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.

Hecaton wrote:
That's incorrect, you have seen them, you just don't want to admit that you have because it would mean that you'd have to admit that you're wrong. It's utterly dishonest and bad faith argumentation. The fact that you won't even say that they're bad reasons, but straight up ignoring that they've been made, tells me that you're absolutely dishonest on this topic.

Then name them. Stop making post after post complaining about how you shouldn't have to clarify your position and just post the reasons. This weaseling around is not impressing anyone.

Talking about lore on the subject of "how do name character fit or not in my NARRATIVE campaign" is not quite irrelevant. Nor mutually exclusive for that matter.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Again, if some things are "valid" and some are "not valid", then, give me the chart from the Rules Policing Brigade repertoriating them.

The subject is bans on named characters, not some bad-faith attempt to derail the thread into "ANSWER EVERY RULE QUSTION EVER OR ADMIT DEFEAT".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Talking about lore on the subject of "how do name character fit or not in my NARRATIVE campaign" is not quite irrelevant. Nor mutually exclusive for that matter.

It is absolutely irrelevant because, once again, named character RULES and named character LORE are two very different things. Using the rules for Lord Solar Leontus to represent Colonel John Doe of the Cadian 203499438609430960945th is a well-established tradition.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Then name them. Stop making post after post complaining about how you shouldn't have to clarify your position and just post the reasons. This weaseling around is not impressing anyone.

I explained my position in a good amount of detail. Everyone who wanted to read them already has; the fact that you're dishonestly pretending I haven't doesn't matter. *You're* going to have to do the work if you want anything approaching respect; as of right now you've lost any of it I had for you with your lies and bad faith discussion.

Yes the subject is, can you ban named characters. The answer we provide is yes, it is within reason, here is why.

Considering no official statment or ruling forbids them at the current time, apparently their is no reason these thoughts on why not use them should not be valid. Or else, show me proof of it. It don't know what's so incredible about this.

Hecaton wrote:
I explained my position in a good amount of detail. Everyone who wanted to read them already has; the fact that you're dishonestly pretending I haven't doesn't matter. *You're* going to have to do the work if you want anything approaching respect; as of right now you've lost any of it I had for you with your lies and bad faith discussion.

It would take you far less time to simply post a brief list of your reasons and clarify your position than you've spent insulting me and ranting about how you don't have to do it.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

It would take you far less time to simply post a brief list of your reasons and clarify your position than you've spent insulting me and ranting about how you don't have to do it.

If you treated me with respect I would treat you with respect. I have no reason to do so when the information is available and you've already discarded it to preserve your ego and gakky ideas about narrative and gameplay.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Yes the subject is, can you ban named characters. The answer we provide is yes, it is within reason, here is why.

Considering no official statment or ruling forbids them at the current time, apparently their is no reason these thoughts on why not use them should not be valid. Or else, show me proof of it. It don't know what's so incredible about this.

If you want an official statement then the official statement is that they are part of the game and can be used like any other unit. You are proposing a house rule to ban them.

And the question of what other house rules might be valid is off-topic and a bad faith attempt to Gish gallop your way out of acknowledging that named character bans are not justified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:
If you treated me with respect I would treat you with respect. I have no reason to do so when the information is available and you've already discarded it to preserve your ego and gakky ideas about narrative and gameplay.

There we go again, more insults and weaseling instead of simply posting a brief list to clarify your position. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe there is genuine misunderstanding across the contents of a 15-page thread and you could resolve this by simply making a brief statement of your position?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

There we go again, more insults and weaseling instead of simply posting a brief list to clarify your position. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe there is genuine misunderstanding across the contents of a 15-page thread and you could resolve this by simply making a brief statement of your position?

It occurred to me, but your statements match someone who's willfully misinterpreting what others are saying and trying to poison the well of discussion rather than someone arguing in good faith, so I rejected the idea. I already stated my position; you can go back and read it if you were interested.

It wouldn't resolve the thread, because you'd just ignore and/or misinterpret it again. I have no reason to reframe my arguments for someone who's not interested in hearing them, who would be furious when someone told them "I'm running a narrative league with no named characters." That kind of person has a bad attitude about gameplay and socialization.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Yes the subject is, can you ban named characters. The answer we provide is yes, it is within reason, here is why.

