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.

Breton wrote:

Disagreeing with you is not trollish. Trying to claim your special dudes are more deserveing of than someone else's special dudes is not good faith.

Disagreeing with me isn't trollish, but your responses in this thread seem to largely be ignoring some very good points other posters have made. Combined with the combative voice of your posts, it comes across like you might be ragebaiting. Essentially communicating badly on purpose and being vaguely rude. If that wasn't your intention, great, but that's how you're coming across. At least to me.

Breton wrote:
I'm not sure why Jain Zar is Epic Hero Unique and Marneus Calgar is not. Theres only one of both in the entire universe. You could maybe make the case that generic captain characters should exist and that most of the Chapter Master's gimmick could be covered by wargear/Chapter Master power options, but there's plenty of reason to state that Chapter Masters should be a cut above even a Captain, and thus deserve to have their demigod plot armor and noticably better abilities represented. See how easy that worked?

So my iffyness with phoenix lords was for a couple of main reasons.
1. Eldar haven't had the ability to take an exarch character since 2nd or 3rd edition. So giving aspects a character than can hang out with them to do the things characters usually do is sort of a niche in its own right. Autarchs have been able to kind of do this? But an autarch is a swiss army knife commander type whereas aspects tend to be beatsticks and/or modify the behaviors of aspect units in ways that autarchs can't. Ex: Baharroth granting a squad hit & run back in the day or being the only way to let hawks drop grenades out of deepstrike now.
2. Phoenix lords are fundamentally different from exarchs in a way that chapter masters just aren't fundamentally different from captains. Chapter masters are basically just captains who get to boss other captains around. A phoenix lord is a demigod whose haunted armor can eat passers-bye to allow them to instantly resurrect.

So whether or not a phoenix lord warrants their own datasheet kind of depends on whether or not GW is leaning into the reanimating demigod thing in a given edition. Which is why I was on the fence about it in my post. Good faith question for you, Breton: do you see the difference?

Good Faith answer? No. I took your own reasoning, replaced the special dudes you like with the special dudes you hate, and it was the same sentence only now the special dudes you hate were the special dudes to save and you called it trollish.

Right. In the text you quoted, I understood that you were rewriting my own sentence with marines in the place of phoenix lords, and then I proceeded to give reasons why I feel that the comparison doesn't hold up. I also pointed out that I'd included an eldar character (Eldrad) that I thought was unworthy of a bespoke datasheet and also provided several other examples of named characters (including ones that I use frequently) that also weren't deserving of bespoke datasheets.

Good Faith Question: You see where I'm coming from here, right?

I think I do, and it's unfortunately unflattering for you. Giving you the benefit of the doubt (that you aren't just rage baiting), it appears that you're failing to understand the points being made and to engage with them meaningfully. Instead, you appear to be intent on lacing your responses with combative snark that suggests you're behaving emotionally and defensively because you feel attacked by other people disagreeing with you and pointing out problems with your stances.

If I have it wrong and you're not being a troll or an irrational jerk, then I encourage you to continue this conversation while making an effort to be a bit more polite to your fellow posters. Intentional or not, your writing voice is coming across in an unflattering way.

I'll do it again. Phoenix Lords are fundamentally no different than Aspect Warriors, they're just Aspect Warriors turned into a character. Oh wait, you said Exarchs. I'll do it again. Phoenix Lords are fundamentally no different from Sergeants... I mean Exarchs in a way that Chapter Masters just aren't fundamentally different from Captains. Did you ask yourself why your own logic applied in the other direction was "trollish" but not when you used it? I mean if you really want to argue in good faith, what you're doing is an informal fallacy called special pleading. And its rather inaccurate too.

beatsticks and/or modify the behaviors of aspect units in ways that autarchs can't.

A beatstick who modifies the unit it is leading. Like a Chapter Master who gives the unit he's leading the movement abilities to advance or fallback and still shoot and/or charge? Or gives them a +1 to Advance and Charge Rolls? Adding +1A and +1S to their fight weapons? Giving them Sustained Hits 1 and 1 CP per round that makes everyone use more Strats? FNP? Being able to Use Rapid Ingress and Heroic Intervention for Free and Repeat? I mean its not EXACTLY dropping Grenades from Deepstrike but every Chapter Master appears to allow the unit they're leading to do something they couldn't do without the leader. So that appears to be the same between Chapter Masters and Phoenix Lords. And nearly every leader unit everywhere. It appears Phoenix Lords are not fundamentally different than Captains either. Good Faith Question: You see where I'm coming from here, right?

This part is a good distillation of why I suspect you're either not engaging with the posts of others honestly or else are failing to comprehend the points people are making. In my previous posts, I've:
A.) Repeatedly stated that I was on the fence about whether or not phoenix lords warranted bespoke datasheets given that there are, in fact, ways that you could perhaps represent them with something like a character exarch datasheet or just more customizable exarchs in general. How well this would work would largely come down to whether or not the designers want to reflect the things that make PLs different from exarchs on the tabletop.
B.) I've stated that some of the special rules tied to named characters shouldn't necessarily go away but rather become an option for a generic datasheet.

So hypothetically, we could add a generic Exarch Character datasheet to the game. You could give them the option to take a shuriken cannon and a reaper helmet and Maugan Ra's mortal wound rule, and you'd essentially end up with the ability to represent Maugan Ra through these build-an-exarch rules. Whether or not PLs are sufficiently skillful, durable, have enough magical stuff going on, etc. compared to exarchs is its own topic that I'm intentionally not getting into for the sake of focusing on the topic at hand. Similarly, you could give captains (or just jump pack captains? ) options for an uppy downy rule like Shrike's. (Another character that I use.)

What I was getting at with point 1 in the quoted text above is that there isn't really an existing generic phoenix lord type datasheet. So where it's obvious that we'd want to plug Shrike's rules into a captain datasheet (because he's a captain), the closest existing thing eldar have is probably an autarch? And you could probably use the autarch datasheet in place of the "Exarch Character" datasheet, but you'd be asking it to wear a lot of hats because it would have to provide options not only to fill the roles previously filled by 7+ phoenix lord datasheets, but also the Ender Wiggin battlefield commander type role that they currently fill. But that's more of a discussion of how to organize customization options than anything.

Its not the name, its the rule(s) itself. EPIC HERO. And no I don't literally mean its an epic hero. I mean the rules for EPIC HERO - in the first place mean everyone needs to get some for balance - and for another says GW Made the guy, and they made the guy to be one and only one. Even if you could still make Chapter Master Steve Angryfire, he would not be an Epic Hero, and you can have three of him. But you can't have three of Calgar. That's not the reason Calgar should be stronger, its the reason Steve should not be that strong which in this case ends up the same, but is different.

