Named characters a mistake?

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.

**BrianDavion**

Iracundus wrote:
Well...I admit Ghaz's death wouldn't be totally disastrous for the Orks as they would still fight, and maybe eventually a new one would rise as the new self declared prophet of the Ork gods.

However basically by 9th edition, basically it seems any character that has not yet made the transition from Finecast (or that GW seemingly has no plans to transition) could be killed off, whereas those that have already received a new model are safe for the foreseeable future.

I would point to Tycho though as an example of the kind of character change we don't see much of now if at all. Tycho just started out as a generic captain that got "killed" by an Ork psychic power in a battle report between Jervis Johnson and Andy Chambers. They rolled with that and made a model of him with the Phantom of the Opera style mask and half paralyzed face. Then they killed him off in Armageddon 3. That's the kind of change that can happen with an advancing timeline.

Granted death of characters is not the only way to advance a timeline. The old worldwide campaigns such as the old Eye of Terror was a way to generate new ideas and results, some of which still persist today such as the Ork occupied forge world of More Dakka (formerly Mordax). It also generated a little surprise or deviation from the templated storyline as in that campaign the Imperials did not swoop in to save the day in the end, or rather they tried and still failed, while the Eldar decided to not play second banana to the Imperium and went off to do their own Webway war.

Those kinds of things I think are more fertile ground for new background development then a predictably inconclusive clash of special characters.

part of the thing with Tycho compared to now is the cost of plastic molds etc. it was, in the day of metal minis, reasonably easy and affordable to sculpt a new character on the fly like that. plastic minis take a bit more of an investment, So yeah I don't see random new characters being killed off (especially with the cost of a special char these days)
that said it's possiable for a general to know defeat even if he's not physically beaten himself. and IMHO GW should lean into that a bit from a story telling POV. Gulliman should not be used as a warrior but as a commander. ditto Abaddon, Ghaz, etc. there's no need to have these people literally cross swords

**Iracundus**

I agree but that is not the kind of fiction GW writes. They must not think their audience would understand or appreciate a war novel from the operational level or higher, or from the logistics aspect. Though not quite as bad as maybe a decade ago, it still seems to be a requirement for at least one action scene every other chapter or so, described in at times exquisitely fine bolter porn detail.

The original Campaign for Taros kind of writing is the kind that would be nice, but I doubt we would be seeing that. Instead GW seems to be going for a more impressionistic style without clear orders of battle and things moving (or not) at the speed of plot.

**Gert**

I think there is definitely the issue with Named Characters in that you need them as anchors for events and factions but at the same time everyone wants to use them because they are said anchor.
Like an army of Rohirrim is cool but an army of Rohirrim led by Theoden, King of Rohan, is much cooler. The downside is that in every battle that gets played, Theoden is there despite the fact he absolutely wouldn't be leading 12 riders into battle with 20ish Goblins.
It's certainly something I struggled with when my hobby group picked up 30k. Everyone wants to use the Primarch for their Legion so then everyone builds a death star around the Primarch and oops everyone has the same list. How boring.

**Iracundus**

Don't need special characters for events or campaigns. Make your own characters. Ban all existing named characters from the campaign. Your own characters then can tell their own tale, either of glory or shameful embarrassing defeat without plot armor. That's the idea behind the Crusade rules, though I personally am not really a fan of them.

**Niiai**

To long did not read.

But Blood Angels Captain Thyco has died over the years has he not? He was fine. In 5th edition you could do regular or black rage version. And now he is dead?

**BrianDavion**

Niiai wrote:
To long did not read.

But Blood Angels Captain Thyco has died over the years has he not? He was fine. In 5th edition you could do regular or black rage version. And now he is dead?

he's been dead since 3rd or 4th edition, yet you can still get his mini with stats, both regular and black rage even in the newest codex.

**kirotheavenger**

I think there's two separate points here, lore handling of characters and deeds, and models.

Personally, I preferred when 40k was a setting, not a story.
Individual stories could occur in that setting. "Here's Imperial Armour 3, we're going to tell the story of the Taros Campaign". "Now here's Imperial Armour 4, we're going to tell the story of the Anphelion Project".
That gives writers total freedom. You can introduce any character you want, plus have any ending you want.

