Are Unique Characters 'Good' for the Hobby?

[Brother Christopher]

I’ll maybe start off with a summary of my subjective and probably not well-substantiated view of what has been going on in 40K for some time and became even more apparent in 8th edition. My feelings/opinions in this regard are rather negative, but I don’t want you to see this post as a rant; it’s more of an incoherent ramble about an issue I have with the game. Maybe you'll help me with sorting some thing out in 'this' regard. I’m also just curious how many of you share a similar sentiment to mine.

 

What bothers me is that GW persistently moves the game to a more hero-oriented one. I see several reasons for this to be a valid strategy (key of which is the profits from selling us expensive hero models) and I also see advantages (especially with the decision to (re)introduce Primarchs to the setting, it’s nice to have some large and arguably cool-looking models; also, it’s nice to have official model representations of iconic and favourite characters), but I can’t shake the feeling that the importance of unique characters takes something away from the game, as well as players’ experience/immersion.

 

I feel that, to a noticeable degree, GW punishes players for doing things the way they’d like.

 

Let me provide some illustrations of what I mean, based on Codex: Space Marines, which I’m most familiar with.

 

Firstly, I feel that if one would really like to build a semi-competitive Space Marine army, one is forced to play as the Ultramarines and include Guilliman who is amazing for the points; he offers buffs, adds CPs, is extremely durable and quite efficient in killing. By default, any other Codex: Space Marines army suffers from not wanting and/or not being able to include the Primarch. There is no way to get anywhere near Guilliman’s utility with standard/custom characters (by this I mean a generic Captain, Chapter Master or what-not).

 

Secondly, if you want your Black Templars to be remotely efficient in close combat, you “have to” include Helbrecht and Grimaldus, who offer some buffs to melee. The bonuses are nice, but arguably minor and do not really make close combat that viable of an option for the Black Templars. My point here is this: in order to get a slight advantage for your Black Templars force and make your faction play as it “should” (from a fluff perspective, the Black Templars combat doctrine favoured honourable melee combat), you have to include two, pricey unique characters. Again, there’s no way to get these boosts with standard/custom characters.

 

Thirdly, the reliance on unique characters to confer traits or combat doctrines (or the ‘spirit’) of armies causes more balance issues, where even within one Codex some get amazing unique characters (think Ultramarines and Calgar who grants additional CPs for being a "master tactician;" by this I infer that all other Chapter Masters are just mediocre tacticians), some get decent and some get none (e.g. Iron Hands). But the matter of balance in 40K in general is problematic, so I probably should not go into this...

 

The issue I take up with the current rules is that in the name of simplifying the game (which I see as a good thing), we get more and more generic armies (with less special rules, which – again – is a good thing) with less customisation options (which is starkly visible with Primaris HQ wargear options, but also with the lack of some entries, such as Biker Command Squads or even taking away the option for Captains to get a +2 armour save, unless they take a TDA). To offset this, I mean these ‘generic armies,’ we can use special characters who add some special rules, that often are fluffy, but are not available otherwise. This is troubling at least on two levels: firstly, it’s silly that all heroes of a faction fight in every single skirmish battle; secondly, it discourages players from creating their own characters. Sure, unique characters should bring some unique rules with them, but unique to these characters, and not the sub-faction itself. (For instance, Grimaldus always had some kind of 'It Will not Die' rule to show his iron resolve he displayed in Helsreach, now he does not, but instead for some reason adds more attacks on a roll of 6.)

 

Do you feel that it would be cool if the rules for ‘generic’ characters were more inspiring and would encourage players to be more creative and field their own heroes, instead of those pre-made by GW. Or are you more happy with having the possibility to field your favourite characters from the universe instead of Captain Noname and Warboss Justsomeork?

 

A problem with my post here is that it mixes game mechanics with the narrative and flattens different attitudes to gaming to a mixed approach (like power/tournament gaming with casual/narrative gaming), but I feel it is still somewhat relevant. Maybe it’ll at least mark a beginning of an interesting discussion.

