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.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 tauist wrote:


Much preferred the old editions system where you only had generic characters (Minor hero/Hero/Major Hero), and everybody designed their own. Made the setting seem that much bigger IMO

But of course, cant have that now can we, cuz NMNR and all that flocking BS

I think the only edition without named characters was Rogue Trader. And I think even it had one or two. I don't disagree with your larger point though- I too think build-your-own beats named hands down for player engagement, and that it was easier to do in the list-building stage in previous editions with more customizable unit sizes, options and equipment.

But customizability is why I play Crusade- I don't get to buy my customization up front, but I can earn it over time based on what happens on the battlefield. Weapon upgrades and Crusade Relics do provide modeling potential, and even certain skills and abilities also suggest possibilities like cammo cloaks to show that a unit has a stealth-conferring battle honour, or grizzly trophies of the appropriate type, gunsights, searchlights, etc.

I know it's not the same as list-based flexibility... And I do miss that too. It's one of the reasons why 9th ed Crusade is still better than 10th; the core customization that was still available in 9th made Crusade even better, because in that edition it served as an extra layer of customization, rather than being the sole source of options for some units or carrying a disproportionate share of that responsibility for others.

Ah, Rouge Trader, the good old days of named characters like Inquisitor Obi-Wan Sherlock Clueseau. XD

 Tawnis wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:

 tauist wrote:


Much preferred the old editions system where you only had generic characters (Minor hero/Hero/Major Hero), and everybody designed their own. Made the setting seem that much bigger IMO

But of course, cant have that now can we, cuz NMNR and all that flocking BS

I think the only edition without named characters was Rogue Trader. And I think even it had one or two. I don't disagree with your larger point though- I too think build-your-own beats named hands down for player engagement, and that it was easier to do in the list-building stage in previous editions with more customizable unit sizes, options and equipment.

But customizability is why I play Crusade- I don't get to buy my customization up front, but I can earn it over time based on what happens on the battlefield. Weapon upgrades and Crusade Relics do provide modeling potential, and even certain skills and abilities also suggest possibilities like cammo cloaks to show that a unit has a stealth-conferring battle honour, or grizzly trophies of the appropriate type, gunsights, searchlights, etc.

I know it's not the same as list-based flexibility... And I do miss that too. It's one of the reasons why 9th ed Crusade is still better than 10th; the core customization that was still available in 9th made Crusade even better, because in that edition it served as an extra layer of customization, rather than being the sole source of options for some units or carrying a disproportionate share of that responsibility for others.

Ah, Rouge Trader, the good old days of named characters like Inquisitor Obi-Wan Sherlock Clueseau. XD

don't you miss the good old days of warhammer, when GW took this game seriously?

 tauist wrote:
If it were up to me, I'd exterminate every named character in the setting at regular intervals. "The Galaxy is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed" and all that. Black Library stories could all be posthumous tales of martyrdom, why not. Its not about how you survive, its how you die that counts!

Much preferred the old editions system where you only had generic characters (Minor hero/Hero/Major Hero), and everybody designed their own. Made the setting seem that much bigger IMO

But of course, cant have that now can we, cuz NMNR and all that flocking BS

I like named characters, but I feel they're at their best when the setting doesn't feel like it revolves around them. Having an established character with an ongoing arc can be a good way to give the audience familiar faces to latch onto and view the setting through. They're examples of the sort of cool guys you should be coming up with and adding to your own armies. And if you happen to think a canonical character is neat and want to include him in your army, great!

Where they drop the ball is when they make it feel like the fate of the galaxy hinges on a handful of named characters and no one else. It shifts from, "It's a big galaxy full of cool stuff, but no one matters," to, "Actually, some people do matter. Just not the people in your army unless you buy a Guilliman kit."

EDIT: This is why they really need to get better at telling smaller scale stories. Not every battle should be a galaxy-defining one. You can make readers/players care about a particular little region of the galaxy and have the plot developing their without trying to frame that conflict as something that will decide whether the whole imperium gets destroyed or whatever.

I loved Warmachine dearly, but one thing I disliked was that it forced me to play characters somebody else created. And these "not-mine" characters are the most important models in games of WM.

Back when I started, the only insight I had to what was going on with GW was the white dwarf mags before internet.