Whereas the newer approach of 40k being a story centring on the named characters is really boring as nothing happens. Everything escalates to the brink of galactic annihilation and then... nothing happens, who saw that coming?

I can understand why they would want to centre these stories on these characters. People are more likely to be drawn to a book that features their favourite character than a generic campaign, similarly people are more likely to be drawn to buying the big hero of the chapter rather than just a particular captain for that campaign.
But like everything around 40k, just because it sells better doesn't mean it's more satisfying (at least to us grognards).

**Iracundus**

Or you could have story but also things that do not center around special characters.

Like...the fall of Taros led to production shortfalls on Stygies VII which led to under supply of certain units now taking place in a campaign in a different sector. The effects of one campaign or event can be referenced elsewhere. Like how Moredakka is still being referenced as recently as Avenging Son novel, even though Moredakka was a forgeworld (Mordax Prime) that fell to Orks in the Eye of Terror worldwide campaign, completely outside of Andy Chambers' expectations (he expected the Ork players to fight elsewhere on the Tau front). The Ork players decided otherwise and made their mark in the background.

**kirotheavenger**

Moredakka Prime was also referenced in the videogame Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2, which takes place in the immediate aftermath following the destruction of Cadia.
I didn't know that it was an outcome of an official campaign, that's really cool.

Didn't GW do something like that in 8th but handwaved the end result and declared Imperial Victory anyway?

**Sgt. Cortez**

Haven't read all the replies, but wanted to add some thoughts :

Coming from Lotr I always found it strange how few named characters with their own datasheet and model there are in 40K. In lotr you have a bespoke profile for every guy that dropped a line in the books or the movies. In 40K outside of Space Marines you only get very few people that are often outsiders for their faction (see every single CSM character

). When reading all the small stories in a Codex about some Warboss doing this, or some Daemon Prince destroying that empire I was always wondering: yeah cool, where is that guy in my rules section?
I don't see the problem of killing these in the background. In lotr people that die are often even represented in their profile with fewer points of faith, that are a protection mechanic.

In 8th Edition GW even put out some models that have a unique Name given on their Box (like the DG Tallyman) that are only referenced in the Codex, but don't have their own datasheet. I still don't understand what's up with that.

**BrianDavion**

kirotheavenger wrote:
Moredakka Prime was also referenced in the videogame Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2, which takes place in the immediate aftermath following the destruction of Cadia.
I didn't know that it was an outcome of an official campaign, that's really cool.

Didn't GW do something like that in 8th but handwaved the end result and declared Imperial Victory anyway?

if by handwaved you mean "the Imperium won it" then sure.

granted at the time it was run space marines where literally the only army with codex for 8th so...

**Iracundus**

BrianDavion wrote:
kirotheavenger wrote:
Moredakka Prime was also referenced in the videogame Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2, which takes place in the immediate aftermath following the destruction of Cadia.
I didn't know that it was an outcome of an official campaign, that's really cool.

Didn't GW do something like that in 8th but handwaved the end result and declared Imperial Victory anyway?

if by handwaved you mean "the Imperium won it" then sure.

granted at the time it was run space marines where literally the only army with codex for 8th so...

No the Eye of Terror was officially a Chaos minor victory, declared in White Dwarf by Andy Chambers.

I have typed up the official results verbatim (with personal commentary and explanation of campaign mechanics in an addendum at the end of each section):

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/392010.page

There were a lot of Imperial sore losers at the end that tried to convince themselves (and others) that it really meant Imperial victory. They never understood or accepted that the campaign mechanics meant a smaller group of players could defeat a larger group of players if they reported their wins in strategic locations. The Eye of Terror campaign was the only GW world wide campaign that allowed for this. All the other campaigns were Imperial won, because the Imperium players outnumbered everyone else and all other campaigns did not have mechanics that really allowed outnumbered factions to win against superior numbers.

**Gert**

I think they are discussing the Eye of Terror campaign, not Fate of Konor, which was an absolute joke.

**kirotheavenger**

Ah maybe that was it, I remember controversy over how it played out and obviously misremembered the details!

**Gert**

Konor wasn't even close. I've found 40k campaigns don't work because Space Marines alone make up 50% of the factions. Even if it was divided into Imperium VS Not Imperium the Imperium would still win because of Space Marines. The only way the local GW could balance things was by doing a coin toss to see which side would take the non-Imperial victory and we coordinated to give Chaos more wins because Xenos were too far behind to matter.