See, I feel like this is kind of backwards. You're saying that the unit is 0-1, and therefor it needs to be made more powerful in order to justify being a 0-1. I'm saying that if the only reason Calgar is a 0-1 is that he's stronger, then maybe he shouldn't be 0-1 in the first place. Because then you end up with super special power fists that are just better than other power fists because reasons, and you end up with melee-focused chapter masters being better than any other chapter master in the galaxy at melee (essentially making all other chapter masters with less optimal melee rules -1 versions of the named guys.) If you instead just made Calgar style fist+storm bolter weapons a generic option, players of any chapter could just... have that loadout. No need to make them a 0-1 thing.

Which is why I feel like 0-1 restrictions (which is more or less what EPIC HERO is) should mostly be reserved for units that are supposed to be so rare or weird that they shouldn't show up in large numbers. 0-1 on a crisis suit commander with a powerful melee weapon means that you can have a melee commander in tau while still conveying the idea that melee is an unusual approach for tau in general. If you had 6 different crisis/coldstar commanders, each with powerful melee weapon running around, it would impact the faction identity somewhat.

0-1 can and should also be used for options that would be too strong in multiples. Balance as well as lore.

For what it’s worth? The forthcoming Maelstrom book is bringing Custom Character Creation rules with it.

Posted in the main rumour thread, but overshadowed by the new Defiler.

Might scratch some itches? But of course, being end of edition I wouldn’t count on it being more that a short term thing for now.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/zivixehm/bring-your-own-warlords-to-life-with-custom-character-rules-in-the-maelstrom-crucible-of-champions/

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For what it’s worth? The forthcoming Maelstrom book is bringing Custom Character Creation rules with it.

Posted in the main rumour thread, but overshadowed by the new Defiler.

Might scratch some itches? But of course, being end of edition I wouldn’t count on it being more that a short term thing for now.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/zivixehm/bring-your-own-warlords-to-life-with-custom-character-rules-in-the-maelstrom-crucible-of-champions/

I am tentatively hopeful for this. But onto tentatively.

It’s a definite cautiously optimistic thing. Not that I play 40K meself.

But interested to see how it works, and whether it’s allowed in Matched Play.

While I generally like the idea of the more sandbox elements of the setting, I'll admit that it never drew me the way the characters of Space Marine and DoW did and I think that's ultimately why things are the way they are now. As much as we all like the idea of creating our own characters, the overwhelming majority is more drawn to learning about characters the setting has created for them.

I think, for all its merits, character creation doesn't have that broad of appeal, particularly for newcomers with almost no way of properly grasping the world they're trying to create a character for. There are definitely people who come in with that mindset off the start, but for a lot of people its more of a barrier in a hobby that already has a lot of them.

That said, I think having a lot of aesthetic options on character kits is a huge plus and something I'd like to see more of. I just think that works better to get people invested in creating their own characters when you don't put much in the way of rules behind them. Creating a bunch of head options is great and weapon options too as long as they're of the "power weapon" variety. Put the rules on them and people actually get less invested in designing the character their way when their way is "bad" in gameplay.

IDK. Getting rambly. TLDR. I think generic characters are cool and would help a lot from having more head options. I think there's a reason that named characters keep getting focus though and I suspect its because custom characters just don't have as broad appeal

 JNAProductions wrote:
Breton, do you honestly not see the difference between a Chapter Master (an experienced Marine and the highest ranked of their Chapter, of which there are approximately 1,000) and a Phoenix Lord (the epitome and originators of the Aspect Shrines of the Eldar, of which there are about 10 total).

Like... I can name every single Phoenix Lord. I did have to Google it, but here you go:

-Asurmen
-Jain Zar
-Fuegan
-Maugan Ra
-Baharroth
-Karandras
-Lhykhis
-Irillyth [FW]
-Drastanta [Missing]

And then the one that's no longer a Phoenix Lord, Arhra.

Yes I honestly don't see it. Because - as I mentioned its special pleading. Games Rules wise, its Unbalanced Marine Hate.Fluff wise, its just personal favoritism. And you didn't name every single Phoenix Lord. You named their "Alter Ego". Bruce Wayne is Batman. Until Dick Grayson is Batman, or Damian Wayne, or Clark Kent, or Alfred, Hugo Strange, Gordon, and on and on. In other words there have been thousands of Jain Zars over the millennia.

I don't know about that, LunarSol. I think people tend to like putting their own spin on things. Look at all the games out their that let you customize your avatar's appearance, etc.

Personally, I like both named canon characters and generic customizable ones. It's cool to get an update on what Jain Zar has been up to or how the ongoing Drazhar drama is going because it gives the setting a sense of continuity and because those characters are cool in their own right.

But being able to tell a million other stories that *don't* focus on the handful of named characters who have datasheets is the meat and potatoes of the setting for me. That's how you can tell your own stories with character arcs and whatnot. When I'm playing games with Baharroth, he needs to return to Baharroth status quo at the end of the story. When I'm playing with my plucky Iybraesil autarch who has defied death despite lacking the Heg's blessing and being in some uncannily dangerous situations, I can take that story a lot of different places.

Breton wrote:

While generally correct there are holes here. Not all Captains would be Tactical Marines. Some would have been Assault Marines too. Some would have even been Devastator Marines. But they're not going to give a Captain a Lascannon with equivalent output to the melee power fist. Another is that there aren't that many Marines in the chapter (most of the time) that will have the same age as a Chapter Master. As you point out they're in combat all the time and thus die faster/sooner/younger because of it so there is SOME merit to them being older and wiser. But that would theoretically also come with physical deterioration. And on the other-other-other hand (as I realize I'm arguing both sides of this over and over) the wounds, and attacks and so forth are the same - I'm brain freezing on the word here.... But like in D&D when you level up and get a new round of hit points. You don't actually get stronger and tougher, you got wiser and craftier. Each hit point isnt a drop of blood, its the number of tricks and skills you have to avoid getting whomped on or to reduce the effect when you can't avoid it. Same here. A powerfist can crumple an armored tank (in the fluff which is sort of what we're talking about here). Dante can get hit by one 3 times. He's not three times tougher than a tank. He's just so experienced he can twist out of the way, deflect or other wise lessen the impact of getting punched in the face.

Chapter masters aren't recruited based on age. Not even Grimnar or Dante are the oldest marine active in their chapters. And Ragnar is the youngest ever Wolf Lord the space wolves have ever had. Chapter masters are recruited through the chapter's officer pool, which usually goes Sergeant, veteran sergeant, captain, chapter master. With the reintroduction of Lieutenants, you have another layer between sergeants and captains. But all chapter masters were once a captain, and a captain a sergeant. The speed at which they went up that chain is only partially related to skill. The practical need for retaining a functional C&C also sees people go up ranks much faster than normal.

