Do We Really Need Special Characters?

    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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

    The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

    • Monjis, have some faith in the RT/BB. Avoiding power creep is one of the foremost things on their mind.

      Always remember, this isn't "We don't need no steenking playtesting" GW writing the game anymore.

      Theorox wrote:

      Ungrim_7 wrote:

      Also, Special Characters offer an opportunity to bring into the game special rules not found in the rulebook, or anywhere else. Special rules that are full of character and uniqueness.
      Why not just...bring those rules into the rulebook/anywhere else? Why have any ability that can only be acessed by one specific, pre-constructed named character? I don't see the appeal at all. Surely adding generic abilities with some conditions to regular characters would be better in every single way, if they really are good and workable gameplay- and balance-wise? And if we're going to have special characters so we can introduce things into the game that normal units couldn't get away with...let's not.
      Theo
      Because some capabilities would be unbalanced when combined with other, more readily available capabilities.

      Since I'm a DE player I'll go back to Hellebron. S10 Paired Magic weapons. 7-9 attacks per round. That's one heck of an offensive capability.

      Now put that on a character with a 1+ armor save. Or even a 4+/4++. See how things get out of hand quickly?

      Now multiply that by all the special capabilities of all the special characters AND all the normal character options. Balancing all that becomes... prohibitive.

      But balancing ONE character with that capability is doable.
    • Vulcan wrote:

      Monjis, have some faith in the RT/BB. Avoiding power creep is one of the foremost things on their mind.

      Always remember, this isn't "We don't need no steenking playtesting" GW writing the game anymore.

      Theorox wrote:

      Ungrim_7 wrote:

      Also, Special Characters offer an opportunity to bring into the game special rules not found in the rulebook, or anywhere else. Special rules that are full of character and uniqueness.
      Why not just...bring those rules into the rulebook/anywhere else? Why have any ability that can only be acessed by one specific, pre-constructed named character? I don't see the appeal at all. Surely adding generic abilities with some conditions to regular characters would be better in every single way, if they really are good and workable gameplay- and balance-wise? And if we're going to have special characters so we can introduce things into the game that normal units couldn't get away with...let's not.Theo
      Because some capabilities would be unbalanced when combined with other, more readily available capabilities.
      Since I'm a DE player I'll go back to Hellebron. S10 Paired Magic weapons. 7-9 attacks per round. That's one heck of an offensive capability.

      Now put that on a character with a 1+ armor save. Or even a 4+/4++. See how things get out of hand quickly?

      Now multiply that by all the special capabilities of all the special characters AND all the normal character options. Balancing all that becomes... prohibitive.

      But balancing ONE character with that capability is doable.
      Hellebron was extremely broken when DE got the option for Life magic, and I'm not sure that kind of outlier kind of offensive capability can be justified even in a naked special character. Making a balanced version might be doable, but is it fun? It certainly doesn't make the game better in any way to have a character that just gets to break normal restrictions to that degree, but gets assigned a weakness in return IMO.

      Theo
    • I really don't mind special characters. My group still plays Warhammer 8th edition with Furion changes. (We will probably switch to 9th Age when we all are happy with the 9th Age armybooks, currently only our Empire player is happy with it.)

      Anyway the guy I play the most plays Dark Elves, he mostly takes Tularis in his army, which I certainly don't think is broken or ruins the game.
    • ferny wrote:

      @Vazalaar - how far did Furion get? It was an interesting project, but I didn't twig that he'd done all the books before shelving it...?
      He disappeared before finishing Beastmen and Skaven, all the other armies were covered. Our group really liked what he did. Still a shame that he didn't finish it. Because after a year, we are still playing his version.

      I really like how he handled Dogs of War. Very elegant and interesting.
    • From my point of view special characters could be included but more for fluffy play so by the definition they should be overpriced ; )

      And if not:

      1. To make special characters be a real tool, i think their role should be then to make specific build. To simple visualisation of an idea I would refer to Warscrolls (so for example Character would add a special rule or couple to army/units but it would be needed to include fixed units choices in army).

      OR

      2. Make a common mechanism for building special characters, and count it as a setting - but that would make each next rulebook/armybooks release more complex.

      @Ferny: Furion was creating a version for tournament play, and after 9Age was globally chosen as a version for tournament events he stopped his work.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by GOLAN: answer to Ferny ().

    • Hard to imagine why someone would support 8th, but not 9th Age. It's not perfect but it's pretty great IMO.

      Just needs some tweaks and special characters. That's right haters, I said it again. J/k
      Dawmons My Record

      Dwarves vs. Vermin Swarm • 2 wins - 3 losses
      KoE vs. Infernal Dwarves • 0 wins - 1 losses
      Highborn Elves vs. Infernal Dwarves • 0 wins - 1 losses
      EoS vs. Infernal Dwarves • 0 wins - 2 losses
      SA vs. Orcs & Goblins • 1 win - 0 losses
      Highborn Elves vs. Warriors of the Dark Gods • 1 win - 0 losses
      Dwarves vs. Warriors of the Dark Gods • 1 win - 0 losses
      Daemons vs. EoS • 1 win - 0 losses
    • Furion's goal was to create a WFB-centric rules set for competition play. When ETC chose to use 9th Age, his work became redundant.