 

In the end, it's all up to us what we do with our armies and what arrangements will we make with our opponents. However, considering that this is a game with hobby aspects (modelling, fluff), I feel it is not a stretch to ask for rules that at least support (although 'reward' would be better) players' creativity.

[Shockmaster]

I don't personally have a problem with an opponent always using a special character in their army if they love that character & it fits the army, I also have never understood the argument that it is silly a special character being at every skirmish, as I have always played with the mindset that the battle we are directly playing is a small part of a much larger battle going on around the table, we just happen to be playing the part that has that character fighting in it.

 

I do think it would be cool if GW did one day provide us with rules to build our own special characters with lots of specific rules to choose from but if you play in a competitive gaming scene it would not create more variety other then the name you have given your character, as people would soon work out the best few rules to buy & everyone who prefers that style of 40k would just use those.

[Adeptus]

I really miss the old days where special characters were 'by permission only' and were almost universally frowned upon.

[Ishagu]

I love the special characters. They all have such a rich history and lore, it's fun to see them influence battles on the tabletop.

 

Guilliman might be an annoyance to some, but I'd hoped for over a decade that he would one day appear on the tabletop.

 

I can see that the named characters have rule benefits that outweigh those you gain from more generic choices, but you do pay extra points for them. On your point about Calgar, it's safe to assume that with the exception of a few other legendary Chapter Masters, he probably IS a superior tactician. His command point bonus represents his mastery over a battlefield whilst other chapters masters who have the same re-roll aura will have other bonuses more in line with their war focus.

[Brother_Gneecapper]

Instead of VDR rules they should make CDR (character design rules). Maybe if VDR is successful they will, would be a very immersive and RPGish element to the game. Save some of the strongest buffs for the special characters maybe but then everyone could create their own custom war hero and would promote kitbashing which is good for the hobby IMO.

 

Primaris look good but having watched a few Primaris vs Primaris games get played there is almost no variety to the straight off the sprue so promoting kitbashing would help bring some of that missing character back to the army.

[Ishagu]

CDR is something I can definitely get behind!

 

Take it one up and have one for create a Primarch too!

[Eddie Orlock]

... I can’t shake the feeling that the importance of unique characters takes something away from the game, as well as players’ experience/immersion. ...

I've got a very long history of being on record that 'Special Crutch' proliferation diminishes the hobby in a variety of minor, but noticeable, ways.

 

It is one of the chief things I held against Warmachine when it first came out. There was really no way to play 'generic dudes'.

[Ishagu]

But you absolutely can play 40k with generic guys at the highest level, at least.

[Timur]

Thanks for your thoughts.  I'm mostly in agreement with you here.  I'll make some observations though.

 

I play IH's.  Yeah we got .  However if you want to spam dreads, (I do!), they can shine this edition w/ dreadnought general buff in 8th.

The grandpappy UM bubble is an obvious design choice.  Honestly the ppl. I play have not figured out how to play UM re-roll bubble well yet, since I've run up a huge W/R against this list type.  For now.   I can see it becoming strong in tourney hands down the road.

 

RG CT's are fine.  Actually makes a good gunline which is funny to me.  BT CT's look promising for drop or assault armies (though age old issue of cost of marine in aslt. SM armies that aren't beserkers).  I dunno about WS.  I'm gunna try a det. of WS at some point, but if we add S before modifiers Khan looks strong w/ vanguard and TH's.  IF's got shafted.  I'm sorry brothers.  I really am.

 

So I think there is some strength in non UM CT's.

 

However, I think there is no excuse for GW to not revisit the make your own/choose your CT's for your guys rules from 5th(?) ed.  You should be able to make your hello kitty marines play by whatever published rule-set you want, as long as they are WYSISYG, or no one cares.