And having once been an assault marine is not the same thing as spending every waking moment for 400 years as an assault marine. Captains physically can't train equal time into melee while also learning strategy and tactics. That's why officer training is different. Captains train to lead. They all have the same 24 hours in the day, and it gets assigned to different skill sets differently.

The only reason captains and chapter masters are uber is because heroic fiction demands named characters be amazing to keep our attention. But in reality, A vanguard veteran assault marine will be a superior combatant to a captain.

Similarly, the tricks and experience to avoid being hit are not suddenly acquired by captains when they make that rank. And there will be veteran marines with more experience at surviving frontal assault warfare with BETTER tricks and experience, so they should have 5 wounds and some captains should only have 2.

LunarSol wrote:While I generally like the idea of the more sandbox elements of the setting, I'll admit that it never drew me the way the characters of Space Marine and DoW did and I think that's ultimately why things are the way they are now. As much as we all like the idea of creating our own characters, the overwhelming majority is more drawn to learning about characters the setting has created for them.

I think, for all its merits, character creation doesn't have that broad of appeal, particularly for newcomers with almost no way of properly grasping the world they're trying to create a character for. There are definitely people who come in with that mindset off the start, but for a lot of people its more of a barrier in a hobby that already has a lot of them.

That said, I think having a lot of aesthetic options on character kits is a huge plus and something I'd like to see more of. I just think that works better to get people invested in creating their own characters when you don't put much in the way of rules behind them. Creating a bunch of head options is great and weapon options too as long as they're of the "power weapon" variety. Put the rules on them and people actually get less invested in designing the character their way when their way is "bad" in gameplay.

IDK. Getting rambly. TLDR. I think generic characters are cool and would help a lot from having more head options. I think there's a reason that named characters keep getting focus though and I suspect its because custom characters just don't have as broad appeal

This is kind of a given when they can't commodify and commercialise every person's individual character though. When they create their own they can sell it on lunch boxes, inherently making it more profitable. But that's not the same thing as player popularity.

Back in 2-3rd ed when special characters were exceptions rather than in every army, the game forced you to consider making your own character rather than accepting a prebuilt one. And people took pride in it. On these forums people would publish the backstory to their autarch, or warboss, describing how they got their equipment and their various battles.


Hell when the armageddon codex came out and I decided to make a company of salamanders, I decided to give each and every marine a backstory, built around a narrative where they were ambushed by dark eldar and lost their command staff, so the new captain was the senior sergeant and has a big chip on his shoulder to find the dark eldar. And many of the survivors of that attack have physical deformaties and scars from the toxins they were hit with.

I never finished it as usual. I think I had a name for every marine but only back story for about 20%.


With GW controlled and marketed special characters, we are seeing the enforced popularity that marines get in microcosm across all factions.

 LunarSol wrote:
While I generally like the idea of the more sandbox elements of the setting, I'll admit that it never drew me the way the characters of Space Marine and DoW did and I think that's ultimately why things are the way they are now. As much as we all like the idea of creating our own characters, the overwhelming majority is more drawn to learning about characters the setting has created for them.

I think, for all its merits, character creation doesn't have that broad of appeal, particularly for newcomers with almost no way of properly grasping the world they're trying to create a character for. There are definitely people who come in with that mindset off the start, but for a lot of people its more of a barrier in a hobby that already has a lot of them.

That said, I think having a lot of aesthetic options on character kits is a huge plus and something I'd like to see more of. I just think that works better to get people invested in creating their own characters when you don't put much in the way of rules behind them. Creating a bunch of head options is great and weapon options too as long as they're of the "power weapon" variety. Put the rules on them and people actually get less invested in designing the character their way when their way is "bad" in gameplay.

IDK. Getting rambly. TLDR. I think generic characters are cool and would help a lot from having more head options. I think there's a reason that named characters keep getting focus though and I suspect its because custom characters just don't have as broad appeal

I think the characters are popular for a few reasons. They're unique. They're GW created, not player created. (And I would say that even if they gave us a character creation matrix that let us create our own - they're still GW created because they came from the GW balanced matrix as opposed to some rando in the store who says his Chapter Master is Marneus Abby-Guilliman with the homebrew rules to prove it) They're usually either the "Face of the Franchise" or they're the "Black Sheep" that turns the franchise on its head. I mean I made a lot of Armies with Calgar who is THE Ultramarine. I made a lot of armies with Sergeant Chronus who is... definitely not anywhere close to a typical Ultramarine. But they (and their armies) were both very iconic and thematic for said Ultramarines. I think a fully complete and robust Leader Generation Matrix where you start with a Character Datasheet, get to pick some small number of 30ish different Major and/or Minor Enhancements, and then you can go shopping for one of about 30ish Major and/or Minor wargear combinations. People will have fun with that. Some will just have fun seeing what they can do, some will be min/maxers for a tournament. Some will be Black Library fans trying to recreate their favorite characters. But the reason it has no appeal right now is it doesn't exist.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Right. In the text you quoted, I understood that you were rewriting my own sentence with marines in the place of phoenix lords, and then I proceeded to give reasons why I feel that the comparison doesn't hold up. I also pointed out that I'd included an eldar character (Eldrad) that I thought was unworthy of a bespoke datasheet and also provided several other examples of named characters (including ones that I use frequently) that also weren't deserving of bespoke datasheets.

Not only did you say Marines shouldn't have Epic Heroes, you even included one sacrificial Eldar character you probably neither use nor like. That's definitely proof it wasn't Marine Hate. Hey, we should totally get rid of all Eldar Characters. And Captain Tycho. All Eldar characters and Captain Tycho so it doesn't sound like Eldar Hate.

Good Faith Question: You see where I'm coming from here, right?

I think I do, and it's unfortunately unflattering for you. Giving you the benefit of the doubt (that you aren't just rage baiting), it appears that you're failing to understand the points being made and to engage with them meaningfully. Instead, you appear to be intent on lacing your responses with combative snark that suggests you're behaving emotionally and defensively because you feel attacked by other people disagreeing with you and pointing out problems with your stances.

If I have it wrong and you're not being a troll or an irrational jerk, then I encourage you to continue this conversation while making an effort to be a bit more polite to your fellow posters. Intentional or not, your writing voice is coming across in an unflattering way.

I will be more polite to my fellow posters when they're more polite to me? How many times did I have to correct JNAProductions when they claimed I didn't say something I did, or said something I didn't, or reclaimed something I'd already disproved? Meanwhile Lord Damocles has engaged in HONEST good faith without lying about who said what or someone being the only one to get super mastercrafted stuff, and he got those more polite replies.

I'll do it again. Phoenix Lords are fundamentally no different than Aspect Warriors, they're just Aspect Warriors turned into a character. Oh wait, you said Exarchs. I'll do it again. Phoenix Lords are fundamentally no different from Sergeants... I mean Exarchs in a way that Chapter Masters just aren't fundamentally different from Captains. Did you ask yourself why your own logic applied in the other direction was "trollish" but not when you used it? I mean if you really want to argue in good faith, what you're doing is an informal fallacy called special pleading. And its rather inaccurate too.

beatsticks and/or modify the behaviors of aspect units in ways that autarchs can't.

