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.

How do!

Not newly news, but not gaining much attention elsewhere. But, we may have an early sign GW is moving back to greater character customisation options.

Original article here - 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/

Salient because someone is bound to ask and fair enough wrote:Finally, you’ll need to select a few weapons to carry into battle, with certain archetypes and Specialisms expanding or restricting your options. There are tons to pick from, and converting your miniatures to use some of the stranger options is a great test of your hobbying prowess. Let your creativity flow – your first two weapons are free, and any others only cost 5 points each!

So perhaps no longer bound by whatever the model range expressly offers?

Samples article here - https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/hjiieqr9/the-warhammer-community-team-put-the-maelstroms-custom-character-rules-to-the-test/

Which does seem to support non-standard weapons are option. Ref Flayer Lord for Necrons.

And a pic suggesting quite wide ranging options. Regard and behold.



Hopefully this isn’t some end of edition flash in the pan tease. Because if so? That’s a very bad show.

This could be them testing the waters to see reception, but given GW's trend of "no models, no rules", I can see this only being added in as a permanent fixture for Crusade in the new edition, rather than mainline competitive 40k. Would be nice to give generic characters some options/flavour, but it wouldn't take very long for certain "meta" builds to start dominating with combos that GW didn't think people would combine together.

Well, no model no rules wasn’t broadly speaking a thing until it was. And it will be until it’s not.

This [i]may[/b] be a sign it’s on it’s way out. And I really hope it is. If not in this incarnation, just a return to Wargear lists and being able to arm to your own satisfaction would be welcome.

It’d also help cut down on Datafaxes or whatever they’re called. No need for Captain in Plimsoles, Captain in Cuban Heels, Captain in Angler’s Waders, Captain in Stilletos etc.

Just…Captain. Now choose your footwear.

 Grimskul wrote:
This could be them testing the waters to see reception, but given GW's trend of "no models, no rules", I can see this only being added in as a permanent fixture for Crusade in the new edition, rather than mainline competitive 40k. Would be nice to give generic characters some options/flavour, but it wouldn't take very long for certain "meta" builds to start dominating with combos that GW didn't think people would combine together.

They've said it's usable in Matched Play with your opponent's permission.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
This could be them testing the waters to see reception, but given GW's trend of "no models, no rules", I can see this only being added in as a permanent fixture for Crusade in the new edition, rather than mainline competitive 40k. Would be nice to give generic characters some options/flavour, but it wouldn't take very long for certain "meta" builds to start dominating with combos that GW didn't think people would combine together.

They've said it's usable in Matched Play with your opponent's permission.

Which in practice means casual play.
I really doubt most tournaments are going to allow this (as broken builds are basically a certainty).

The reason this will be a tentative controlled thing for not-ranked-play will because those who must win will create abominations without guidelines and will simply "optimise" and complain otherwise.

I want this to become normal for next edition, but it requires some people to not want to cheese max damage etc.

Dudeface wrote:
The reason this will be a tentative controlled thing for not-ranked-play will because those who must win will create abominations without guidelines and will simply "optimise" and complain otherwise.

I want this to become normal for next edition, but it requires some people to not want to cheese max damage etc.

It's a competitive game. It's perfectly sensible to want to win.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The reason this will be a tentative controlled thing for not-ranked-play will because those who must win will create abominations without guidelines and will simply "optimise" and complain otherwise.

I want this to become normal for next edition, but it requires some people to not want to cheese max damage etc.

It's a competitive game. It's perfectly sensible to want to win.

Yes, but some self-moderation is appreciated. You can want to win without defaulting to trying to break everything.

Dudeface wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The reason this will be a tentative controlled thing for not-ranked-play will because those who must win will create abominations without guidelines and will simply "optimise" and complain otherwise.

I want this to become normal for next edition, but it requires some people to not want to cheese max damage etc.

It's a competitive game. It's perfectly sensible to want to win.

Yes, but some self-moderation is appreciated. You can want to win without defaulting to trying to break everything.

It's first and foremost GW's responsibility, as the game designer that gets paid a lot of money for rules, to make the game balanced.
I 100% agree that, outside of a proper tournament, you should self moderate to ensure a fun game. But minimal self moderation should be necessary.