I remember reading something along the lines of the 40k universe being vast with a lot of history and the tabletop game let you choose any battle at any time for the narrative of your game. (Or completely make up your own)

Thus, this new "advancing the timeline" and removal of units to legends (which will eventually be phased out) what they did with AOS until they had to bring the old-world back

It just goes against that original concept.

Sure, add more, update rules, etc. but don't remove.

Now when I say legends will be phased out, it only makes sense. They aren't selling those kits anymore and eventually GW will see updating the rules for each new edition for models they aren't selling will be a waste of money.

So my answer to which characters they should kill? None. Leave them in for choices so that players can choose any point in time for their battles.

Erasmus Tycho has been dead since the first codex he was in. Killing of characters does not prevent people from using them. Though, it is a bit counter to lore when he is in an army with primaris and the like.

I'd need to go back and triple-check Angels of Death, Banbaji, but as far as I recall Tycho was alive in that Codex, along with the Blood Angels pamphlet that was released in early 3rd Edition, and it was only during the 3rd War for Armageddon that he actually met his fate.

kaotkbliss wrote:
Back when I started, the only insight I had to what was going on with GW was the white dwarf mags before internet.

I remember reading something along the lines of the 40k universe being vast with a lot of history and the tabletop game let you choose any battle at any time for the narrative of your game. (Or completely make up your own)

Thus, this new "advancing the timeline" and removal of units to legends (which will eventually be phased out) what they did with AOS until they had to bring the old-world back

It just goes against that original concept.

Sure, add more, update rules, etc. but don't remove.

Now when I say legends will be phased out, it only makes sense. They aren't selling those kits anymore and eventually GW will see updating the rules for each new edition for models they aren't selling will be a waste of money.

So my answer to which characters they should kill? None. Leave them in for choices so that players can choose any point in time for their battles.

I'm okay with time moving forward in 40k. It can be cool to see how a big conflict shook out or to explore the consequences of that outcome. I want to see how Yriel deals with his new unasked for connections to the ynnari or to find out what comes of Lady Malys's crystal heart.

I feel like when people complain about 40k's plot progressing/timeline advancing, they *might* be conflating the notion of the timeline advancing with the messy nature of the primaris lore or the way every new development seems to be a a massive, galaxy-redefining change. But you can theoretically have smaller, more contained plots advance without having to blow up Cadia every time. Maybe the next eldar codex has a little lore popout talking about how Yriel goes on some crazy adventure and ends up committed to the ynnari afterwards and has the ynnari keyword to match. Or maybe he decides he's had enough of being jerked around by fate and tries to rebel, gaining a rule that prevents him from hanging out with ynnari. That's a plotline advancing without blowing up the setting.

Yes GW made an error early on with how you reset for the next writer. They return to stasis or blow up everything. Its a shame they didn't go for 'everyone dies' as the grimdark trope. So great characters come and end, further outings are in the past, or perhaps if they didn't end, they are their end...

 Dysartes wrote:
I'd need to go back and triple-check Angels of Death, Banbaji, but as far as I recall Tycho was alive in that Codex, along with the Blood Angels pamphlet that was released in early 3rd Edition, and it was only during the 3rd War for Armageddon that he actually met his fate.

Ah, my bad! I looked it up and you are absolutely correct. That book was pre-DC (and subsequent death).

IIRC some of the named characters in 3rd edition were historical and dead in the main timeline.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I'm okay with time moving forward in 40k. It can be cool to see how a big conflict shook out or to explore the consequences of that outcome. I want to see how Yriel deals with his new unasked for connections to the ynnari or to find out what comes of Lady Malys's crystal heart.

I feel like when people complain about 40k's plot progressing/timeline advancing, they *might* be conflating the notion of the timeline advancing with the messy nature of the primaris lore or the way every new development seems to be a a massive, galaxy-redefining change. But you can theoretically have smaller, more contained plots advance without having to blow up Cadia every time. Maybe the next eldar codex has a little lore popout talking about how Yriel goes on some crazy adventure and ends up committed to the ynnari afterwards and has the ynnari keyword to match. Or maybe he decides he's had enough of being jerked around by fate and tries to rebel, gaining a rule that prevents him from hanging out with ynnari. That's a plotline advancing without blowing up the setting.

I would be ok with it if it was kept with the books where players could pull inspiration from for their games, but they're changing tabletop line-ups based on the books.
What they did with WHFB was atrocious and I really see the same thing happening (although at a slow spread-out pace) with 40k.