A beatstick who modifies the unit it is leading. Like a Chapter Master who gives the unit he's leading the movement abilities to advance or fallback and still shoot and/or charge? Or gives them a +1 to Advance and Charge Rolls? Adding +1A and +1S to their fight weapons? Giving them Sustained Hits 1 and 1 CP per round that makes everyone use more Strats? FNP? Being able to Use Rapid Ingress and Heroic Intervention for Free and Repeat? I mean its not EXACTLY dropping Grenades from Deepstrike but every Chapter Master appears to allow the unit they're leading to do something they couldn't do without the leader. So that appears to be the same between Chapter Masters and Phoenix Lords. And nearly every leader unit everywhere. It appears Phoenix Lords are not fundamentally different than Captains either. Good Faith Question: You see where I'm coming from here, right?

This part is a good distillation of why I suspect you're either not engaging with the posts of others honestly or else are failing to comprehend the points people are making. In my previous posts, I've:
A.) Repeatedly stated that I was on the fence about whether or not phoenix lords warranted bespoke datasheets given that there are, in fact, ways that you could perhaps represent them with something like a character exarch datasheet or just more customizable exarchs in general. How well this would work would largely come down to whether or not the designers want to reflect the things that make PLs different from exarchs on the tabletop.
B.) I've stated that some of the special rules tied to named characters shouldn't necessarily go away but rather become an option for a generic datasheet.

So hypothetically, we could add a generic Exarch Character datasheet to the game. You could give them the option to take a shuriken cannon and a reaper helmet and Maugan Ra's mortal wound rule, and you'd essentially end up with the ability to represent Maugan Ra through these build-an-exarch rules. Whether or not PLs are sufficiently skillful, durable, have enough magical stuff going on, etc. compared to exarchs is its own topic that I'm intentionally not getting into for the sake of focusing on the topic at hand. Similarly, you could give captains (or just jump pack captains? ) options for an uppy downy rule like Shrike's. (Another character that I use.)

What I was getting at with point 1 in the quoted text above is that there isn't really an existing generic phoenix lord type datasheet. So where it's obvious that we'd want to plug Shrike's rules into a captain datasheet (because he's a captain), the closest existing thing eldar have is probably an autarch? And you could probably use the autarch datasheet in place of the "Exarch Character" datasheet, but you'd be asking it to wear a lot of hats because it would have to provide options not only to fill the roles previously filled by 7+ phoenix lord datasheets, but also the Ender Wiggin battlefield commander type role that they currently fill. But that's more of a discussion of how to organize customization options than anything.

Its not the name, its the rule(s) itself. EPIC HERO. And no I don't literally mean its an epic hero. I mean the rules for EPIC HERO - in the first place mean everyone needs to get some for balance - and for another says GW Made the guy, and they made the guy to be one and only one. Even if you could still make Chapter Master Steve Angryfire, he would not be an Epic Hero, and you can have three of him. But you can't have three of Calgar. That's not the reason Calgar should be stronger, its the reason Steve should not be that strong which in this case ends up the same, but is different.

See, I feel like this is kind of backwards. You're saying that the unit is 0-1, and therefor it needs to be made more powerful in order to justify being a 0-1. I'm saying that if the only reason Calgar is a 0-1 is that he's stronger, then maybe he shouldn't be 0-1 in the first place. Because then you end up with super special power fists that are just better than other power fists because reasons, and you end up with melee-focused chapter masters being better than any other chapter master in the galaxy at melee (essentially making all other chapter masters with less optimal melee rules -1 versions of the named guys.) If you instead just made Calgar style fist+storm bolter weapons a generic option, players of any chapter could just... have that loadout. No need to make them a 0-1 thing.

Which is why I feel like 0-1 restrictions (which is more or less what EPIC HERO is) should mostly be reserved for units that are supposed to be so rare or weird that they shouldn't show up in large numbers. 0-1 on a crisis suit commander with a powerful melee weapon means that you can have a melee commander in tau while still conveying the idea that melee is an unusual approach for tau in general. If you had 6 different crisis/coldstar commanders, each with powerful melee weapon running around, it would impact the faction identity somewhat.

See this is why you don't get polite replies I literally clarified the opposite because I knew someone dishonest would in bad faith make this claim.

That's not the reason Calgar should be stronger, its the reason Steve should not be that strong which in this case ends up the same, but is different.

You even quoted it and still analyzed it in the bad faith manor.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I apologize for being overly critical.

But why should named characters (who, yes, can be noted for being exceptional sword fighters, or brawlers, or tacticians, or leaders, or...) automatically be better than generic ones?

Your earlier post said that a generic captain should be able to get 5 TL Powerfist attacks and 3 TL Bolt Pistol or 1d6 TL Flamer shots.
Why should Calgar have an extra attack with extra AP and extra damage?

I did apologize, you know.
And even if you're still mad at me, why are you mad at Wyldhunt?

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Breton, do you honestly not see the difference between a Chapter Master (an experienced Marine and the highest ranked of their Chapter, of which there are approximately 1,000) and a Phoenix Lord (the epitome and originators of the Aspect Shrines of the Eldar, of which there are about 10 total).

Like... I can name every single Phoenix Lord. I did have to Google it, but here you go:

-Asurmen
-Jain Zar
-Fuegan
-Maugan Ra
-Baharroth
-Karandras
-Lhykhis
-Irillyth [FW]
-Drastanta [Missing]

And then the one that's no longer a Phoenix Lord, Arhra.

Yes I honestly don't see it. Because - as I mentioned its special pleading. Games Rules wise, its Unbalanced Marine Hate.Fluff wise, its just personal favoritism. And you didn't name every single Phoenix Lord. You named their "Alter Ego". Bruce Wayne is Batman. Until Dick Grayson is Batman, or Damian Wayne, or Clark Kent, or Alfred, Hugo Strange, Gordon, and on and on. In other words there have been thousands of Jain Zars over the millennia.

This is also not the same thing.

Batman is, generally, Bruce Wayne. But Batman, as Damian Wayne, has significant differences.

Jain Zar is Jain Zar regardless of what the current meat inside the suit is. The Eldar's memories and abilities will be added to the collective that's within the Phoenix Lord, but that's a tiny fraction of the overall total.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I don't know about that, LunarSol. I think people tend to like putting their own spin on things. Look at all the games out their that let you customize your avatar's appearance, etc.