Every ruleset for SM's (for example) should be available to your army.  Call them Purple Monkey Dishwasher Marines and play the rules you want.  Or mix n match for later foundings. Switch up you CT's for giggles and variety.

 

I like cool models and all, but the Primarchs belong in 30K.   That's why there is a 30K, and a reason it's popular.  They make loads of $$$ from 30K so I don't even?  Greed in porting Primarchs to 40k?  It makes the fluff completely off the rails.   And the ultra, ultra-ultra, ultimate, uber-ultra, ultima, mega-ultra ultramarines are being written into a complete race of Mary Sue clowns from grimdark romans.

 

There is profit in power creeping games in order to utilize an arms race in special snowflake rules for advantage in a system.   GW has practiced this business model in the past so I expect it now.  FW units are part of that.  This is no different from any other gaming company that reaps high profits, GW is not alone in this practice.  You see it the most in computer gaming (maybe cause cost of production of "models" etc. is smaller digitally).  So expect more Character creep, and unit power creep. 

 

Unfortunately this put's it on the consumer to allow or not whatever units/rules they want, to make for a game they want to play.  It's on organizers of match play to pick and choose to make for even competition. 

 

Bad business practices aside (from a consumer perspective), I have to give GW kudos for making the base rule-set of 8th a lot cleaner.   I thought the system was getting too bloated and was having trouble playing/wanting to play last edition.  Oh and I give them a B or B- on sculpts these days.  I haven't seen more baby carriages and marines stuffed in other marine's yet.  That's a huge improvement over the end of 7th.

[Ranwulf]

Well, special characters keep selling books for BL. I mean, my first 40K book was the Ragnar series, so I'm fond of him. Besides, special characters are in the end, a bunch of rules. If you don't have a very "tight-rule" group, Calgar can definitly be used to represent the mastery of a Space Marine chapter master. 

 

Adding to this, I love the concept of "your dudes", but I find that a game that tries to be balanced will most likely drive away from this prospect because your "specialness" can be hard to balance against another character "specialness". And 40K is a game where things die so easily that it takes away the whole concept of, for instance, Space Marines being these super heroes that fight insumourtable odds when they can die to enough lasguns.

 

Ran

[Schlitzaf]

I don't mind special characters as much as some others but what I dislike more espacially when I started 40K, was that a generic Marshall > Helbrect every day of the week. I like my 'character' as much as the next guy. But special character should be special. Helbrect should march across the field and make his prescence known as the High Marshall of the Black Templars.

 

His model does him no favors in that regard but all that aside. In regards to "Helbrect" being must take dimmish the game or losing our own character, well just convert your own High Marshall.

 

Every High Marshall will use the Sword of the High Marshall anyways, and why wouldn't our chapter master has artificer. The only thing Helbrect has your Chapter Master not is a combi-Melta. But what is an issue is, remember back in C:SM, if you weren't using Lysander or Vulcan you were using a Captain with Storm Shield/Relic Blade.

 

I'd argue the bigger issue is not "special character" everywhere is the mono (viable) load out. Are you angry the Primaris Captain has no kitbash or angry he doesn't have Hammer/Fist access? (Atleast pre-Birthday). I'd load to run a Primaris Marshall with Twin Claw, it's the loadout I ran sense 4th Edition, and never stopped.

 

Sometimes I flirted with Claw/Shield, but TwinClaw always been by standby because those sweet sweet rerolls and extra attack. I tangented, I could just convert a Primaris Captain (I might anyways) with TwinClaw and say it's a MasterCraft PowerSword in games. All I am trying to say.

 

Is Mono-Viable Character Builds are Bad. Not Special Character).

[Jagus Kumkani]

I don't thin using a character regularly is a bad thing. Vulkan He'Stan is attached to my 4th Company Salamanders because he has returned to fight with the original company he commanded before he was the ForgeFather. He also takes them with him on missions involving anything pertaining to Vulkan's artifacts. But this is merely me producing a narrative for him. All in all, its just plain fun to have him in my force permanently. He is a beast on the table top and I laugh when he carves his way through troops to my enemies characters.