I'll also say that, currently, 40k is actually pretty well-balanced. Ain't perfect, but in my opinion, in a good spot. I hope that the custom character rules are likewise well-balanced.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The reason this will be a tentative controlled thing for not-ranked-play will because those who must win will create abominations without guidelines and will simply "optimise" and complain otherwise.

I want this to become normal for next edition, but it requires some people to not want to cheese max damage etc.

It's a competitive game. It's perfectly sensible to want to win.

Yes, but some self-moderation is appreciated. You can want to win without defaulting to trying to break everything.

It's first and foremost GW's responsibility, as the game designer that gets paid a lot of money for rules, to make the game balanced.
I 100% agree that, outside of a proper tournament, you should self moderate to ensure a fun game. But minimal self moderation should be necessary.

I'll also say that, currently, 40k is actually pretty well-balanced. Ain't perfect, but in my opinion, in a good spot. I hope that the custom character rules are likewise well-balanced.

Can't disagree, but this is why they're narratively only and the sheer number of factions and options isn't likely reasonable to expect perfect balance on.

Yeah, I'm cautiously optimistic. If these are executed well, they'll be a fun way to reintroduce some much needed character customization. Otherwise, they'll run into the same problems as Crusade upgrades where some of the possible wombo combos are just kind of crazy.

 Grimskul wrote:
This could be them testing the waters to see reception, but given GW's trend of "no models, no rules", I can see this only being added in as a permanent fixture for Crusade in the new edition, rather than mainline competitive 40k. Would be nice to give generic characters some options/flavour, but it wouldn't take very long for certain "meta" builds to start dominating with combos that GW didn't think people would combine together.

I would not expect it to live to 11th. Even in Crusade Only. I mean maybe it replaces/adds to Crusade Character growth, but history is not on that side. I can remember when they came up with your own Chapter Trait Creation Rules. That lasted until the next edition and a whole lot of people had Apothecary Sergeants with no rules.

This is the sort of thing that used to come in your White Dwarf. Now it sells the campaign book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, no model no rules wasn’t broadly speaking a thing until it was. And it will be until it’s not.

This [i]may[/b] be a sign it’s on it’s way out. And I really hope it is. If not in this incarnation, just a return to Wargear lists and being able to arm to your own satisfaction would be welcome.

It’d also help cut down on Datafaxes or whatever they’re called. No need for Captain in Plimsoles, Captain in Cuban Heels, Captain in Angler’s Waders, Captain in Stilletos etc.

Just…Captain. Now choose your footwear.

I've been expecting a meeting in the middle - to go from make your own model with bits from anywhere to making OUR model with our bits the way we tell you to - to a middle ground. Make your own model with any of OUR bits that is still as WYSIWG as possible. Rail Rifles must be Rail Rifles not wrist mounted storm bolters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

They've said it's usable in Matched Play with your opponent's permission.

That is not a good sign. Aside from the fact that everything is usable in Matched Play with your opponent's permission, that is not the "rule" they make when they want to support something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
The reason this will be a tentative controlled thing for not-ranked-play will because those who must win will create abominations without guidelines and will simply "optimise" and complain otherwise.

I want this to become normal for next edition, but it requires some people to not want to cheese max damage etc.

While I know the Studio guys are probably directly ordered not to make anything virally popular, and/or over the top (at least for publication) I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe they can make over the top units let alone broken cheese. And to be fair its hard to tell INITIALLY what is just over the top good, and what is broken cheese.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
This could be them testing the waters to see reception, but given GW's trend of "no models, no rules", I can see this only being added in as a permanent fixture for Crusade in the new edition, rather than mainline competitive 40k. Would be nice to give generic characters some options/flavour, but it wouldn't take very long for certain "meta" builds to start dominating with combos that GW didn't think people would combine together.

They've said it's usable in Matched Play with your opponent's permission.

It's sad we went from special characters being usable in matched play with opponent's permission, to generic characters with wargear options being usable only with permission.

I doubt anything created with these rules will be as bad as calgar and sicarius together, or the silent king by himself.

apparently you don't need permission to cheese with these, but jeff the guard colonel with a powerfist and sniper rifle is right out.

 Hellebore wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
This could be them testing the waters to see reception, but given GW's trend of "no models, no rules", I can see this only being added in as a permanent fixture for Crusade in the new edition, rather than mainline competitive 40k. Would be nice to give generic characters some options/flavour, but it wouldn't take very long for certain "meta" builds to start dominating with combos that GW didn't think people would combine together.