**Iracundus**

Gert wrote:
Konor wasn't even close. I've found 40k campaigns don't work because Space Marines alone make up 50% of the factions. Even if it was divided into Imperium VS Not Imperium the Imperium would still win because of Space Marines. The only way the local GW could balance things was by doing a coin toss to see which side would take the non-Imperial victory and we coordinated to give Chaos more wins because Xenos were too far behind to matter.

The Imperium lost the Eye of Terror campaign because they were too disorganized. Chaos and xenos players organized and placed their wins strategically and won because there were several campaign mechanics that they figured out and were able to use more effectively than the Imperial players. Go to the link I posted above. I explain the mechanics and how the Imperial players managed to lose despite their numerical superiority. Imperial Control was what determined the fate of a warzone, not number of wins. Number of wins reported mattered only in so far as how they influenced the Imperial Control number and there were several ways to shift that besides raw number of wins.

That's how the Orks got a forgeworld, the Tyranids got an honorable mention for almost taking the Belis Corona shipyards, and Chaos got declared the overall winner (it was Order vs Disorder). Yet it wasn't even that binary as the Eldar won in the Webway so in a way it was actually fluff accurate. The Eldar let the Imperium be the punching bag while they pursued their own goals.

**Lord Zarkov**

kirotheavenger wrote:
Ah maybe that was it, I remember controversy over how it played out and obviously misremembered the details!

Part of the problem was, though Chaos won overall, the Imperium won the space lanes and Cadia. The former got memed into Chaos marooned on captured planets and the combination of that and a failure to take Cadia itself led to a perception of a Chaos loss even though it actually won.

**Iracundus**

Lord Zarkov wrote:
kirotheavenger wrote:
Ah maybe that was it, I remember controversy over how it played out and obviously misremembered the details!

Part of the problem was, though Chaos won overall, the Imperium won the space lanes and Cadia. The former got memed into Chaos marooned on captured planets and the combination of that and a failure to take Cadia itself led to a perception of a Chaos loss even though it actually won.

Actually the final ending was Creed pulling a Dunkirk like evacuation over the sea. This is told both in the campaign ending short fiction and in the BL 13th Black Crusade book. Cadia had been knocked down from a whopping 95% start for the Imperium down to 39.8% at the end, which is really a Chaos win if they manage that for such a vital fortress planet. That and the surrounding sectors' miserable planetary warzone status was what led Andy Chambers to declare Disorder victory.

**bullyboy**

Well, GW could also fracture 40K into "eras" at some point where these characters could continue to exist and be played. You have Horus Heresy, I would say then that the next era should be pre-primaris (whatever you want to call that) and then the current timeline.
Downside is that they have already pushed many of the characters into the current timeline instead of having them perish during the pre-primaris era.

with eras, you play vs opponents in that era only (matched play). No different to how Flames of War separates Early War, Mid War and Late War for WWII. Never going to happen but would have been fun to have some characters die, which then makes sense that you keep playing your tiny Azrael next to old marines instead of having him stand next to Primaris marines looking all goofy. Granted, I don't want to have to buy a marine codex for each era, but damn at least it wouldn't have a million entries as it does now.

**Iracundus**

I wish somebody would actually die from failing to transition to Primaris. They all talk about how dangerous it supposedly is but no character ever fails. Obviously I doubt GW would ever write such a case, except possibly a throwaway character in a novel.

**Da Boss**

I think named characters are fine, but I prefer them to be the exception or archetype rather than be required to play a certain playstyle or be the centre of the faction.

The bigger problem is whether you want the game to be an advancing narrative, which then requires recurring characters. If you have awesome named character models with years of background, it does make sense to use them for your narrative. It seems that the advancing narrative version of 40k is popular with the majority of fans.

I am definitely more on the side of 40k as a setting with no advancing narrative myself. Which is fine because no one is forcing me to purchase or keep up with the advancing narrative.

**Gert**

There's a lot of stuff between the Heresy and the Noctis Eternia though, like 10k years of stuff. There's the Scouring, the War of the Beast, The Beheading, the Forging, the Nova Terra Interregnum, the Age of Apostasy, the Age of Redemption, the list goes on for ages. There are so many big events in the 10k years leading up to the Noctis Eternia that it would be impossible to have the game split into eras.
All the current Named Characters for 40k (besides Gaunt and the Ghosts) are alive in the current time, there are none from any other eras of the Imperium apart from the current time.