[Eddie Orlock]

Is Mono-Viable Character Builds are Bad. Not Special Character).

Special characters are bad not only because they tend to reduce intra-army variability, but they also compromise one of the foundational narrative tenets.

 

That it's a big galaxy and whatever happens you wont be missed.

 

The Galaxy can't feel that narratively large if a legendary ubermensch attends every skirmish. If that was what was desired, we'd all be off playing HeroClix.

[Schlitzaf]

What would have, Special Characters be actively worse then their unnamed equivalent? (hello 4th Edition Helbrect). "Special Characted" bro cannot be everywhere, which is why I dislike how 5th Ed C:SM did Chapter Tactics. But "Special Characters" should be just that special. Like back in 5th Edition, I far less annoyed to see a Shrike or Khan on the opposite side of the table.

 

Then another variation of "Captain Bro with Storm Shield/Relic Blade". Special Characters do not have to be the Special Character (Helbrect beside his Combi-Melta could be easily any BT High Marshall). Like I love making my armies story and creating the Dalthus Crusade. But there are some guys who love emulating the stories of Thaka or Yarrick. Perhaps they have a special love for Space Pope. And they shouldn't be gimped at army construction for taking and using them.

[Kinstryfe]

I've never looked at special characters in a vacuum, where they are the only entity that behaves like that. I look at them like archetypes, of which a named example is given. The Ultramarines 1st company I'm building is set just post heresy so obviously Calgar wouldn't be there, but an Ultramarines chapter master who is a tactical genius with fancy gauntlets is, because it lets me forge my own story while still using the rules as laid out. Likewise, the Black Templars have likely had many heroic chaplains in their history who were a cut above the rest, the Salamanders have likely had many chapter masters who were experts in flame warfare, and so on and so on. So for the most part, special characters are fluffy enough for me to believe that they aren't /that/ unique in a chapter's 10,000 year history. It's not that unbelievable that at some point the Gesundheit 3rd regiment had a heroic officer named Ahnold Austrius who kicked just as much butt as Sly Marbo, after all. CDR, outlining the choice as "Imperial Fists Chapter Master" with customizable equipment and the choice from between a few special rules would be even better, but I'm not too bothered by encountering most characters on the tabletop.

 

I will cede though that TRULY unique entities like Primarchs are hard to justify, which is why Guilliman will likely be the last model I add to my company. There's no amount of plausible backstory to explain why Guilliman is part of every raiding party in the Imperium...

[Lord Marshal]

I used to dislike special characters. There was something odd about having my army take down, or lose, such an important figure. I always preferred it when 'canon' characters were kept to the background.

 

But then I got into Warmahordes, where every army MUST be led by a special character, so my disdain for it has really faded away. 

[Brother_Gneecapper]

I will cede though that TRULY unique entities like Primarchs are hard to justify, which is why Guilliman will likely be the last model I add to my company. There's no amount of plausible backstory to explain why Guilliman is part of every raiding party in the Imperium...

 

 

Based on Dark Imperium fluff, he may be

 

Being a long time Black Templar, I have no problem fielding a special character since the Emperor's Champion has always been at the core of my army. It does feel a bit odd to have Helbrecht taking the field so much but it sort of fits how I painted my army. Back when I was a kid I had alot of trouble painting the white part of the shoulder pads smoothly and so most of my Templar feature a sword brethren color scheme. Rather than redo them I have decided my "Crusade" is the High Marshall's House or effectively the 1st company which also fits since I do not have any scouts that survived my 10 year hiatus from the hobby. My head cannon is the sword brethren work with initiates much in the same way the iniates work with Neophytes and then the Neophytes are not present in this sect of the chapter.

[Lexington]

I don't mind Special/Unique characters as a rule. Back when I started 40K, they had their problems in the rules, but they gave nice, small windows into the character of their factions, and provided a basic fictional template for creating your own entries into the wider universe.