I don't disagree actually, which is why I emphasized the need for head options and the like. Cosmetic elements even when that includes weaponry. I think people even like it when the weapons have mechanical distinction, but that crumbles a bit when those mechanical distinctions don't work well in game. I think there's good design space there, I just also think when there's a heavy mechanical distinction between options, players tend to get hung up on that rather than the potential inherent in designing your own leader.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I don't know about that, LunarSol. I think people tend to like putting their own spin on things. Look at all the games out their that let you customize your avatar's appearance, etc.

I don't disagree actually, which is why I emphasized the need for head options and the like. Cosmetic elements even when that includes weaponry. I think people even like it when the weapons have mechanical distinction, but that crumbles a bit when those mechanical distinctions don't work well in game. I think there's good design space there, I just also think when there's a heavy mechanical distinction between options, players tend to get hung up on that rather than the potential inherent in designing your own leader.

It's why rules need to have meaningful differences. (And, ideally, some should have stuff that can't be easily reduced to mathhammer.)

Power Weapons in 8th and 9th were an excellent example of how NOT to do it. They were literally just a math problem to be solved for maximum damage, and they weren't especially different even when you got it right.
Power Weapons in 7th were a better example to follow-not AMAZING by any means, but much better.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I apologize for being overly critical.

But why should named characters (who, yes, can be noted for being exceptional sword fighters, or brawlers, or tacticians, or leaders, or...) automatically be better than generic ones?

Your earlier post said that a generic captain should be able to get 5 TL Powerfist attacks and 3 TL Bolt Pistol or 1d6 TL Flamer shots.
Why should Calgar have an extra attack with extra AP and extra damage?

I did apologize, you know.
And even if you're still mad at me, why are you mad at Wyldhunt?

I'm not mad? You're strangers on the internet. And did I just not show Wyldhunt doing the same thing?

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Breton, do you honestly not see the difference between a Chapter Master (an experienced Marine and the highest ranked of their Chapter, of which there are approximately 1,000) and a Phoenix Lord (the epitome and originators of the Aspect Shrines of the Eldar, of which there are about 10 total).

Like... I can name every single Phoenix Lord. I did have to Google it, but here you go:

-Asurmen
-Jain Zar
-Fuegan
-Maugan Ra
-Baharroth
-Karandras
-Lhykhis
-Irillyth [FW]
-Drastanta [Missing]

And then the one that's no longer a Phoenix Lord, Arhra.

Yes I honestly don't see it. Because - as I mentioned its special pleading. Games Rules wise, its Unbalanced Marine Hate.Fluff wise, its just personal favoritism. And you didn't name every single Phoenix Lord. You named their "Alter Ego". Bruce Wayne is Batman. Until Dick Grayson is Batman, or Damian Wayne, or Clark Kent, or Alfred, Hugo Strange, Gordon, and on and on. In other words there have been thousands of Jain Zars over the millennia.

This is also not the same thing.

Batman is, generally, Bruce Wayne. But Batman, as Damian Wayne, has significant differences.

Jain Zar is Jain Zar regardless of what the current meat inside the suit is. The Eldar's memories and abilities will be added to the collective that's within the Phoenix Lord, but that's a tiny fraction of the overall total.

So they're not the same, which is the point I was just making? The next one will be "more" than the previous one?

Also wouldn't Chapter Master of the Ultramarines have significant differences if it were Titus, Sicarius, or Agemman?

As a Marine player (primarily, among many other factions), I'd like to say that I don't think for one moment the arguments presented by people in this thread have been "Marine hate" - if anything, they're quite on the money.

It's certainly not the blatant misrepresentation of Eldar Phoenix Lords as anything like a named non-Primarch Space Marine (and this is coming from someone who errs on the negative side when it comes to the idea of playing Eldar).

Typhus, as a model I own (the old version of) has a unique position in the lore. But looking at his current datasheet, I see...

-1/2 bonus attack(s) on his melee weapon, Strike and Sweep respectively
-Defensive leading special rule instead of offensive (-1 to-hit vs. SH1 and Lance)
-Offensive personal special rule instead of defensive (MW generating psychic ability vs. stand back up with 3 Wounds)

The second and third points are a decent enough example of what could be differences between character builds-one helps the squad live, the other helps them kill. Season with a personal ability to taste.
The first point, where Typhus is just a bit killier than any other melee Death Guard Lord... That doesn't need to be a thing unique to him. Not by a long shot.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As a Marine player (primarily, among many other factions), I'd like to say that I don't think for one moment the arguments presented by people in this thread have been "Marine hate" - if anything, they're quite on the money.

It's certainly not the blatant misrepresentation of Eldar Phoenix Lords as anything like a named non-Primarch Space Marine (and this is coming from someone who errs on the negative side when it comes to the idea of playing Eldar).

Eldar Phoenix Lords are very much like a named Non-Primarch.

Keywords for Lysander:
INFANTRY, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, IMPERIUM, TERMINATOR, CAPTAIN, DARNATH LYSANDER

Keywords for Jain Zar:
INFANTRY, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, AELDARI, ASPECT WARRIOR, PHOENIX LORD, JAIN ZAR

They're quite literally parallel where the only differences are faction/name based. Terminator vs Aspect Warrior (Faction Armor) Captain vs Phoenix Lord (Faction rank keywords) Lysander vs Jain Zar (Their name)

Two bespoke rules. Bespoke weapon(s).

And you're more than welcome to believe wanting to squat ALL the Space Marine Epic Heroes and ONE Eldari Epic Hero isnt Marine Hate.

Breton wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As a Marine player (primarily, among many other factions), I'd like to say that I don't think for one moment the arguments presented by people in this thread have been "Marine hate" - if anything, they're quite on the money.

It's certainly not the blatant misrepresentation of Eldar Phoenix Lords as anything like a named non-Primarch Space Marine (and this is coming from someone who errs on the negative side when it comes to the idea of playing Eldar).

Eldar Phoenix Lords are very much like a named Non-Primarch.

Keywords for Lysander:
INFANTRY, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, IMPERIUM, TERMINATOR, CAPTAIN, DARNATH LYSANDER

Keywords for Jain Zar:
INFANTRY, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, AELDARI, ASPECT WARRIOR, PHOENIX LORD, JAIN ZAR

They're quite literally parallel where the only differences are faction/name based. Terminator vs Aspect Warrior (Faction Armor) Captain vs Phoenix Lord (Faction rank keywords) Lysander vs Jain Zar (Their name)

Two bespoke rules. Bespoke weapon(s).

And you're more than welcome to believe wanting to squat ALL the Space Marine Epic Heroes and ONE Eldari Epic Hero isnt Marine Hate.

Off-hand, the characters I'd want to stay wholly unique are...

-Primarchs (Loyalist and Daemon)
-Maybe some overall faction leaders, like Ghaz and the Silent King

And that's about it. So Marines would STILL have the most named characters-Guilliman and The Lion.
Every other faction would have zero to one.

