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.

Create a character with lots of options will always be near impossible to balance correctly.

We have smash captains now, we used to have bike captains in the past, etc
Certain war-gear combinations will be more beneficial and thus abused depending in large part to the general core rules of the game.

I want to see more unique characters for each faction/sub faction and less create-a-hero with lots of options - they just get abused anyways.

IMO, matched play should forego all named characters and replace them with customizable 0-1 characters of similar caliber.

One thing that really bugs me is how certain WL traits and relics are tied to the named characters, forcing you to take another generic (if available) HQ just in order to take the trait you want.

Why on earth should anyone forego named heroes?

 Ishagu wrote:
Why on earth should anyone forego named heroes?

Several reasons.

It might stretch suspension of disbelief. Why is Bobby G. showing up in every random conflict, or Abaddon?
It might be a desire to play your army, rather than GW's army.
Could be other reasons that I haven't thought of as well.

The warp did it. There's your reason.

You are free to play your as you see fit.

 Ishagu wrote:
The warp did it. There's your reason.

You are free to play your as you see fit.

Do you not see how that would not be satisfying for some players?

Are you telling me that every single game you play need to be justified in the lore?

You realise most faction literally cannot even fight the Tau?

Seeing Abaddon too much? It's a VR exercise against the Warmaster.

 Ishagu wrote:
Create a character with lots of options will always be near impossible to balance correctly.

That doesn't excuse not even making an effort to balance artefacts.

 Ishagu wrote:
The warp did it. There's your reason.

You are free to play your as you see fit.

Seeing as I explicitly do not want to use any special characters, this advice is aggressively unhelpful.

Besides, I fail to see how making, say, Longstrike into a generic tank commander would be a balance issue. All the customization comes from relics and warlord traits, which is exactly what we have now.

 Ishagu wrote:
Are you telling me that every single game you play need to be justified in the lore?

You realise most faction literally cannot even fight the Tau?

Seeing Abaddon too much? It's a VR exercise against the Warmaster.

Your comments would be much better received if you weren't so obnoxious in all of your posts.

The way I see it, matched play is similar to multiplayer mode in RTS - where you receive generic 'named' heroes (ex. Warcraft III) where as narrative/open is like campaign mode/UMS.

Currently, we see a lot of "well actually, my army is [sons of ultramar], but in order to include guilliman and have him affect my units, my army needs to have [ULTRAMARINE] keyword. So my army is [Sons of Ultramar] that counts as a [ULTRAMARINE] army. So it's actually a [ULTRAMARINE] army but I call it different name."

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

Yes.

 Dysartes wrote:

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

Yes.

A lot of people have said that they don't mind unique characters that have a nice sword or something similar. Do you think unique rules in their entirety, especially rules that affect other models, should be wholly unique?

Because, while I'd like you to be able to build every character with generic options (barring obvious exceptions like Bobby G) a character who has a unique hammer ain't a big deal, or a Duelist rule (that gives them extra hits on 6s or whatever) ain't a huge deal either.

 skchsan wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Are you telling me that every single game you play need to be justified in the lore?

You realise most faction literally cannot even fight the Tau?

Seeing Abaddon too much? It's a VR exercise against the Warmaster.

Your comments would be much better received if you weren't so obnoxious in all of your posts.

The way I see it, matched play is similar to multiplayer mode in RTS - where you receive generic 'named' heroes (ex. Warcraft III) where as narrative/open is like campaign mode/UMS.

Currently, we see a lot of "well actually, my army is [sons of ultramar], but in order to include guilliman and have him affect my units, my army needs to have [ULTRAMARINE] keyword. So my army is [Sons of Ultramar] that counts as a [ULTRAMARINE] army. So it's actually a [ULTRAMARINE] army but I call it different name."

Marines sometimes paint their armor different. Bam there you go.

One thing to think about is certain armies have specific HQ to HQ interactions like Necrons.

This "Generical Rubicon" process will need to be done carefully as to not cause potential abuse with mix and matching CT + Chapter specific character rule interactions.

I think there should be enough options to "build" a character, with special characters either being a set-in-stone combination or being actually special. Honestly, I miss the days when special characters required your opponent's permission to use. It kept them actually special.

 Dysartes wrote:

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

Yes.

Out of interest, which aspects of Calgar would you say need to be kept unique?