 

Things...have definitely changed, however. Take Marneus Calgar, for example. In 2nd Edition, he was simply the Ultramarines' Chapter Master, a basic and loosely-defined exemplar of the Boys in Blue and their unambiguous embrace of the vanilla. Since then, he's become the Imperium's greatest tactician, a commander with a list of victories miles wide, and a superhuman man-tank who personally gets involved in boxing matches with load-bearing Avatars. He's at the center of almost everything Ultramarines anymore (including their Successors and, infamously, beyond...), or at least he was until Robby G. came back and became the fulcrum upon which the entire setting revolved.

 

This isn't a unique story, either. Most of the game's armies and factions have begun to focus more and more on the actions and blunt personality templates of their defining Special Characters. From Dante and Grimnar to Ghazghkull Thraka, the Swarmlord and the Stormlord to Kairos Fateweaver and Skarbrand, you've seen these characters (conveniently cast in plastic and boxed for easy shelving...) become the primary element of their particular faction to the point that the rest of the army seems like a faceless extension of their will and personal goals, rather than, well, armies, those things with real organization and objectives and duties that go beyond their leaders. That idea hasn't done very well for the setting for all kinds of reasons, and the addition of Primarchs to the 41st Millenium has jacked those problems up by an order of magnitude.

[Scribe]

Lex, please. We can only input so much truth into our souls on a given day.

[D3L]

I'd still refuse to play people with special characters, exception being narrative HH campaigns, even then it's more fun to have a build you're own praetor, but 41k? nae this ain't warmahordes

[Calyptra]

I categorically dislike special characters, and wish they were not in the game.

 

In my own armies, why would I ever want to play with one of those characters when I can make my own? I can make them look however I want and write whatever background I like. No special character will ever be that compelling or personal. I think making your army your own with its own unique history and characters is a tremendously important part of the hobby, so whenever I encounter an army built around special characters instead it's a bit of a disappointment.

 

The other reason is, on a narrative level, special characters invalidate the story of every game they're in. No matter how many times I reduce Guilliman to a cinder with massed dark lance fire or drag him screaming back to Commorragh, he's just going to be back in the next book saving the Imperium again. Without special characters I can create a narrative that exists uncontradicted within the setting. With them, no story we create as players can matter or last, and the next GW publication will return to life all the special characters we slew, and undo all the stories from those games.

 

I don't care about Calgar and you don't care about Calgar. I do care about your Brother Captain who you gave a name and history and unique model to, because you've given me a reason to, and because you care about him.

 

I'm still gonna drag him screaming back to Commorragh. But I care.

[the jeske]

I love the special characters. They all have such a rich history and lore, it's fun to see them influence battles on the tabletop.

 

Guilliman might be an annoyance to some, but I'd hoped for over a decade that he would one day appear on the tabletop.

 

I can see that the named characters have rule benefits that outweigh those you gain from more generic choices, but you do pay extra points for them. On your point about Calgar, it's safe to assume that with the exception of a few other legendary Chapter Masters, he probably IS a superior tactician. His command point bonus represents his mastery over a battlefield whilst other chapters masters who have the same re-roll aura will have other bonuses more in line with their war focus.

Am not sure about the paying part, aside for times when a faction just didn't have a non special HQ to make a legal army, specials were generaly under costed. Plus often their special rules were impossible to assign a points value.  Also the problems I have with specials is this. They can have all the rules GW wants them to have, no problem there, but all factions should have them. Something like smurfs having a bilion of dudes to pick from and AL having 0, should not happen. Puting edtion changing abilities on specials only, when most factions have little to no specials HQs is another thing I hate. I don't mind, from a game mechanic point of view, being to forced in to a vulkan or khan list, back in the past, but it should not be so that only a few factions are made to actualy work in a given edition.

