How GW Is Handling Named Characters

[Bainbow]

Has anyone else noticed how GW are doing named characters now? Anyone who's glanced at the Battletomes for AoS recently has almost certainly noticed that all our previously named characters like Chakax, Kroq-Gar, Tetto'Eko, and other are being switched out for generic heroes. Eternity Wardens, Oldbloods on Carnosaurs, Starseers. The only faction to really keep their heroes are Chaos, who thrive off of heroes. And even they aren't immune, sure they keep the likes of Archaon, the Glottkin, Festus, Valkia, and Skarr, but they've switched out heroes like Vilitch the Curseling, Crom the Conqueror, and even dear precious Sigvald out for generic heroes. This isn't new information.

But then you look at the new Balance of Power book and... huh. Named characters.

These named characters are no longer special models, but instead they're heroes that you field in Battalions. For example you can field a Grimwrath Berserker from the Fyreslayers army anywhere. But in order to field Arngard, the Grimwrath Berserker who traded blows with the likes of Skarbrand, you need to take Arngard's battalion whereupon your Grimwrath Berserker will become Arngard and gain a bunch of special powers that are unique to that character.

Thoughts?

 

[Jorgik]

I agree. The only names they kept are Kroak, Krog-gar and mazmamundi, and I'm not even sure of those

 

[StealthKnightSteg]

I think using generic heroes is good as it opens up more narrative for people to have their own character(s) to be the top honcho. And to have them develop their own stuff in a broader way without being stuck on set names and character setting.

As for these special battalion scrolls.. It sounds very interesting and keeps the modeling part wide open. But for people developing their own character lines this might stop them using those battalion scrolls unless within agreement with their opponent to swap names in them for their own character.

 

[Crowsfoot]

I can see it working both ways, player wanting to add named characters into their army so they take the battalion then players that want the freedom to develop their own narrative staying clear of the battalions.

 

[Bainbow]

Personally I think it captures the best of both worlds, yeah. People like me and Steg who support mass generic heroes get their own individual characters, while people who adore using the legendary badass heroes that they read about can still field these great heroes.

Personally I'm hoping for a battalion led by Sigvald.

 

[Freddy25]

I think it is a smart thing: noboby forces you to field THAT specific character, but if you wat, you now have the way to field him and make it recognizable even in the developing of the match itself.

 

[Bainbow]

I think it is a smart thing: noboby forces you to force THAT specific character, but if you wat, you now have the way to field him and make it recognizable even in the developing of the match itself.

It also makes sense fluff-wise too. You're not just taking a battalion, you're taking these heroes' personal armies. Which makes sense, you wouldn't have an angry super-berskerker leading an army of very calm dudes, he'd have more berskerkers in his army.

 

[Bowser]

I really think switching to generic characters is brilliant. And having "named" characters come out as an add on is perfect to keep things interesting. They could do digital or with new model releases they could come boxed with 3-4 "named" warscrolls that have different abiltities and playstyles from the generic free warscroll. Opens up the game a lot of you think second edition doesn't change the rules, just adds a few more named characters that can be used with existing models. And for fluff, could have a book about some characters, then that can be introduced with their armies/troops as a special character and a new host/battalion.

 

[blackrainbow]

Looks like GW is killing off more and more named and units that are outside of their Khorne vs Emperor of Mankind themes.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Looks like GW is killing off more and more named and units that are outside of their Khorne vs Emperor of Mankind themes.

Pretty much.

 

[Bainbow]

Looks like GW is killing off more and more named and units that are outside of their Khorne vs Emperor of Mankind themes.

I reckon they're going to bring newer ones. We already know more dorfs are on the way with the Steamhead Duardin who appear to be more conservative Khazalid dorfs, and I'm happy to bet that Malerion's getting a new model because he looks flipping awesome and needs a model which would likely be accompanied by new Exiles. And if this is true, the same will likely be said for Tyrion, Teclis, and the Highborn, though likely to a lesser degree because Tyrion has no supermonster artwork.

 

[Toltecatl]

Well i think you guys point out the right side of the problem: if you're gonna have the opportunity to make your army special thanks to hero battalions, then it should work with every race… if it doesnt that might create some sort of disbalance. So hopefully, as time goes on, we'll be getting more? And maybe they'll just reverse the empire vs chaos thing? i dunno…
there is, also, the fact that they are discontinuing tomb kings, and, if i'm not mistaken, Bretonnians (which were such a unique army with their 'charge first or die' kind of gameplay). Hopefully the game wont be narrowed down to just 2 factions on the long term?
Maybe i'm just saying rubbish though, i'm no great connoisseur.

 

[pendrake]

They did indeed quash Bretonnia. Half the 5th Ed. Boxed set is officially all but useless. OOP. No new models — even under new names.

For awhile players can forlornly use the Free Scrolls until events start ruling them out.

 

[Bowser]

I really think switching to generic characters is brilliant. And having "named" characters come out as an add on is perfect to keep things interesting. They could do digital or with new model releases they could come boxed with 3-4 "named" warscrolls that have different abiltities and playstyles from the generic free warscroll. Opens up the game a lot of you think second edition doesn't change the rules, just adds a few more named characters that can be used with existing models. And for fluff, could have a book about some characters, then that can be introduced with their armies/troops as a special character and a new host/battalion.

See I posted this a while back, and with the Klaq-Tor's Talons just proves the point. There is so much they can do with generic characters getting named for battalions. That Oldblood on Carno at any time can become Klaq-Tor, or someone else in the future. Different abilities, different formations, all with the same model. Hopefully they keep coming out with more.

 

[Fhanados]

I really like the direction they're taking with named or generic characters. If I want to re-enact something fluffy from the main books I can do so without having to invest in a model that I might not use again, or try to explain why model X is representing model Y for a few games. My Oldblood on Carnosaur could be General Zpakatax Darkscale, racist berzerker saurus extraordinaire during my day to day gaming, yet still be used to represent Klaq-Tor during the Realmgate Wars, or Kroq-Gar during the End Times on the Old World.

It also means there is far less instances of bumping into supposedly "unique" characters every game just because the Special Character version has some rule or benefit that is obviously better than taking a standard Lord is. I'm not sure how prolific this problem was in WHFB but it was ATROCIOUS in 40k for an edition or two, especially with Space Marines. Even now there is literally no reason why to take a Herald of Khorne when Skulltaker is superior in every way. Now that Thostos Bladestorm and Generic Leader 55 are the same model with the same rules (outside of batallians that is) the only things really guilty of this are the big bads - Archaon, Glottkin, Nagash, Mortarchs etc.