Wayniac wrote:
I think there should be enough options to "build" a character, with special characters either being a set-in-stone combination or being actually special. Honestly, I miss the days when special characters required your opponent's permission to use. It kept them actually special.

It was stupid, not special. If someone REALLY wanted to pay 185(!) points to use Coteaz, you had no reason not to let them.

pm713 wrote:

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.

Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.

 Just Tony wrote:

pm713 wrote:

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.

Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.

How about you tell us the non 1d4chan version where you actually read the fluff of the codex!

 Just Tony wrote:

pm713 wrote:

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.

Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.

Did GW not make the models first back in 5E?

If we were to get custom characters in matched play, how would you like to see it implemented?

I personally like the idea of using the CA18 guide for overall character making. However, in matched play, I’d like to see custom characters restricted to only being “Hero” status, meaning they can only pick four improvements, whereas “Mighty Heroes” can take six, and “Legendary Heroes” can take eight. It’s similar to how in Killteam that for matched play, you can only take level 1 specialists.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Why on earth should anyone forego named heroes?

Several reasons.

It might stretch suspension of disbelief. Why is Bobby G. showing up in every random conflict, or Abaddon?
It might be a desire to play your army, rather than GW's army.
Could be other reasons that I haven't thought of as well.

Look, either you are aiming for a fluff-justified game, then you should be fine with just not using the most optimal leader for your army. If you feel like your conflict doesn't warrant Abaddon's attention, just use a Terminator Lord - GW even provided you with a stratagem to make him a chosen of the warmaster. Of course, there should be at least one unit that fits your army (though few armies outside of DE have troubles with this). Your immersion won't suffer from using a talonmaster instead of Sammael, a Chapter Master and sergeant instead of Gulliman or a regular Predator with a fancy paintjob and a marine looking out of it instead of Chronus. The only thing that suffers from this is your win-loss record.

Of course, if you want the best possible army, you need to pick the best HQ for them. If that happens to be a named character, then so be it.

You can't both have an optimized list and follow arbitrary restrictions that have been gone from the game for over a decade. Named characters are part of the game just like any other unit.

The only valid complaint is that named characters shouldn't be must-take options. But that is true for every single non-named unit for the game as well.

It's worth noting that when a character is genuinely unique and isn't just a more powerful version of X. people tend to immediatly dismiss it as bad, never take it etc. Exhibit A, Castellan Crowe. he's a unique character with an intreasting story, one that actually makes him NERFED. don't often hear about him being used.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

pm713 wrote:

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.

Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.

How about you tell us the non 1d4chan version where you actually read the fluff of the codex!

You mean the 5th Ed. Codex I had to own to play my Fists with Kantor? Still have it, in fact. Nice dismissal with no attempt to dispute what I said, though.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

pm713 wrote:

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.

Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.

Did GW not make the models first back in 5E?

Model and rules in 5th Ed., which is when the Codex I quoted was released.

BrianDavion wrote:
It's worth noting that when a character is genuinely unique and isn't just a more powerful version of X. people tend to immediatly dismiss it as bad, never take it etc. Exhibit A, Castellan Crowe. he's a unique character with an intreasting story, one that actually makes him NERFED. don't often hear about him being used.

You are going to need more exhibits than one. Yvraine, Deceiver and Harker are all very unique, the Deceiver is prominently featured in many gimmick lists and a lot of fun to use and not really overpriced, Yvraine has topped many tournaments and Harker has as well If I am not mistaken.

 Apple Peel wrote:
If we were to get custom characters in matched play, how would you like to see it implemented?

I personally like the idea of using the CA18 guide for overall character making. However, in matched play, I’d like to see custom characters restricted to only being “Hero” status, meaning they can only pick four improvements

The issue with the the customisation options in CA2018 is that there is no attempt to balance the options either against one another or for the individual characters.

For example, a once-per-game chance to do d3 mortal wounds to a non-character unit on a roll of 5+ is costed exactly the same as a 'reroll 1s when shooting' aura. Hell, a trait that improves the damage of a single weapon is costed exactly the same as a trait that improves the damage of *every* ranged weapon.

What's more, there's no consideration about how effective these traits are for different armies. e.g. 'Add 1 to the damage characteristic of all ranged weapons' is going to be a hell of a lot better on a Tau commander with 4 plasma rifles than on an Imperial Guard Commander with a Bolter.