 

 

 

From a GW point of view, it makes sense to cram as many specials as possible. Little, if any, investment over normal dudes, but the return is much higher, if you make it so that people have to buy those primarchs/knights/khans/etc.

[Frater Cornelius]

Personally, I dislike playing them, because I prefer doing my own thing within the setting. However, they are usually so powerful, that not running them is literally shooting yourself. In a competitive meta such as here (by choice, mind you, so I have no right to complain), I tend to use them a lot to keep up. My biggest issue is that they limit design space. Look at Guilliman and tell, why a competitive list wouldn't include this guy. Every list will play the same boring shooting fest. More customization means more playstyles within a faction and overtuned characters (read: most of them) really hamstring that.

[apologist]

The first named characters were just that; personalities built using the standard models and rules – Pedro Cantor, Captain Tycho, Ghazghkull Thraka (then a character generated using the random tables from 'Ere we Go) etc. The only thing that distinguished them was their names.  The first special characters – i.e. those that had rules were Commissar Yarrick and Ghazghkull Thraka. These versions of the characters had unique wargear and special abilities, plus dedicated models. Since then, we've seen dozens of special characters.

 

I vaguely recall a Jervis Johnson article around the time of the Yarrick/Ghazghkull release, in which it explained that these were characters intended for a specific campaign (Armageddon). It was explained that you could of course use them for general gaming, but the idea was to use them to refight the battles described in the months afterwards.

 

This was akin to traditional historical wargaming in which it's expected that you're given a set 'scenario' list. This style of gaming was doubtless familiar to the studio team at the time, but I suspect that even then most 40k players had only played 40k, and were more used to the more sports-like 'even teams/points' approach of wargaming.

 

At root, I think that disjunct in intention* and use is what has soured a lot of people to special characters. 

 

*Well, at least my perceived intention – please bear that proviso in mind as you read!

 

+++

 

The good

What's good about the studio characters? Well, at best, they provide archetypes. If you don't know much about a faction, they provide an easily-understood 'way in': Ragnar Blackmane, Logan Grimnar and Lukas the Trickster are all different archetypes that show different angles of the Space Wolves, for example. They're thinly-veiled 40k versions of Thor, Odin and Loki, who are in themselves archetypes: the flawed but straightforward hero, the canny and wise ruler, and the clever outsider. These help to throw a bit of light on apparently one-dimensional armies and show that there's a bit more depth than the obvious. 

 

They also provide exemplars: Eldrad Ulthuan is a Farseer 'turned up to 11'. Khârn the Betrayer is the most berserk berserker. Both are simply the logical ends of a particular theme. If a player likes a particular type of unit, including these characters lets them really overload the theme.

 

Thirdly, they allow the studio to create characters that hold a mirror up to the main faction and offer players a different way of playing or thinking about the army. Compare Commander Shadowsun with Commander Farsight. The former is an examplar of the Tau (her 'thing' being the best Stealthsuit), the latter is a renegade. His special sword aside, he's essentially just a normal commander, but his existence expands the story by positing interesting questions for players to explore. The Catachan special characters Iron Arm Straken and Sly Marbo went a long way to making a shooty, tank-reliant army into a (fairly) decent infantry force, offering a new way to play.

 

 

The bad

It's not all good. As a couple of posters above have pointed out, having the same small cast of characters appearing in most of the battles and events has the unfortunate effect of making the galaxy seem small, or parochial.

 

Secondly, there's been a lot of 'heroic inflation'. While the original special characters were, by-and-large, similar to what you could build yourself, some later special characters were simply better than what you could make yourself – offering an in-game advantage. Why take a Farseer when you could take Eldrad? Why take a sorceror when you could take Ahriman? Why would you be interested in a character like Snikrot when you could change the galaxy with a star god or a warp-roaming master of the Grey Knights?