**Iracundus**

Da Boss wrote:
I think named characters are fine, but I prefer them to be the exception or archetype rather than be required to play a certain playstyle or be the centre of the faction.

The bigger problem is whether you want the game to be an advancing narrative, which then requires recurring characters. If you have awesome named character models with years of background, it does make sense to use them for your narrative. It seems that the advancing narrative version of 40k is popular with the majority of fans.

I am definitely more on the side of 40k as a setting with no advancing narrative myself. Which is fine because no one is forcing me to purchase or keep up with the advancing narrative.

I am guessing so far that GW's taking the Indomitus Crusade to be its main setting for a long time to come, and the characters (if they recur) will be the various POVs showing the Crusade at various points. The Imperium is vast and all the various sub-fleets and groups splitting off can still provide plenty of narrative space. There is also Imperium Nihilus which in my view should be a patchwork of sectors and pocket empires, all trying to survive on their own or claiming to be successors and legitimate bearers of Imperial authority. Other worlds and sectors can disagree which can allow for Imperial vs Imperial games and conflict.

**Lord Zarkov**

Gert wrote:
There's a lot of stuff between the Heresy and the Noctis Eternia though, like 10k years of stuff. There's the Scouring, the War of the Beast, The Beheading, the Forging, the Nova Terra Interregnum, the Age of Apostasy, the Age of Redemption, the list goes on for ages. There are so many big events in the 10k years leading up to the Noctis Eternia that it would be impossible to have the game split into eras.
All the current Named Characters for 40k (besides Gaunt and the Ghosts) are alive in the current time, there are none from any other eras of the Imperium apart from the current time.

There’s still a few pre great rift characters about IIRC.

Isn’t Tycho still about in the BA supplement ? He died back in Armageddon 3.
Creed as well is technically still ‘alive’ in the current era but not really active yet is still the the guard book.

But yeah, they’ve take most of the really legacy characters out, like Macharius who still had rules in 3.0

**Gert**

The problem with Creed and Kell is that removing them removes like half of the Named Characters for AM. AM just don't have the HQ options to spare which is annoying.

**kirotheavenger**

Tycho is still around and he has not one, but two entries!
You have pre-Rage Tycho and post-Rage Tycho, both separate datasheets within the supplement. Tycho died during one of the Armageddon wars.

They also removed a few characters (Creed and Aun'Va) with the advance in timeline without removing their datasheet.

I think it's a good thing, they shouldn't be afraid of killing of characters. In many ways a satisfying end to a characters journey is better than continuing that story.
Like in the recent Vigilus book, why couldn't Calgar have died to Abaddon, buying time to secure an Imperial victory.
Instead Abaddon remembered he left the oven on and had to leave not a second later so the writer could keep Calgar alive.

**Argive**

I stand by what I said previosuly.
There is nothing stopping characters dying and GWs writing seems odd in this regard.

Characters dying does not have to mean their models dissapear into the ether.

Your codex could easily have named characters from across the ages depending on what era your guys are fighting. Perhaps the reason my UM dont have g man lading them is because he hasnt been lazarused yet for example..

It really doesnt make sense to do things this way.

**Iron_Captain**

I wouldn't mind if some named characters died every now and then.

Warhammer Fantasy had quite a few dead named characters (Vlad, Isabelle and Konrad von Carstein, Gorbad Ironclaw, Grom the Paunch, Repanse de Lyonesse and perhaps others I am forgetting about) and it worked just fine. There is no reason why there couldn't be rules for "dead" characters.

**Warptide**

I make my own named characters out of the book options and shun the named characters. They are fine for whomever wants to use them to game the system or recreate their chapter but I like going the custom route. Just makes more sense for my pickup games and custom campaigns.

**mrFickle**

I started a thread some time ago about the time line and mortal characters like Yarrick that seem to have been around for hundreds of years especially as we have moved on a couple hundred years cos through the indomitus crusade.

Most responses were that you are not necessarily playing in the same year, 40K battles could be from various times

But doesn’t make sense if they are killing characters off and if you had a old mortal characters playing vs new primaris characters

But 40K doesn’t make sense