Sure, in the future of fantasy, they have that whole destruction of the world, 40k suddenly finds warehouses of primaris or whatever... fine add new models and stats.
Big baddie dies or x-troop becomes obsolete? Don't erase the character or unit from tabletop as if they never existed.

So in say 2 or 3 editions when GW decides they don't want to spend money paying someone to create rules for all the troops that they sent to legends, then playing those historical battles from the past won't be feasible. I think that's a lot of the issues players who enjoyed old editions have, finding players in their area that know that particular ruleset (or even remember them) and want to play that past edition.

Keep it all in, maybe make some restrictions that if you take x, you can't have y. Or something to that effect. Or just let players build the armies and play the way they want to.

kaotkbliss wrote:


Keep it all in, maybe make some restrictions that if you take x, you can't have y. Or something to that effect. Or just let players build the armies and play the way they want to.

I wonder about the feasibility of a small 3d print, official GW substudio that exclusively produced MTO Legends once they came off main production. Or even GW selling STL's directly for the purpose of Legend fulfilment. I don't think we'll see that for a while yet- GW is still hoping that 3d printing never goes mainsteam, rather than jumping on board and actively pulling it closer to mainstream as an unintended consequence.

In any case, there are ways that print on demand could be arranged if there was any will at GW to do it. I see it as something they'd have on standby incase something happened and they had to pivot. The status quo will be maintained for as long as it is acceptably profitable; in the event that sales dip below a particular threshold, experimentation with additional sales models will begin.

 PenitentJake wrote:

kaotkbliss wrote:


Keep it all in, maybe make some restrictions that if you take x, you can't have y. Or something to that effect. Or just let players build the armies and play the way they want to.

I wonder about the feasibility of a small 3d print, official GW substudio that exclusively produced MTO Legends once they came off main production. Or even GW selling STL's directly for the purpose of Legend fulfilment. I don't think we'll see that for a while yet- GW is still hoping that 3d printing never goes mainsteam, rather than jumping on board and actively pulling it closer to mainstream as an unintended consequence.

In any case, there are ways that print on demand could be arranged if there was any will at GW to do it. I see it as something they'd have on standby incase something happened and they had to pivot. The status quo will be maintained for as long as it is acceptably profitable; in the event that sales dip below a particular threshold, experimentation with additional sales models will begin.

I bet if GW wanted a Resin collection series that are priced high, for keeping unique characters retired from the setting but still in rules someways would be rather successful.
A lot of characters would be best served as conversion and upgrades for generic characters as well.

So in say 2 or 3 editions when GW decides they don't want to spend money paying someone to create rules for all the troops that they sent to legends, then playing those historical battles from the past won't be feasible. I think that's a lot of the issues players who enjoyed old editions have, finding players in their area that know that particular ruleset (or even remember them) and want to play that past edition.

It would be funny, if GW pulled a SCE thing with the 8th ed primaris. Expalined with some sort "after countless battles and war expiriance the forces of the imperium decided that a squad of intercessors should be able to carry 2 "heavy weapons" per squad". Like the auto canon fly boys for some reason? Well they are now gone to the legends pile. They techinicaly pulled a mini change like that already, only it doesn't matter as the units aren't used. But I knew people who bought 4-6 boxes of intercessors just to have each load out, and then GW turned all of them in to the same gun this edition

Karol wrote:
But I knew people who bought 4-6 boxes of intercessors just to have each load out

Those people are idiots

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
First?

I didn’t do nuffink so don’t go perishing me! I is innocent!

Second?

Abaddon. I know this wouldn’t be a popular one, but for returning 40K to a setting and not a narrative, Abaddon is the glue that keeps Chaos forces more or less pulling in the same direction. Take him out, and you create an unholy mess of individual warlords and warbands going where they want, doing whatever they think will advance them the most.

In terms of narrative vs setting? I’m genuinely torn. I like that things now stay done, and the background is shaken up. And we can always set our own shenanigans as historical affairs. But? Now they’ve started? They kind of have to continue, and that worries me.

Yeah I'm kind of worried they won't finish what they started - especially given the time interval between new ones. They started a new paradigm which I like: They brought the Primarchs back - the big single model centerpiece that theoretically sets the theme for your army. Bobby G was more buffbot than beat stick (though that's slid a little more to the beatstick than the buff bot sadly), Necrons got the Silent King, Aeldari got a new Avatar, Sisters have the Triumph. Rotigus, Kairos, etc. There are a lot of - especially loyalist - Primarchs left to bring back, plus a few other factions still waiting on their centerpiece "guy". Ghaz just took a step back, when he should be moving towards the goal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
IIRC some of the named characters in 3rd edition were historical and dead in the main timeline.

