been nothing but overcosted, overspecialized versions of generic characters tied to specific armies. I welcome more special characters, if only so that we can start getting parity between existing factions.

would be a start to actually adress the point i make instead of something completely different (you do realise that the creativity aspect is not only relative to the gears, but also (mainly) to his background)
Not that there is much to argue here. I know that my dislike of SC is completely subjective

You complained about the lack of creativity.
I countered that argument fairly well with the example of how "creativity" becomes netlisting/number-crunching.

Background means absolutely nothing outside of your little circle of friends.

Well, no gak Einstein. Never claimed that the backgrounds we created was meant to change the world of wargaming. Still, it has a lot to do with my enjoyment of the game , which for some (pretty evident) reason, you don't seem to understand

 streetsamurai wrote:

you seems to have trouble understanding the simplest of argument, and to be unnecessarily abrasive. To the ignore list you go

Says the person complaining about special characters and lack of creativity in a game that is remarkably free of special characters...

It's one thing to say "I dislike special characters because I dislike them being the most efficient option"(which is a totally valid and potentially even reasonable stance to take--at least in the case of some armies, like AdMech who have one special character who became effectively an autotake at the tail end of 7th) but it is something wildly silly to complain about special characters in AoS, a game where even the flagship factions(Khorne Bloodbound and Stormcast Eternals) are sitting on a handful of special characters at best between the two of them.

You have Vandus Hammerhand and Naeve Blacktalon for the Hammers of Sigmar and the Celestant-Prime(no affiliations AFAIK) and Khul, Skarbrand, and Skarr Bloodwrath for Bloodbound.
Yet you're in this thread talking about how you're worried that an event we know nothing definitive about is going to be loaded up with Stormcast characters and a campaign book?

well,I know you have the memory and attention span of a goldfish, but it was announced that there will be 4 heralds (which are SC) for malign portents, and since it's the only thing we know so far (model-wise) about this campaign.....

I think y'all need to calm down a bit.

 streetsamurai wrote:
... but it was announced that there will be 4 heralds (which are SC) for malign portents, and since it's the only thing we know so far (model-wise) about this campaign.....

From Warhammer Community:

It’s been a little while since we’ve seen a new Death model for Warhammer Age of Sigmar. Patience is rewarded though – we hadn’t forgotten about you. Alongside this Herald of Nagash, each of the other three Grand Alliances will also be getting a powerful new hero.

Nothing says that the new heroes will necessarily be named characters.

well the knight of shrouds might not be one (even though it's pretty evident he is) but the darkoth queen is definitively one (it was said that she's the boss of the barbarian in WHQ)

Where did they give her a proper name other than 'Darkoath Warqueen'?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I prefer special characters for AoS, because when a character has a ton of options like a Freeguild General or an Orc Warboss, they have only 1 one price, so theres just one way to use them efficiently.

For example, all my Orc Warbosses are nearly useless. Because the best one is the one on a Boar with the Waaagh! Banner. The model is priced for that. But if you use them on foot, or with an axe, or shield, etc... then is very overpriced for what he gives you.

Take 40k, remove all the points, and base everything off power levels. That's AoS. The only reason people put up with it is that the alternative was literally nothing.

A shame, to be honest. I know, it makes list building easy... but it makes the old characters with many options, designed in a game with different point costs for all of those options, very unbalanced in how to build them. It alto makes many units very hard to balance . Heck, I believe the only unit with different point cost based in the weapon are those Flyng Stormcast, no? The ones with hammers or javelynns have diferent point costs.

And Kanluwen, what the heck? Why are you so hostile? Relax man.

Well we aren't even 100% she's part of it. There was no Malign Portents status on the page revealing her as there was for the Herald.

There's the possibility she's a red herring and meant for something else alongside the Portents stuff.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Well we aren't even 100% she's part of it. There was no Malign Portents status on the page revealing her as there was for the Herald.

There's the possibility she's a red herring and meant for something else alongside the Portents stuff.

The last updates kind of confirm it.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Well we aren't even 100% she's part of it. There was no Malign Portents status on the page revealing her as there was for the Herald.

There's the possibility she's a red herring and meant for something else alongside the Portents stuff.

Yeah, it does seem all but certain now but I'm willing to be skeptical if it means more stuff.

Certainly helps that we don't know the nature of the event or even events.

 Ghaz wrote:
Shere did they give her a proper name other than 'Darkoath Warqueen'?

THey refer to both of them in the singular. They are obvioulsy special characters

To me they seem like those "special" characters of 40k, like the Blood Angel Terminator Captain. They are "special" during their campaing, but after it, they become just generic guys.

 streetsamurai wrote:
yeah this is what I fear also. Think we'll only get a few sc, and they'll call it a day. Same thing happened with gathering storm on 40k. GW seems to be putting more emplhasis toward special characters lately, unfortunately

really hope I'm wrong though, since I think AOS really need some new armies.

Though , thinking about it, we will without a doubt at least get the rotbringers

A user on the Facebook thread posted much the same thing. The answer from the community person was 'don't worry, this is just a tease'

It is probably meaningless but on twitter Pete Foley was asked people to share their top 5 wishes for GW. He liked a few of the replies including mine which had 'Don't make us wait 7 months for a battletome again' at number 1.

Gathering storm was a stopgap before 8th edition. They have already had aos stopgaps in the form of skirmish, path to glory and firestorm. They don't need any more.

It has been heavily rumoured that the last 6 months of releases have been heavily effected by production issues. This is why we have had so many book releases but a deathguard plastics release spread over 6 months. It has also been rumoured that the changes to increase production by 50% have been completed.

On warhammer live Andy Hoare said it took a designer about 3 months to make a plastic kit (the Orlocks in this case). With more than 30 designers in the main studio GW should be able to make about 120 kits a year. Even including all the single figures, the main studio released about 85 kits in 2017 (I counted the 40k box set as 10). That seems to be much less than they are capable of.

I am really hoping we get a flood of awesome aos release in 2018 but as they say 'the age of hope is dead'.

"The age of hope is dead"... if after the 20 day countdown they announce that Kirby is back as CEO, I'll give them my kudos.

And then I'll sell all my GW stuff, but ey. They'll deserve my admiration.

 Galas wrote:
"The age of hope is dead"... if after the 20 day countdown they announce that Kirby is back as CEO, I'll give them my kudos.

And then I'll sell all my GW stuff, but ey. They'll deserve my admiration.

Exalted!

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Shere did they give her a proper name other than 'Darkoath Warqueen'?

THey refer to both of them in the singular. They are obvioulsy special characters

Every special character released so far has been given a proper name. Why would they change that now?

I'm in the camp that they are named but will get generics, like Vandus or Khorgos have now.