They've said it's usable in Matched Play with your opponent's permission.

It's sad we went from special characters being usable in matched play with opponent's permission, to generic characters with wargear options being usable only with permission.

I doubt anything created with these rules will be as bad as calgar and sicarius together, or the silent king by himself.

apparently you don't need permission to cheese with these, but jeff the guard colonel with a powerfist and sniper rifle is right out.

None of those characters are all that bad. In fact the Silent King was the example I used when I laughed at the Orbital Assault Force Monty Haul Det. 6 Centurion Devs with TL Lascannons and Cent Missile Launchers. Who now have Precision, and +1 to Hit. I don't remember if they could one-round alpha strike the Silent King, or if they had to use a second turn for the left over couple wounds. He was the most obvious and immediately thought of recipient for the middle finger that is that Det/Strat.

"usable with opponent's permission" is such a worthless phrase. Putting a cat on the board and inflicting D6 S14 hits on any model they knock over is usable "with opponents permission"

That effectively puts these rules in the same category as the VDR was. Fun to mess with, maybe your club adopts them, largely unused in store/pick up games and will never be widely adopted because of that.

I don't think this heralds an upcoming golden era of customisation - "you get what's in the box" happened for a reason - because the chapterhouse lawsuit (everything always comes back to that) found that producing models to represent options where there was no official equivalent was not infringement. That's what started the erosion of options and that hasn't changed.

GW being willing to allow customisation in some niche, barely-above-house-rules ruleset that will almost certainly be invalidated come a new edition is a minor concession to those of us who crave custom characters but it has no wider implications and believing for a moment that it does is setting yourself up for disappointment

I missed this originally, but if you can create a "flying Drukhari Haemonculi " then perhaps that Archon on bike is making a comeback after all.

It would certainly be a particularly cruel act on Vipoid specifically if they didn't, so chances are they won't... :p

 Hellebore wrote:

It's sad we went from special characters being usable in matched play with opponent's permission, to generic characters with wargear options being usable only with permission.

Bruh . . . That's a hell of an observation. This.

Breton wrote:


While I know the Studio guys are probably directly ordered not to make anything virally popular, and/or over the top (at least for publication) I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe they can make over the top units let alone broken cheese. And to be fair its hard to tell INITIALLY what is just over the top good, and what is broken cheese.

In the context of the articles or in general?

If in the context of the articles then yes GW generally try to make a mild edam. If you're talking about their ability to not make stuff with the potential for broken cheese then they regularly whip up some really extra mature cheddar.

I could go for a pizza right about now.

Eh. Opponents Permission doesn’t bother me.

If these produce game breaking combos (especially if they’re buffing up other units in unexpected ways, or allowing armies to fight in a new way by covering intentional weaknesses Ala VDR) then after the first time? Permission can be refused.

If only one player has access to the rules? The other can avoid any potential disadvantage.

If your opponent is a renowned Power Gamer? You can withhold consent.

If the rules are uneven (so, Armies A, B and C massively benefit, where D and E just get guff that can’t make anything especially useful) then there’s an out.

And let’s be honest. The community has form for abusing design tool kits. VDR and TDR were commonly used to Cheese, rather than to create game rules for a favoured conversion or scratch build.

But hey, let’s not write these off before we’ve even had full sight. I’m certain there’ll be those who’ll figure out the wombs-combos. If that’s their hobby? That’s their hobby. But we can hope that “the best” compared to average is a slim thing.

Charax wrote:
"usable with opponent's permission" is such a worthless phrase. Putting a cat on the board and inflicting D6 S14 hits on any model they knock over is usable "with opponents permission"

Yeah, it's always great when the official rules have all the validity of something I wrote on the back of a napkin.

 Hellebore wrote:
It's sad we went from special characters being usable in matched play with opponent's permission, to generic characters with wargear options being usable only with permission.

It speaks volumes about the change in mindset and priorities, doesn't it?

 Hellebore wrote:
I missed this originally, but if you can create a "flying Drukhari Haemonculi " then perhaps that Archon on bike is making a comeback after all.

It would certainly be a particularly cruel act on Vipoid specifically if they didn't, so chances are they won't... :p

I'm 50/50 as to whether GW just won't give us that option or whether they will let us put an Archon on a bike but won't allow him to join anything other than footslogging Kabalites/Incubi.