 

By inflating the power – both in game terms and in their ability to make meaningful changes on the setting – other characters appear lessened: Abaddon was a terrifying character (in game and background terms) when he emerged, but subsequent releases left him looking (unfairly) ineffectual. Fourth/fifth edition saw too many 'greatest psykers' in the galaxy for such claims to be meaningful. Rules escalation meant that every combat character was hugely more effective than the standard commanders you could build, every psyker fourth (or fifth!) level.

 

This is not so bad when the character is compelling or interesting, but a lot of the worst-offending exemplars (as defined above) such as Kaldor Draigo or Captain Sicarius – have the unfortunate effect of being fairly 'uncharismatic'. We're told they're heroic/villainous, but they lack the character flaws and interest that stops them being game mechanics and makes them into personalities that inspire stories and exploration.

 

Worse, some characters have a nagging sense of being created following rules mechanics (i.e. 'we need a character that makes the army function like this, and one that makes them function like this'), or a sense of completeness (i.e. 'we'd better make a White Scar character', 'we haven't got a Nurgle one yet', 'the sales team want the faceless tyranids to have some'), rather than an inspired story.

 

 

So what?

The best special characters – in my opinion – emerge naturally from a compelling story. Captain Tycho's probably the best example of this. A bog-standard figure that developed organically. Beginning as a cool (though standard) model, events that happened in-game (being killed by an ork psychic attack) were built in to a set of rules that incorporated that – hatred of orks – and a story that explained what happened next.

 

The specific character model of Tycho, when it appeared, was an affectionate update of the original that reflected the story. In an era of the game when close combat was king and most characters were loaded up with swords and pistols, Tycho was unusual in having a basic weapon (albeit a combi-weapon). This was a result of the source model (and Andy Chambers running out of points in the battle report!) 

 

Contrast Tycho with Kaldor Draigo. I'm sure there are some players who think he's a cool character, but it's fair to say that he's a bit of a lightning rod for criticism of special characters in general; representing the worst aspects of being an exemplar without having a particularly compelling story. 

 

With that said, GW's aim is to sell models. That's not a criticism, but bearing it in mind helps me understand why the 'studio cast' turn up everywhere – and for all my criticisms of Draigo as a character, he's a cool model, and I'm sure he'd be as enjoyable to paint as Tycho.

 

 

My thoughts

So, what conclusion does that long and rambling diatribe lead to? Three things:

 

At best, special characters offer a lot, and expand the game. 

 

At worst, special characters overshadow both the background and the mechanical aspects of the game.

 

Thirdly, the existence of special characters has contributed to a more general movement away from explorative, imagination-led style of playing; and towards a more sports-like competitive game. 

 

Rather than exploring the difficulties and challenges that real-world generals and commanders faced, we default to rather soulless pitched battle. Very few of the famous battles of history, such as Thermopylae, Waterloo, Cannae, Stalingrad etc., were fair or balanced, but that very fact makes them more likely to inspire great stories – just look at the films and books those I've listed have inspired.

 

This third point is perhaps my biggest regret. On a personal level, I'd dearly love to play more scenario-led stuff – deliberately unbalanced, explorative and cooperative; but there's a real entrenched idea of balance as king in 40k, and the idea of moving away from equal points matches just hasn't picked up any traction with my gaming group. Again, that's not a criticism; having grown up with match-style play, I'm as clueless as anyone as to where to start creating fun unbalanced scenarios, rather than turgid massacres!

 

In closing, it's also worth mentioning that the apparent universality of the studio characters is one of familiarity. We all know who the Avatar of Khaine is, but names like Kaptin Nuzzgrond, Terentius Dresden, Commander Starblade or Snazgutz the Corpulent– all characters with a decade or more of backstory and gaming and familair in our group – won't mean anything to the vast majority of people. That unfamiliarity means that there's naturally less discussion about characters known to a small group than the broader reach of the studio cast.

[Sete]

I like SC. But in the BT case you are almost forced to take your IC to make a decent Choopy list because of the buff they provide due to a lackluster CT.

 

But overall SC are awesome for DiY chapters or narrative.