I'd also like to point out that I don't want to remove Calgar from the lore or tabletop. (Well, I wouldn't mind if he got killed off, but that's because 40k should be significantly more lethal than it currently is for named characters.) Just because Chapter Master Minning of the Diamond Hearts can have Calgar's loadout doesn't make Calgar stop being a thing.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Typhus, as a model I own (the old version of) has a unique position in the lore. But looking at his current datasheet, I see...

-1/2 bonus attack(s) on his melee weapon, Strike and Sweep respectively
-Defensive leading special rule instead of offensive (-1 to-hit vs. SH1 and Lance)
-Offensive personal special rule instead of defensive (MW generating psychic ability vs. stand back up with 3 Wounds)

The second and third points are a decent enough example of what could be differences between character builds-one helps the squad live, the other helps them kill. Season with a personal ability to taste.
The first point, where Typhus is just a bit killier than any other melee Death Guard Lord... That doesn't need to be a thing unique to him. Not by a long shot.

He can also lead Poxwalkers, and has the PSYKER keyword. He does not have the GRENADES keyword. He cannot get an Enhancement - though I would posit the very potent Offensive and Ranged bespoke plus the minor upgrade to his wargear/weapons are equivalent to whatever enhancement one would pick. There are more differences than you thought.

Edit to Add: As an aside, having just looked at a bunch of the Enhancements out there, am I wrong in thinking he's not even as good as a Lord of Contagion for leading Deathguard Terminator units? Which is why he can lead the Poxwalkers?

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Typhus, as a model I own (the old version of) has a unique position in the lore. But looking at his current datasheet, I see...

-1/2 bonus attack(s) on his melee weapon, Strike and Sweep respectively
-Defensive leading special rule instead of offensive (-1 to-hit vs. SH1 and Lance)
-Offensive personal special rule instead of defensive (MW generating psychic ability vs. stand back up with 3 Wounds)

The second and third points are a decent enough example of what could be differences between character builds-one helps the squad live, the other helps them kill. Season with a personal ability to taste.
The first point, where Typhus is just a bit killier than any other melee Death Guard Lord... That doesn't need to be a thing unique to him. Not by a long shot.

He can also lead Poxwalkers, and has the PSYKER keyword. He does not have the GRENADES keyword. He cannot get an Enhancement - though I would posit the very potent Offensive and Ranged bespoke plus the minor upgrade to his wargear/weapons are equivalent to whatever enhancement one would pick. There are more differences than you thought.

And why should any of that be unique?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As a Marine player (primarily, among many other factions), I'd like to say that I don't think for one moment the arguments presented by people in this thread have been "Marine hate" - if anything, they're quite on the money.

It's certainly not the blatant misrepresentation of Eldar Phoenix Lords as anything like a named non-Primarch Space Marine (and this is coming from someone who errs on the negative side when it comes to the idea of playing Eldar).

Eldar Phoenix Lords are very much like a named Non-Primarch.

Keywords for Lysander:
INFANTRY, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, IMPERIUM, TERMINATOR, CAPTAIN, DARNATH LYSANDER

Keywords for Jain Zar:
INFANTRY, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, AELDARI, ASPECT WARRIOR, PHOENIX LORD, JAIN ZAR

They're quite literally parallel where the only differences are faction/name based. Terminator vs Aspect Warrior (Faction Armor) Captain vs Phoenix Lord (Faction rank keywords) Lysander vs Jain Zar (Their name)

Two bespoke rules. Bespoke weapon(s).

And you're more than welcome to believe wanting to squat ALL the Space Marine Epic Heroes and ONE Eldari Epic Hero isnt Marine Hate.

Off-hand, the characters I'd want to stay wholly unique are...

-Primarchs (Loyalist and Daemon)
-Maybe some overall faction leaders, like Ghaz and the Silent King

And that's about it. So Marines would STILL have the most named characters-Guilliman and The Lion.
Every other faction would have zero to one.

Well, fortunately GW won't be listening to you.

ccs wrote:
Well, fortunately GW won't be listening to you.

I'm aware I'm largely just yelling into the void, but gosh darnit, I want options! I want customization!

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As a Marine player (primarily, among many other factions), I'd like to say that I don't think for one moment the arguments presented by people in this thread have been "Marine hate" - if anything, they're quite on the money.

It's certainly not the blatant misrepresentation of Eldar Phoenix Lords as anything like a named non-Primarch Space Marine (and this is coming from someone who errs on the negative side when it comes to the idea of playing Eldar).

Eldar Phoenix Lords are very much like a named Non-Primarch.

Keywords for Lysander:
INFANTRY, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, IMPERIUM, TERMINATOR, CAPTAIN, DARNATH LYSANDER

Keywords for Jain Zar:
INFANTRY, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, AELDARI, ASPECT WARRIOR, PHOENIX LORD, JAIN ZAR

They're quite literally parallel where the only differences are faction/name based. Terminator vs Aspect Warrior (Faction Armor) Captain vs Phoenix Lord (Faction rank keywords) Lysander vs Jain Zar (Their name)

Two bespoke rules. Bespoke weapon(s).

And you're more than welcome to believe wanting to squat ALL the Space Marine Epic Heroes and ONE Eldari Epic Hero isnt Marine Hate.

Off-hand, the characters I'd want to stay wholly unique are...

-Primarchs (Loyalist and Daemon)
-Maybe some overall faction leaders, like Ghaz and the Silent King

And that's about it. So Marines would STILL have the most named characters-Guilliman and The Lion.
Every other faction would have zero to one.

I'd also like to point out that I don't want to remove Calgar from the lore or tabletop. (Well, I wouldn't mind if he got killed off, but that's because 40k should be significantly more lethal than it currently is for named characters.) Just because Chapter Master Minning of the Diamond Hearts can have Calgar's loadout doesn't make Calgar stop being a thing.

No they wouldn't have more. You cant take both the Lion and Guilliman. They would have 1. or that 1. But not both. And most of them wouldn't have any. Ghaz doesn't have any Subfaction restrictions anymore. I don't think Orks do at all. The Silent King still has a keyword that references Subfactions, but its a regular keyword not a Faction Keyword, and it has no effect I can see. The Avatar of Khaine (I'm assuming he stays right?) does not, and AFAIK has never had a subfaction keyword. Even Eldrad no longer has a subfaction limiter keyword. Even the Chaos Legions no longer have subfaction keywords on named Epic Heroes - not even Fabius Bile who didn't go to the Emperors Children as near as I can tell? So two chapters could have 1 choice. 6 Chapters, and all the successors (both DIY and official ones) would have none. Book and keyword structure aside Loyalist Marines are still seperate iterations based on their subfaction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Typhus, as a model I own (the old version of) has a unique position in the lore. But looking at his current datasheet, I see...