There's one that has been dead and "historical" since at least second edition. I've been thinking he should be removed for a while now, because he should never show up with some Primaris buddies.

Breton wrote:
There's one that has been dead and "historical" since at least second edition. I've been thinking he should be removed for a while now, because he should never show up with some Primaris buddies.

Well, they finally took care of that.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Breton wrote:
There's one that has been dead and "historical" since at least second edition. I've been thinking he should be removed for a while now, because he should never show up with some Primaris buddies.

Well, they finally took care of that.

But they didn't replace him. Every Chapter should have a "base" Special character list:

Chapter Master
Captain
Of these two:
one should be "The Face of the Franchise" i.e. the most iconic Marine in their chapter - Dante as the Super Duper Jump Trooper for example.
one should be the Black Sheep - Think Captain Karlaen. Slow and purposeful Terminator armor vs the Hopped Up Death From Above Boys.
Both are fluffy, but they're also very different.

Master of Sanctity
Chief Librarian

A couple more mostly minor fill-ins - potentially even replacement models - think Sergeant Telion replacing the preexisting Scout Squad Sergeant, or Sammael to do the Ravenwing complement to the Deathwing, Tor Garadon vs Lysander (though I'd like to see Garadon become Chapter Master to allow a better Yin-Yang for the Fists.)etc. Captains that fill in bonus fluff - Sammael, Sicarius (Ventris would be the Black Sheep Captain because he's a mustang gone rogue -

Lateral replacements when one of the Base Specials isn't fluffy (someone to replace Chief Librarian for the Crusaders that does anti-psyker turned up to 11 or something)

Then do the same thing for the Legions - which I don't know well enough to do fluffy - but too many of the named specials for the Legions are Captains and not Libbys or Dark Apostles and the like.

It doesn't work for everyone - Nids and GSC are kinda meh on Special Nameds, though Nids are working on that with Old One Eye etc - but the ones it does work should be done. More Ork named, multiple Clans (and switch it back to C for us US Folks that have a hard time spelling it with a K)

And this can all be done dovetailed with the even bigger needed change:

Create Chapter Upgrade Kit

Create Generic Armor+Character Datasheets for missing character/armor combos (Bike Everything But Chaplain, Terminator Lieutenants, Gravis Lieutenants, Libbies, Jump Chaplains/Libbies etc)

Create "official" "conversion" chart to use Parts 11, and 12 from the Chapter Character Upgrade Kit with Base Box Model except for Arm Parts.

Now all the Theme Lists can have the leaders they need to be at least close to competitive/complete

Breton wrote:
Every Chapter should have a "base" Special character list:

Oh, no. Nononononono....

I really don't think anyone wants literally dozens of named character datasheets for Space Marines. I mean, do we really need a dedicated datasheet for the Iron Hands' Chief Librarian? Do people even care?

This is bloat beyond belief...

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Breton wrote:
Every Chapter should have a "base" Special character list:

Oh, no. Nononononono....

I really don't think anyone wants literally dozens of named character datasheets for Space Marines. I mean, do we really need a dedicated datasheet for the Iron Hands' Chief Librarian? Do people even care?

This is bloat beyond belief...

Considering I just suggested it yeah I think someone does. Given how many people complain their chapter doesn't get the attention (Insert their pet peeve chapter here) gets I'd say its more than just me. And as mentioned it wouldn't just be Loyalist Marine chapters. I'd like to see more than Ghaz, Abby, etc.

I'd rather see less named characters in general. I also kinda liked it when they required your opponent's permission. I also really hate it when a named character is so good they show up in every bloody list, including in Crusade, of all places.

Breton wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Breton wrote:
There's one that has been dead and "historical" since at least second edition. I've been thinking he should be removed for a while now, because he should never show up with some Primaris buddies.

Well, they finally took care of that.

But they didn't replace him. Every Chapter should have a "base" Special character list:

Chapter Master
Captain
Of these two:
one should be "The Face of the Franchise" i.e. the most iconic Marine in their chapter - Dante as the Super Duper Jump Trooper for example.
one should be the Black Sheep - Think Captain Karlaen. Slow and purposeful Terminator armor vs the Hopped Up Death From Above Boys.
Both are fluffy, but they're also very different.