Ideally, I would want to - at the very least - cost these improvements differently for each army (maybe remove some of the more redundant/niche options to make this less overwhelming), taking into account how strong the traits are likely to be for characters in that army. And then rather than saying 'pick 4 options', I'd instead have 'pick 50pts of options' or ''pick 100pts of options'.

 Just Tony wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

pm713 wrote:

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.

Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.

How about you tell us the non 1d4chan version where you actually read the fluff of the codex!

You mean the 5th Ed. Codex I had to own to play my Fists with Kantor? Still have it, in fact. Nice dismissal with no attempt to dispute what I said, though.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

pm713 wrote:

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.

Because in the codex he was introduced in, Mat Ward assured us that there are three types of Space Marines: Ultramarines, those that wish they were Ultramarines, and those that are genetic deviants that should be disregarded in that tome. The ones in the second type include founding legions that aren't deviants. THAT is why. Because Ward's sun rises and sets around the Ultramarines, and nobody saw fit to correct that issue.

Did GW not make the models first back in 5E?

Model and rules in 5th Ed., which is when the Codex I quoted was released.

You just posted 1d4chan wankery like most people regarding the 5th edition codex.
Asking for the non wankery version IS disputing what you said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
It's worth noting that when a character is genuinely unique and isn't just a more powerful version of X. people tend to immediatly dismiss it as bad, never take it etc. Exhibit A, Castellan Crowe. he's a unique character with an intreasting story, one that actually makes him NERFED. don't often hear about him being used.

That's because his story is actually REALLY stupid (I'm gonna take the stupid dangerous sword into the middle of battle but I'm not gonna REALLY use it) AND his rules are bad. He needs a complete overhaul.

Hell they made him cheaper than the actual Brotherhood Champ and he's still not really worth considering. That says a LOT about what role he fills (none).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
If we were to get custom characters in matched play, how would you like to see it implemented?

I personally like the idea of using the CA18 guide for overall character making. However, in matched play, I’d like to see custom characters restricted to only being “Hero” status, meaning they can only pick four improvements

The issue with the the customisation options in CA2018 is that there is no attempt to balance the options either against one another or for the individual characters.

For example, a once-per-game chance to do d3 mortal wounds to a non-character unit on a roll of 5+ is costed exactly the same as a 'reroll 1s when shooting' aura. Hell, a trait that improves the damage of a single weapon is costed exactly the same as a trait that improves the damage of *every* ranged weapon.

What's more, there's no consideration about how effective these traits are for different armies. e.g. 'Add 1 to the damage characteristic of all ranged weapons' is going to be a hell of a lot better on a Tau commander with 4 plasma rifles than on an Imperial Guard Commander with a Bolter.


Ideally, I would want to - at the very least - cost these improvements differently for each army (maybe remove some of the more redundant/niche options to make this less overwhelming), taking into account how strong the traits are likely to be for characters in that army. And then rather than saying 'pick 4 options', I'd instead have 'pick 50pts of options' or ''pick 100pts of options'.

Yeah there's potential for the custom traits assuming you price frem correctly. When I heard about it I was excited until I saw the options not balanced against each other and I'm PRETTY sure GW said it is fun to roll randomly for them.

I like the idea of a hero-maker, where perhaps the shiny gubbinz (or boring-named equivalent) would include a variety of special abilities as well as weapons & armour. You could pay 1CP to make a character a Hero, or 3CP to make one a Legend. Heroes get 3 items from the shiny gubbinz section, and Legends get 5. Otherwise it's the standard 1 item per army.

Some items would be specific to specific characters, EG the Super shokk attack gun would be Big-Mek specific.

I would have Mega-armour move to the shiny gubbinz (deffkilla and jump-boss can't take it). Warbike would definitely go back in there. and then a variety of abilities, like "the biggest waaaagh" and all the warlord-traits. Want a dude who is standard but has 3 warlord traits? go for it. Want a Megaboss with Ghazzies abilities? go for it.

This would let the named characters remain (essentially pre-made special characters with the odd stat or ability more than the standard) but it would also open the door for the old school build-a-boss we used to have, but for a single, suitably awesome model.

You can literally do these things in fun narrative games but they have no place in matched play.

Nothing stopping any of you from playing narrative to your heart's content!

 Ishagu wrote:
You can literally do these things in fun narrative games but they have no place in matched play.

Nothing stopping any of you from playing narrative to your heart's content!

GW charges hundreds of dollars for rules.

I don’t think asking for a balanced but customizable experience is too much.