-1/2 bonus attack(s) on his melee weapon, Strike and Sweep respectively
-Defensive leading special rule instead of offensive (-1 to-hit vs. SH1 and Lance)
-Offensive personal special rule instead of defensive (MW generating psychic ability vs. stand back up with 3 Wounds)

The second and third points are a decent enough example of what could be differences between character builds-one helps the squad live, the other helps them kill. Season with a personal ability to taste.
The first point, where Typhus is just a bit killier than any other melee Death Guard Lord... That doesn't need to be a thing unique to him. Not by a long shot.

He can also lead Poxwalkers, and has the PSYKER keyword. He does not have the GRENADES keyword. He cannot get an Enhancement - though I would posit the very potent Offensive and Ranged bespoke plus the minor upgrade to his wargear/weapons are equivalent to whatever enhancement one would pick. There are more differences than you thought.

And why should any of that be unique?

I'm not sure in this specific case, but generally speaking, that Offensive bespoke sounds very potent and they don't want to allow it to be mix-and-matched with an enhancement or other conveyance (another character that may have even an even better profile to carry that around) - they probably also want to limit something this potent in and of itself: Doing it three times because its not unique would be a pretty quick rival to Thousand Sons and Doom Bolt while retaining Nurgle's Gift and other Deathguard benefits/flavors.

Edit to Add: If the google search I just did for the chances of rolling doubles on two dice, and on the optional 3 dice, Eater Plague is more likely to upcharge (D3+3) and less likely to blow up - though when Doombolt blows up if still goes off it appears. Still that sort of encroachment on Thousand Sons flavor shouldn't be handed out like candy - especially not stacked on top of another Faction Ability.

Why should being a Psyker (with a related ability) and/or leading Poxwalkers be unique?
I don't mind if the exact details change. If the number of MW was dropped or it was changed to an actual weapon, that's entirely fine.

I'm talking about a pretty radical change from where the game is now. It would require a lot of smaller changes too. Not the least of which would be points for options again.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why should being a Psyker (with a related ability) and/or leading Poxwalkers be unique?
I don't mind if the exact details change. If the number of MW was dropped or it was changed to an actual weapon, that's entirely fine.

I'm talking about a pretty radical change from where the game is now. It would require a lot of smaller changes too. Not the least of which would be points for options again.

It isn't unique. Well maybe the Poxwalker thing but I don't think so but the sum total of the differences might end up being something unique. (As its currently created) it should be a weapon to avoid edge case rule problems, but I don't think they can do the Crit Fail - Success - Crit Success evolution with that mechanic. This specific ability I don't think should be here. I'd do it as a weapon, possibly a weapon allowed to shoot all units within a short range (similar to the old Hammerfall Array) that then does X number + Blast of low S Anti-Infantry 2+ or Anti-Vehicle 2+ or Anti-whatever 2+ attacks. I mean don't take the numbers as gospel its just a theme example: Three Profiles

Range: Every unit within Melee/6"/12" whatever range works for balance Maybe TORRENT too but it may have to be a little weaker or one target only if it skips rolling to hit

Pick 1 eater plague profile:

3A BLAST S3 AP0 D1 Anti Infantry2+

3A S3 AP0 D2 Anti-Monster 2+

3A S3 AP0 D3 Anti-Vehicle 2+

Just something to represent a miasma of death and decay that emanates from Typhus (or whoever)

Breton wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As a Marine player (primarily, among many other factions), I'd like to say that I don't think for one moment the arguments presented by people in this thread have been "Marine hate" - if anything, they're quite on the money.

It's certainly not the blatant misrepresentation of Eldar Phoenix Lords as anything like a named non-Primarch Space Marine (and this is coming from someone who errs on the negative side when it comes to the idea of playing Eldar).

Eldar Phoenix Lords are very much like a named Non-Primarch.

Keywords for Lysander:
INFANTRY, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, IMPERIUM, TERMINATOR, CAPTAIN, DARNATH LYSANDER

Keywords for Jain Zar:
INFANTRY, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, AELDARI, ASPECT WARRIOR, PHOENIX LORD, JAIN ZAR

They're quite literally parallel where the only differences are faction/name based. Terminator vs Aspect Warrior (Faction Armor) Captain vs Phoenix Lord (Faction rank keywords) Lysander vs Jain Zar (Their name)

Two bespoke rules. Bespoke weapon(s).

And you're more than welcome to believe wanting to squat ALL the Space Marine Epic Heroes and ONE Eldari Epic Hero isnt Marine Hate.

Not understanding the point you're making here.

Guilliman has 1 less keyword than those 2, are you saying have more or less keywords makes you more or less parallel?
MONSTER, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, IMPERIUM, PRIMARCH, ROBOUTE GUILLIMAN

He's a monster instead of infantry, and has primarch instead of phoenix lord or captain.

You understand that these key words are used to provide abilities right? If Zar didn't have aspect warrior she couldn't use aspect warrior keyed abilities/strategems, similar to Lysander.

I'm not getting the point you're trying to make.

the swarmlord has 8! keywords, does that make him more or less unique?


You're being very selective in your definitions of phrases like 'very much like' when making your argument.

A marine captain and a tactical marine are identical. They are augmented humans with cool equipment. one has a higher rank than the other. But they have no differences at all. There are even tactical marines that are older than captains with more experience. Their only actual known difference that will be true for all examples, is their rank.

A phoenix lord is fundamentally NOT just an aspect warrior and there are no aspect warriors older or with more experience than them. They are definitionally distinct as they founded the art of war their aspects follow, making it impossible for any to be older than them. They are also supernatural creatures, running on a soul gestalt housed in a suit of armour that eats people to resurrect itself. Fundamentally not the same as an aspect warrior. Your argument that phoenix lord is just a rank keyword proves you don't know what you're arguing. It's not a rank at all. It's a state of being.


Trying to say that the way they chose to represent these facts about those characters makes them equivalent is so disingenuous I can see why Wyldhunt felt like it was trolling.

That's like claiming grots are the equivalent of custodes because they both have infantry in their keywords and use the BS stat. Or that a grot and a tank are very much alike because they both have toughness values.

Trying to use ingame abstract mechanics to claim that the fictional existence of entities in 40k are equivalent is an impressive level of mental gymnastics.


EDIT: Belisarius Cawl has the same keywords as Guilliman, excepting the " faction/name based" ones.

MONSTER, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, IMPERIUM, TECH-PRIEST, CULT MECHANICUS, BELISARIUS CAWL

Just as primarch is more than a rank, so too is Phoenix Lord.

 Hellebore wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As a Marine player (primarily, among many other factions), I'd like to say that I don't think for one moment the arguments presented by people in this thread have been "Marine hate" - if anything, they're quite on the money.

It's certainly not the blatant misrepresentation of Eldar Phoenix Lords as anything like a named non-Primarch Space Marine (and this is coming from someone who errs on the negative side when it comes to the idea of playing Eldar).