Considering no official statment or ruling forbids them at the current time, apparently their is no reason these thoughts on why not use them should not be valid. Or else, show me proof of it. It don't know what's so incredible about this.

If you want an official statement then the official statement is that they are part of the game and can be used like any other unit. You are proposing a house rule to ban them.

And the question of what other house rules might be valid is off-topic and a bad faith attempt to Gish gallop your way out of acknowledging that named character bans are not justified.

Great! Go sue GW for there 2012 orbital station scenarios where they explecitly said they banned all non demons not wearing helmets for lore reasons. Obviously that's unjustified because you're cutting half armies from playing it and removing all named characters that don't wear a helmet while they're a part of the game.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Great! Go sue GW for there 2012 orbital station scenarios where they explecitly said they banned all non demons not wearing helmets for lore reasons. Obviously that's unjustified because you're cutting half armies from playing it and removing all named characters that don't wear a helmet while they're a part of the game.

Ah yes, because "GW did a stupid scenario once you should sue them" is not hyperbolic nonsense.

6th edition rule book, page 350, for reference (french version)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course sue is hyperbolic, I didn't think i'd have to say this...

Anyway, considering the company selling and writing the game seems to be ok with this kind of rules, so far, no reason you and your buddies in a garage couldn,'t do the same, by lore, or by rules.

Edit: added that my book is the french version but I'm confident pages are 100% matches and that it is the same page in the english version. GW still actually cared to sell use properly translated versions

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Anyway, considering the company selling and writing the game seems to be ok with this kind of rules, so far, no reason you and your buddies in a garage couldn,'t do the same, by lore, or by rules.

Aside from the fact that the mission in question was over a decade and several editions of the game ago, "can" and "should" are not even remotely the same thing.

Again, show me any proof that GW opposed this and said that from now one wouldn't endorse you houserule stuff anymore.

"May" would be more correct. Do if you fancy, refrain if you don't.

This thread needs to calm down right now. The rules of this site are not optional.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A story like All Quiet on the Western Front is long-form, and could be just as much about a guardsman as about a World War 1 German soldier.

You don't need a progression system to retell All Quiet On The Western Front despite the book being a war-book, and replicable in a wargame.

I find it rather hilarious that you pick a book where the protagonist goes from a raw recruit to a battle-hardened veteran to be one that can be depicted without an advancement system.

I can't point to anything specific to support this, but I get the feeling GW has been moving away from encouraging people to their own fluff for a named character over the years. That feels like something they might have encouraged 20 years ago...then again, that was also the GW that required all wargear options to be physically represented on your models. Granted, just because GW doesn't encourage it doesn't mean we can't do something. Either way, I'm curious when the last time GW mentioned replacing their character lore with your own for a named character. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if it was relatively recent, but my expectation is it's been some time.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
I can't point to anything specific to support this, but I get the feeling GW has been moving away from encouraging people to their own fluff for a named character over the years. That feels like something they might have encouraged 20 years ago...then again, that was also the GW that required all wargear options to be physically represented on your models. Granted, just because GW doesn't encourage it doesn't mean we can't do something. Either way, I'm curious when the last time GW mentioned replacing their character lore with your own for a named character. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if it was relatively recent, but my expectation is it's been some time.

I think that the existence of Crusade is very much evidence that GW encourages people to create their own fluff. By the time a unit reaches Legendary status, it will have an equivalent, or in some cases greater number of special abilities or special gear than most named characters. The battles you fought in, win or lose, the Agendas you achieved... Those become your lore.

In 9th ed, every faction had a set of build your own Chapter/ Order/ Kabal rules, which would also encourage someone to generate their own fluff.

PenitentJake wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
I can't point to anything specific to support this, but I get the feeling GW has been moving away from encouraging people to their own fluff for a named character over the years. That feels like something they might have encouraged 20 years ago...then again, that was also the GW that required all wargear options to be physically represented on your models. Granted, just because GW doesn't encourage it doesn't mean we can't do something. Either way, I'm curious when the last time GW mentioned replacing their character lore with your own for a named character. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if it was relatively recent, but my expectation is it's been some time.