Master of Sanctity
Chief Librarian

A couple more mostly minor fill-ins - potentially even replacement models - think Sergeant Telion replacing the preexisting Scout Squad Sergeant, or Sammael to do the Ravenwing complement to the Deathwing, Tor Garadon vs Lysander (though I'd like to see Garadon become Chapter Master to allow a better Yin-Yang for the Fists.)etc. Captains that fill in bonus fluff - Sammael, Sicarius (Ventris would be the Black Sheep Captain because he's a mustang gone rogue -

Lateral replacements when one of the Base Specials isn't fluffy (someone to replace Chief Librarian for the Crusaders that does anti-psyker turned up to 11 or something)

Then do the same thing for the Legions - which I don't know well enough to do fluffy - but too many of the named specials for the Legions are Captains and not Libbys or Dark Apostles and the like.

It doesn't work for everyone - Nids and GSC are kinda meh on Special Nameds, though Nids are working on that with Old One Eye etc - but the ones it does work should be done. More Ork named, multiple Clans (and switch it back to C for us US Folks that have a hard time spelling it with a K)

And this can all be done dovetailed with the even bigger needed change:

Create Chapter Upgrade Kit

Create Generic Armor+Character Datasheets for missing character/armor combos (Bike Everything But Chaplain, Terminator Lieutenants, Gravis Lieutenants, Libbies, Jump Chaplains/Libbies etc)

Create "official" "conversion" chart to use Parts 11, and 12 from the Chapter Character Upgrade Kit with Base Box Model except for Arm Parts.

Now all the Theme Lists can have the leaders they need to be at least close to competitive/complete

and maybe in 2043 when GW is done with all this, they can remember that factions that aren't space marines also exist

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Breton wrote:
There's one that has been dead and "historical" since at least second edition. I've been thinking he should be removed for a while now, because he should never show up with some Primaris buddies.

Well, they finally took care of that.

Just so the rest of us are clear, who are you referring to here?

 Dysartes wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Breton wrote:
There's one that has been dead and "historical" since at least second edition. I've been thinking he should be removed for a while now, because he should never show up with some Primaris buddies.

Well, they finally took care of that.

Just so the rest of us are clear, who are you referring to here?

Tycho finally got removed from the BA codex

While that's a shame, he wasn't dead in 2nd edition - he was still alive until the 3rd War for Armageddon during 3rd edition.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I'd rather see less named characters in general. I also kinda liked it when they required your opponent's permission. I also really hate it when a named character is so good they show up in every bloody list, including in Crusade, of all places.

For Crusade I'd say they should be used if it makes sense narrative wise.

For ex; Although he can't be my WaaghBoss, or gain xp, the Red Gobbo always accompanies my Rebel Grot army.
The orky rules for Crusade state that only a Warboss may be nominated as the forces Waaghboss. The Gobbo lacks that KW & is thus the ONLY reason I have even 1 actual Ork model ( warboss in MegaArmor) in this force.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I'd rather see less named characters in general. I also kinda liked it when they required your opponent's permission. I also really hate it when a named character is so good they show up in every bloody list, including in Crusade, of all places.

I don't disagree, but customisation has been so utterly obliterated that there's barely even a difference between generic characters and special characters at this point.

Here is a special character. Naturally, his wargear is fixed and can't be altered.

Here is a generic character. His wargear is also fixed and can't be altered because either we can't be bothered releasing a model with alternative options, or such models exist but we can't be bothered writing rules for them. He can take one of four Enhancements, though. That's plenty of customisation, right?

Yes, but if you look at lets say a Hellbracht or Draigo , and then at a regular cpt/chapter master, then the gap between those is huge, in everything bar points. It is getting a lot more for sometimes no real point increase.

This is done to a point where some armies are just designed with the assumption that the special character is taken. GW changed the rules for the wagon just so one could fit a mini Mega nobz unit and a Ghaz. Ctan for necron , Dante/Lamartes/etc for BA. Azrael for DA, etc etc. DA companions don't have an inv (unlike sang guard), because Azrael exists.

And this is hardly a w40k only policy as GW goes. In AoS, special characters are just better, not just because they have better rules or better point costs. Some allow taking "Any" units meaning you are running fewer drops, giving the player a serious upper hand in list creation.