Eldar Phoenix Lords are very much like a named Non-Primarch.

Keywords for Lysander:
INFANTRY, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, IMPERIUM, TERMINATOR, CAPTAIN, DARNATH LYSANDER

Keywords for Jain Zar:
INFANTRY, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, AELDARI, ASPECT WARRIOR, PHOENIX LORD, JAIN ZAR

They're quite literally parallel where the only differences are faction/name based. Terminator vs Aspect Warrior (Faction Armor) Captain vs Phoenix Lord (Faction rank keywords) Lysander vs Jain Zar (Their name)

Two bespoke rules. Bespoke weapon(s).

And you're more than welcome to believe wanting to squat ALL the Space Marine Epic Heroes and ONE Eldari Epic Hero isnt Marine Hate.

Not understanding the point you're making here.

Guilliman has 1 less keyword than those 2, are you saying have more or less keywords makes you more or less parallel?
MONSTER, CHARACTER, EPIC HERO, IMPERIUM, PRIMARCH, ROBOUTE GUILLIMAN

Let me try again. They have 7 Keywords. Three of them are EXACTLY the same. Four of them are directly parallel/equivalent versions that would be exactly the same, but are only different because of the flavor text of the army.

He's a monster instead of infantry, and has primarch instead of phoenix lord or captain.

You understand that these key words are used to provide abilities right? If Zar didn't have aspect warrior she couldn't use aspect warrior keyed abilities/strategems, similar to Lysander.

You mean like the TERMINATOR keyword used for TERMINATOR directed strats? As you just pointed out "similar to Lysander"?

I'm not getting the point you're trying to make.

the swarmlord has 8! keywords, does that make him more or less unique?

I think you lost the thread. The discussion was not about them being unique. The discussion was about if they were similar or different. I'm going to assume you now regret saying "similar to Lysander" so I'll pretend you didn't just admit the point.

You're being very selective in your definitions of phrases like 'very much like' when making your argument.

A marine captain and a tactical marine are identical. They are augmented humans with cool equipment. one has a higher rank than the other. But they have no differences at all. There are even tactical marines that are older than captains with more experience. Their only actual known difference that will be true for all examples, is their rank.

Yes, they do. They have different stat lines. They have some different keywords that differ in more than just (Faction Specfic Armor Name). They are similar. They are not identical.

A phoenix lord is fundamentally NOT just an aspect warrior and there are no aspect warriors older or with more experience than them. They are definitionally distinct as they founded the art of war their aspects follow, making it impossible for any to be older than them. They are also supernatural creatures, running on a soul gestalt housed in a suit of armour that eats people to resurrect itself. Fundamentally not the same as an aspect warrior.

Trying to say that the way they chose to represent these facts about those characters makes them equivalent is so disingenuous I can see why Wyldhunt felt like it was trolling.

That's like claiming grots are the equivalent of custodes because they both have infantry in their keywords and use the BS stat. Or that a grot and a tank are very much alike because they both have toughness values.

Again you have lost the thread here. Similar is not identical. Its definitely not equivalent.

Trying to use ingame abstract mechanics to claim that the fictional existence of entities in 40k are equivalent is an impressive level of mental gymnastics.

Trying to use your personal head cannon to claim that they're not is an impressive level of gymnastics.

Lets play a game. I'm going to read you parts of a datasheet. You tell me who it is. Movement is 12". Maybe 14". Toughness is either 3 or 4. Save is either 2+ or 3+. Definitely a 4++ Invuln. Definitely 5 Wounds, and a 6+ Leadership and OC1. 6, maybe 7 S5 -2 D2 melee attacks a bespoke that lets you move them and their unit into Strategic Reserves along with one more. Who is it?

Breton wrote:
Not only did you say Marines shouldn't have Epic Heroes, you even included one sacrificial Eldar character you probably neither use nor like. That's definitely proof it wasn't Marine Hate. Hey, we should totally get rid of all Eldar Characters. And Captain Tycho. All Eldar characters and Captain Tycho so it doesn't sound like Eldar Hate.

I didn't say marines shouldn't have epic heroes. I said marines are especially prone to having epic heroes that aren't weird/unique enough to *need* bespoke datasheets rather than just being covered by the generic datasheets. A lot of their named guys are conceptually just captains, librarians, etc. It wouldn't be weird (in terms of fluff) or game breaking for Shrike's uppy downy rule to be an option for generic captains.

And while I wouldn't call Eldrad a regular staple of my lists, I did field him in literally my most recent eldar game and found him quite useful! And I find his fluff fine. Not the coolest thing ever, but fine. I also listed Ahriman as a character than should lose his bespoke datasheet and specifically stated that I do use him pretty often.

So you've misrepresented me to engage poorly with the points I was making, and you're being unnecessarily rude while doing so. Which, as I pointed out previously, are traits that make me think you might be trolling.

I will be more polite to my fellow posters when they're more polite to me?

You're being rude to me, and I don't *think* I've actually been outright rude to you? I've pointed out how you've been behaving in this thread, and those behaviors are, in my opinion as an armchair internet sleuth, inkeeping with the kind of behavior I'd expect to see from someone intentionally rage-baiting.

See this is why you don't get polite replies I literally clarified the opposite because I knew someone dishonest would in bad faith make this claim.

That's not the reason Calgar should be stronger, its the reason Steve should not be that strong which in this case ends up the same, but is different.

You even quoted it and still analyzed it in the bad faith manor.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why should being a Psyker (with a related ability) and/or leading Poxwalkers be unique?
I don't mind if the exact details change. If the number of MW was dropped or it was changed to an actual weapon, that's entirely fine.

I'm talking about a pretty radical change from where the game is now. It would require a lot of smaller changes too. Not the least of which would be points for options again.

The game is not going to change radically though. The current game is both financially successful and widely liked. Any radical change will endanger stakeholder value and therefore will not happen.
In addition, the whole hateboner for named characters is a relic of the distant past. People still clinging to the philosophies of 4th or earlier editions are outnumbered by more than 10:1 by players that came after them. Games like Spacemarine II, Tacticus and DoW heavily focus on named characters and have huge fanbases themselves. GW keeps releasing named characters for novel protagonists because people keep buying them. Primarchs are selling out when they are released. Marine players are buying whole boxes of duplicate units to get that named sergeant for their chapter early.
Without any intent of offending you, if everyone who disliked named characters like you do left the game and never spend a single penny on 40k ever again, GW probably wouldn't even notice - especially since the overlap of long time veterans and people who are spending minimal amounts on GW product is rather large.

So there's your answer. The ship has sailed and it is not coming back. Named characters aren't just accepted into the game, the have become an integral part of it. Neither the management drones at GW, nor the fanbase would support removing them. Just the few people here on dakka who have mostly lost touch with the real community of the game being played years ago.