      Which is saddening, because I thought his work was quite good.


      As far as Hellebron being broken with a life-magic caster, I don't think so. I've never seen Hellebron wounded. She's either full health, or dead.

      Maybe she's a problem with the +T boosted spell in the lore, as that way she's not likely to die in one combat round. But then, you always have the option to prioritize dispelling it.
    • Pallor wrote:

      ....
      I never really liked the effect of army books special characters on the metagame, they were either completely useless or almost broken.
      So i was thinking..what about a comletely separete armybook of many unique shared special characters that any army, with some specific restriction, could pick.
      Something like "legendary adventurers" army book.
      I think this could bring a lot of flavour when comes to army building with a really low amount of effort regarding game balancing.
      All of these characters should be heroes, no lords, and with the "not a leader" special rule and with their set of unique magic items and special rules, maybe with a couple of choices also.
      Each one has a broad but not complete list of armyes that he is allowed to be hired from, so for example no insane stuff like goblin character fighting for dwarven army and so on.
      we could bring back some of our most beloved special characheters without buffing any of the current existing armyes in particular and also invent something completely new.
      Shared special characters also are easy to balance for competitive play and tournament. Among all of them someone could result being a bit too strong, so it easy to ban him without crippling any armybook specifically.
      There is SO MANY possibilities about magic equip and spells that cannot all be fitted in core magic items or core magic paths without the risk of completely break he game balance.
      I think that shared special heroes is the best way to fit both balance and the need of spice and unique, various and clever options when comes to build your army list.
      ....

      Quick Starter Team

      Playtester


    • Ludologist wrote:

      I don't miss special characters. What I do miss though are some of their abilities, that opened up unique ways to build your army.

      As we don't have a real, official background, I had the idea, that it would be great, to have a list of unique abilities, that you can buy for one of your character models. Maybe call them talents, hinting at the RPG part of wargaming. The bonus they confer should be unavailable otherwise. So not another +1 to combat result, but rather +2" vanguard movement.
      They should be flavourful, but also generic. There should be some available for every "class".

      Obviously these are not for the upcoming release. They could also be part of a campaign pack, that adds more flavour for casual play (looking at frostgrave/mordheim, that can be a great motivator to keep playing!. Balancing them across all armies would be a nightmare, as the combination possibilities are immense.

      Some ideas:

      "Captain of the vanguard "
      +2" Vanguard movement

      "Garrison commander"
      Place 2 Walls after choosing sides.

      "Alchemist"
      Unit joined gains flaming attacks for a round.

      "Archmage"
      ability to cast a (randomly?) chosen spell twice per turn.

      "Apothecary"
      Unit joined is immune to poison.

      "Berserker"
      Frenzy, swiftstride, may not join units.

      "Secret Agent"
      Can hide in a unit.

      "Arcane archer"
      Get fire path attribute after hitting with a shooting attack (once per phase, or once per attack!)

      "Sage"
      Chose a second attribute from the basic paths and as it to your spells.

      Thoughts?

      Dalamar wrote:

      I'd rather just see apecial characters. When you have a character with pre-defined abilities and items, they are very easy to balance. If you create a list of abilities, someone, somewhere, will find a way to break the system.

      Ludologist wrote:

      you're obviously right. But I would enjoy tinkering with my version more :)

      How about if they were a seasonal thing. That way you wouldn't have to suffer under the really bad ones for too long, and balance changes would be expected, and thus accepted

      Quick Starter Team

      Playtester


    • how about bringing in the most popular 8th ed. character builds, as special characters:

      Chaos Lord on disc, 1+/3++ rr1's with a great weapon, a breath weapon and soul feeder

      Sure some special characters were a bit skewed, but imho they were nothing compared to the truely horrifying custom builds.

      SCs can eaily be balanced, having a hundreds of possible combinations is much harder to balance.

      SCs should either A) add a new way of playing the army (eg. Throgg, core trolls) or B) be a version of an excisting character that you cant build (eg. Sigvald, 1+/regen, 8 str. 5 attacks, infantry, stupidity, stubborn, ld 10).

      Throgg might have been OP, but his cost was also ridiculous. He should have been a lord. However, bringing him drastically changed your army. Sigvald was never OP, but you cant build a character like him as it is, he also gave you a stubborn infantry block which also changes your army drastically.
    • Bronhoms wrote:

      how about bringing in the most popular 8th ed. character builds, as special characters:

      Chaos Lord on disc, 1+/3++ rr1's with a great weapon, a breath weapon and soul feeder
      • Dude you're having a laugh right?! I'd have played 9th Age just for getting rid of this ridiculous combination even if I hated everything else about 9th! ;)
    • Nemeroth wrote:

      Bronhoms wrote:

      how about bringing in the most popular 8th ed. character builds, as special characters:

      Chaos Lord on disc, 1+/3++ rr1's with a great weapon, a breath weapon and soul feeder
      • Dude you're having a laugh right?! I'd have played 9th Age just for getting rid of this ridiculous combination even if I hated everything else about 9th! ;)

      erm yes I am. Special characters were never unbalanced compared to something like that and the Banner of the World Dragon.

      And it certainly isnt harder to balance, than customized characters.