I think that the existence of Crusade is very much evidence that GW encourages people to create their own fluff. By the time a unit reaches Legendary status, it will have an equivalent, or in some cases greater number of special abilities or special gear than most named characters. The battles you fought in, win or lose, the Agendas you achieved... Those become your lore.

In 9th ed, every faction had a set of build your own Chapter/ Order/ Kabal rules, which would also encourage someone to generate their own fluff.

True. I know Imperial Guard has had build your own regiment for a long time (although I'm not sure how consistently it was around). I was wondering more about them officially encouraging folks to overwrite the lore of a named character rather than giving them tools to construct their own. It's possible that they've never officially sanctioned it...

Ahh. I getcha now.

I can't recall having seen evidence of that.

 alextroy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A story like All Quiet on the Western Front is long-form, and could be just as much about a guardsman as about a World War 1 German soldier.

You don't need a progression system to retell All Quiet On The Western Front despite the book being a war-book, and replicable in a wargame.

I find it rather hilarious that you pick a book where the protagonist goes from a raw recruit to a battle-hardened veteran to be one that can be depicted without an advancement system.

That was the point! What crusade upgrades did he take?

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
I can't point to anything specific to support this, but I get the feeling GW has been moving away from encouraging people to their own fluff for a named character over the years. That feels like something they might have encouraged 20 years ago...then again, that was also the GW that required all wargear options to be physically represented on your models. Granted, just because GW doesn't encourage it doesn't mean we can't do something. Either way, I'm curious when the last time GW mentioned replacing their character lore with your own for a named character. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if it was relatively recent, but my expectation is it's been some time.

I think it's less a time thing and more a philosophy of individual designers. Through 4th/5th edition, the studio encouraged over-writing existing special characters to make your own. But prior to that, I recall a White Dwarf rant by (I think) Ric Priestly way back in 2nd edition about people doing that, and he was not a fan. His view was that it was horribly uncreative, and people should create their own special characters from scratch instead. Of course, that was never going to fly in tournaments or the like, which is probably why the studio later went the other way on it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That was the point! What crusade upgrades did he take?

This a rough approximation based on the Wikkipedia article since I haven't read the book.

Wikki says Paul endures the treacherous and filthy conditions of trench warfare.

I'd represent that with an AP reduction against enemy fire when in cover, to represent experience of making use of the trench. You could also make a case for a toughness bump to represent resistance to to trench conditions.

When Paul returns to the front after visiting mom, he kills a man in hand to hand. That's a WS buff.

It mentions Paul's deadened emotions after watching his friends die; that sounds like a morale buff- those who are dead inside don't flinch, and those with nothing to lose do not fear death.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A story like All Quiet on the Western Front is long-form, and could be just as much about a guardsman as about a World War 1 German soldier.

You don't need a progression system to retell All Quiet On The Western Front despite the book being a war-book, and replicable in a wargame.

I find it rather hilarious that you pick a book where the protagonist goes from a raw recruit to a battle-hardened veteran to be one that can be depicted without an advancement system.

That was the point! What crusade upgrades did he take?

The book is a novel, so there is no rules system involved. However, if you translated the book into a series of adventures or battles, Paul's character sheet would look much different from his first days on the battlefield until his final battle. This is because he became a much more experienced solider who was more skilled and willing to do what was necessary to fight and live.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That was the point! What crusade upgrades did he take?

This a rough approximation based on the Wikkipedia article since I haven't read the book.

Wikki says Paul endures the treacherous and filthy conditions of trench warfare.

I'd represent that with an AP reduction against enemy fire when in cover, to represent experience of making use of the trench. You could also make a case for a toughness bump to represent resistance to to trench conditions.

When Paul returns to the front after visiting mom, he kills a man in hand to hand. That's a WS buff.

It mentions Paul's deadened emotions after watching his friends die; that sounds like a morale buff- those who are dead inside don't flinch, and those with nothing to lose do not fear death.

Pretty apt


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't think GW ever took back the idea that you should get creative and create or change stuff, however from what I see on the internet and the description of 9th rules I got (for honesty purpose, I don't play 9th myself, but I have second hand experience of my brother who did), the games seems to be steered more evidently on a competitive logic.