Yeah, GW definitely boiled the frog successfully when it comes to rulesets like these being the exception and mindset shift for people saying "usable with the opponent's permission" as some get out of jail free card to say its going to be widely accepted across all game types.

I've not played 40K since early 8th ed but a friend and I are prepping some small armies to try and play again. I'm actually quite excited by the potential scope of this-I want to convert up a Black Templar Saturnine Terminator character for my force and this sounds like it could possibly facilitate that.

Do we know if this is going to be added to the web, like datasheets ans detachments, or be book-only rules?

Hopefully this is a test to see if will be included in codexes. But at this point, that ship has probably sailed. I suspect the first 11th books are already locked and at the printer.

AoS has their Anvil of Apotheosis stuff to make custom heroes for Path to Glory, their crusade equivalent. It would not be out of the realm of possibility to get that level of build-a-hero for 40k.

I think "with your opponents permission" is a good way to say this is more about customisation than hard crunch balancing. if you want to make a monster and upset people to the point they won't play, that's on you. They aren't going to chuck out multiple balance patches to "fix" any problems that come up.

I mean one of the examples used - the Tau character with a railgun who gives everyone in the unit +1 shots and you can jump into strategic reserves. I don't know if this is "crazy op". But for 50 points you effectively go from say 3 railguns in a unit of pathfinders to 7? Feels kind of like a no-brainer.

By contrast the flayer character feels marginal to actively bad. At 95 points thats what, nearly 8 flayed ones. Is it worth it to give them lethal hits? I doubt it. It is however the sort of fluffy choice that people have wanted for a long time.

 Nevelon wrote:
Do we know if this is going to be added to the web, like datasheets ans detachments, or be book-only rules?

Hopefully this is a test to see if will be included in codexes. But at this point, that ship has probably sailed. I suspect the first 11th books are already locked and at the printer.

AoS has their Anvil of Apotheosis stuff to make custom heroes for Path to Glory, their crusade equivalent. It would not be out of the realm of possibility to get that level of build-a-hero for 40k.

Book only afaik.

Dudeface wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Do we know if this is going to be added to the web, like datasheets ans detachments, or be book-only rules?

Hopefully this is a test to see if will be included in codexes. But at this point, that ship has probably sailed. I suspect the first 11th books are already locked and at the printer.

AoS has their Anvil of Apotheosis stuff to make custom heroes for Path to Glory, their crusade equivalent. It would not be out of the realm of possibility to get that level of build-a-hero for 40k.

Book only afaik.

Sigh. Not particularly surprising. Would like to have them, but also I spend far too much on dead tree rulebooks to indulge in end of life splatbooks that will be obsolete in 3 months.

 Grimskul wrote:
This could be them testing the waters to see reception

With 10th edition having about 4/5 months left, I agree with you. "Matched play, with opponent's permission" puts it on the same page as legacy units in 40k. Fun in local campaigns and garage-hammer, but not in tournaments. I miss my old group that would be all over legacy units and these rules, but since I really only get to play at tournaments these days, I won't bother with these rules.

Except, by the letter of the rules, Legend units do not need opponent's permission.

Tournaments might be another matter entirely, but they're perfectly find in standard Matched Play.

Tyel wrote:
I think "with your opponents permission" is a good way to say this is more about customisation than hard crunch balancing. if you want to make a monster and upset people to the point they won't play, that's on you. They aren't going to chuck out multiple balance patches to "fix" any problems that come up.

The trouble with this is that you end up with the 'Forgeworld Problem', where people will just say no outright because they've heard it contains some broken builds, even if you had no intention of using such (or even no ability to use such).

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think "with your opponents permission" is a good way to say this is more about customisation than hard crunch balancing. if you want to make a monster and upset people to the point they won't play, that's on you. They aren't going to chuck out multiple balance patches to "fix" any problems that come up.

The trouble with this is that you end up with the 'Forgeworld Problem', where people will just say no outright because they've heard it contains some broken builds, even if you had no intention of using such (or even no ability to use such).

I think this is the primary reason why I'm a big fan of cosmetic customization over custom rules. Ultimately no matter how hard you try, you're not going to make a system that rewards "making a good character" in a conflict based system. I just think supplying the tools for cosmetic customization leads to people actually making what the character they want when they don't have to decide how much power they're willing to sacrifice to get there.