Anyone else really wished we had characters with querks

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

And on December 24th, Father Chaos brought us... A brand new army book for Daemon Legions!

  • New

    I see some problems with that
    In whfb-times, named characters were not allowed in tournaments (most of the time and in my area). So named characters were only for casual play and when i asked my opponent beforehand.
    Secondly they were either overpowered or underpowered or not special at all. Some even became buildable with later editions (Imric from the HighbornElves).

    So what we would ask is: Give us one to three option per book that are balanced, but without customisation and write a storyline for us.


    What i would like more to see:
    Cool items and customisation options to build my own 'named' character to bring to tournaments or casual play and write my own stories about.
  • New

    well my point with characters would be either they provided great synergy to there armies or were just outright tough at which this reflected in there points value ect..I play dh alot and wished we have say a named king who provided kings guard with something like distracting/lightning reflexes or even +1 armour or even you know like a maximised Id test just little querks like that! I'd would take a little doing but I'm sure a vast majority of players would like characters to add that element of storyline to there army/game
  • New

    The problem with these kind of special characters IMO, is that they tend to be either underpowered fluff options, or absolutely integral to building a certain kind of list.

    The first is fine for casual play, but utterly useless for competitive environments.

    The second is worse IMO, because other stuff gets balanced around them, and it becomes impossible to build a list for that play style without them, which restricts player choice.

    What I would rather see, is improved character customization so that people can build their own characters with the options which would otherwise be limited to the special character, and include the named characters as fluff in each book, with suggested builds to represent them, using normal character creation options.
  • New

    Any character you build is your own special character. Write a story for him or her!

    There's no need for T9A to produce pre-built characters. That's your job! (to build characters).

    And Special Items already represent 'unique rules/gear' possessed by exceptional people. The only thing having pre-built special characters does is convince you that you should have no agency in tailoring your characters for your army - that's a disservice to the hobby.

    (If you hate writing stories, well, there are characters featured in the stories in full army books, and others that show up briefly in quotes or short stories in other books and publications - you can always use the existing character entries to build those characters if you must).
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • New

    I think it would be possible to implement that, if you dont create special characters for that, but make special abilitys/upgrades cheaper but with a downside, where you now can add a fluff-reason for it.

    As examples

    Trolleater from OK. Fortitude 4+, MW2 against Large Infantry and stupidity.
    or
    Might from KoE. All effects Might got now and additional, his Def WS is reduced to 1 on charge.

    Of course, the abilities should have a price decrease afterwards. But i think with such downsides alone you could give the chars much more flavour without breaking any tournamentlists.
  • New

    I agree with with Zwei, special characters added nice additional texture to an armybook.

    But it wasnt the same without a model- remember when a book has the name, fluff, rules but there was no model? Just not as cool as one that has a model. Remember that chaos or beastman chararacter- taurox the brass balled or something? Not as engaging as the others.

    Special characters either were super killy, or changed how the army played. The closest there is currently is the OK wildheart.

    If we were to bring special characters back, i would want them to come with minatures. I rhink there is scope in the future for mini companies to put out models with rules, that are fine for casual play but not tournament.
  • New

    Damo wrote:

    I agree with with Zwei, special characters added nice additional texture to an armybook.

    But it wasnt the same without a model- remember when a book has the name, fluff, rules but there was no model? Just not as cool as one that has a model. Remember that chaos or beastman chararacter- taurox the brass balled or something? Not as engaging as the others.

    Special characters either were super killy, or changed how the army played. The closest there is currently is the OK wildheart.

    If we were to bring special characters back, i would want them to come with minatures. I rhink there is scope in the future for mini companies to put out models with rules, that are fine for casual play but not tournament.
    Most of us remember. Problem would be the balance. GW didnt care so the wrote what they felt was nice, no matter if for better or the worst. Thats how we ended up with Kairos, Morathi and Balthasar Gelt. Fluffwise ... awesome. Balancewise ... please not. The 9th Age crew probably would be able to balance them SOMEWHAT, but not before the books got their FAB status.
  • New

    I think T9A could easily make special characters without wrecking game balance.

    The "use your imagination" argument is nice in theory but in practice people want something concrete. And if other game systems are doing it then presumably there's a marketing benefit to it.

    For example you could model a special character for EoS as a powerful wizard who knows 5 alchemy spells rather than 4, and has a magic staff that inflicts alchemy hits in close combat, but only with 3 attacks.

    It's not hard to do this without breaking the game.
  • New

    Auto2 wrote:

    I think T9A could easily make special characters without wrecking game balance.

    The "use your imagination" argument is nice in theory but in practice people want something concrete. And if other game systems are doing it then presumably there's a marketing benefit to it.

    For example you could model a special character for EoS as a powerful wizard who knows 5 alchemy spells rather than 4, and has a magic staff that inflicts alchemy hits in close combat, but only with 3 attacks.

    It's not hard to do this without breaking the game.
    While i personaly think the same way, from the past years i do not think that everyone agrees to that and i think its especially hard, to balance their usefulness out among all races, so there will be as less room as possible for complaints like "our chars are all bad/weak/stupid, the XY army ones are atleast useable in a tournament".
  • New

    Zwei wrote:

    that everyone agrees to that and i think its especially hard, to balance their usefulness out among all races, so there will be as less room as possible for complaints like "our chars are all bad/weak/stupid, the XY army ones are atleast useable in a tournament".

    People will *always* complain about something, the only way to eliminate all complaints is to close the game down. But even then people would complain that you closed it!

    Whether such complaints are legitimate is another matter. In my opinion you could make special characters without breaking the game. When generic characters and rules are created there are always many more alternatives that could have been done than what was actually implemented. The rules define a pretty big space. One more attack, 2 less Off, for example. One more alchemy spell. There are so many options.

    Probably most special characters in Warhammer were actually OK. But the category as a whole got the banhammer because the 5% that were broken were really broken.
  • New

    Auto2 wrote:

    Zwei wrote:

    that everyone agrees to that and i think its especially hard, to balance their usefulness out among all races, so there will be as less room as possible for complaints like "our chars are all bad/weak/stupid, the XY army ones are atleast useable in a tournament".
    People will *always* complain about something, the only way to eliminate all complaints is to close the game down. But even then people would complain that you closed it!

    Whether such complaints are legitimate is another matter. In my opinion you could make special characters without breaking the game. When generic characters and rules are created there are always many more alternatives that could have been done than what was actually implemented. The rules define a pretty big space. One more attack, 2 less Off, for example. One more alchemy spell. There are so many options.

    Probably most special characters in Warhammer were actually OK. But the category as a whole got the banhammer because the 5% that were broken were really broken.
    You are absolutly right, but +1A -2OS is not something to really talk about or a base for adding any fluff flavour i think. And then there is the pricing and the task "what kind of equipment" does he have? If you implant such chars, they should not be equipable with RB or AB items so their "uniqueness" really shines. But now its a really hard thing to balance.