Which I find odd, if I may. On the one hand, as rightly stated in another thread, 40k draws many people out there for the lore, who don't even play. If I were them, I would on the contrary push the lore/RPG aspect as I used to to appeal to them, more than show myself as a competition beast.
I might simply haven't quote caught there communication so don't quite me on that.

How it links up to topic is that talking about creating you're own characters from scratch would be great. I don't know in your countries but RPG communities grow by the day here, after all!

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
I can't point to anything specific to support this, but I get the feeling GW has been moving away from encouraging people to their own fluff for a named character over the years. That feels like something they might have encouraged 20 years ago...then again, that was also the GW that required all wargear options to be physically represented on your models. Granted, just because GW doesn't encourage it doesn't mean we can't do something. Either way, I'm curious when the last time GW mentioned replacing their character lore with your own for a named character. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if it was relatively recent, but my expectation is it's been some time.

I think that the existence of Crusade is very much evidence that GW encourages people to create their own fluff. By the time a unit reaches Legendary status, it will have an equivalent, or in some cases greater number of special abilities or special gear than most named characters. The battles you fought in, win or lose, the Agendas you achieved... Those become your lore.

In 9th ed, every faction had a set of build your own Chapter/ Order/ Kabal rules, which would also encourage someone to generate their own fluff.

True. I know Imperial Guard has had build your own regiment for a long time (although I'm not sure how consistently it was around). I was wondering more about them officially encouraging folks to overwrite the lore of a named character rather than giving them tools to construct their own. It's possible that they've never officially sanctioned it...

I know the 5th edition Marine book explicitly allowed you to take the named characters, change their names, and make them your own to use in other chapters. Just as long your you made sure your opponent knew what they count-as.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That was the point! What crusade upgrades did he take?

This a rough approximation based on the Wikkipedia article since I haven't read the book.

Wikki says Paul endures the treacherous and filthy conditions of trench warfare.

I'd represent that with an AP reduction against enemy fire when in cover, to represent experience of making use of the trench. You could also make a case for a toughness bump to represent resistance to to trench conditions.

When Paul returns to the front after visiting mom, he kills a man in hand to hand. That's a WS buff.

It mentions Paul's deadened emotions after watching his friends die; that sounds like a morale buff- those who are dead inside don't flinch, and those with nothing to lose do not fear death.

Interesting, I would not have interpreted any of the book that way - the endurance is not ever characterized as a buff, nor is the numbness to death. But I guess the point is that it doesn't matter if it's a *good* thing, a buff is a buff is a buff.

You got me on the WS thing though. I literally laughed out loud imagining Paul doing some kung fu that made him as good in CC as a Space Marine.

Lol- yeah, from an optimisation POV, a WS buff on Guardsmen isn't great. But if he killed a dude in Hand to Hand, and that XP gain is what pushed him over the threshold, it's what I'd take, because I'm a purist that way.

I don't expect other people to play like that, but I do.

I kinda want to read the book now though- it sounds crazy grimdark... Like just, the death of innocence and the extinguishing of hope.

It's interesting to think about the game vs the reality. That cold, detached thousand-yard stare might make you a great soldier (buff), but when you come off the field and try to go back to your wife and kids, and try to be happy again, what's a buff on the field is now mental illness.

As a teacher, I meet a lot of folks with ADHD, and I always ask them if they'll be a part of my survival team when the Zombie Apocalypse comes. Everyone knows I'm joking of course, but the point is that folks with ADHD tend to be better at noticing movement in their peripheral vision. It sucks in class, because it distracts them from the thing they need to focus on, but in a theatre of war that's a trait that could save your life.

PenitentJake wrote:
Lol- yeah, from an optimisation POV, a WS buff on Guardsmen isn't great. But if he killed a dude in Hand to Hand, and that XP gain is what pushed him over the threshold, it's what I'd take, because I'm a purist that way.

I don't expect other people to play like that, but I do.

I kinda want to read the book now though- it sounds crazy grimdark... Like just, the death of innocence and the extinguishing of hope.

If you want understand the horror of trench warfare and the fatalistic mindset it creates, read All Quite on the Western Front. It is a masterfully written book that should be required reading for anyone having anything to do with the military or politics.

Why not just talk to dudes that were pulled off a front like 2-6 weeks ago? 5 min with them and you know, why every society that was smart did everything in their power to never ever have rank and file soliders return. Victory or not.