Are Unique Characters 'Good' for the Hobby?

[Volt]

 

I say can all special characters, and instead completely overhaul the Special Character datasheets into a build-a-character system where everything is points/power buy. Instead of just selecting Marneus Calgar, you build a Chapter Master with a loadout similar to his fluff, buy special rules you believe fit him well for the points level you're playing at, and just field your old Calgar model. There's no need to give special characters beyond the likes of Primarchs or Phoenix Lords their own datasheet when virtually all special characters in 40k are incredibly cookie-cutter variants over some default. Calgar, Azrael, Dante, etc are all just Chapter Masters +1. Just like Eldrad is an Eldar Farseer +1 or Ghazghkull is just an Ork Warboss +1 for all intents and purposes. Not only does this allow you to tailor a special character to certain levels and select a build that you like, but it also allows homebrews to exist on a level playing field while also hamstringing the ridiculously OP special characters.

 

Plus it allows GW to reduce the amount of pages in a rulebook, which in a sane world would mean a price reduction in the Codex. 

 

Seems like kind of an arbitrary cut off point. If the argument was that Primarchs and Phoenix Lords are too distinguishable to be made generic customizable units, the same can be said of famous figures like Creed, Calgar, or Dante, at least in terms of fluff. I think it might even be worthwhile to say that things like Primarchs and Phoenix Lords are way too powerful and legendary and shouldn't be playable at all outside Apocalypse or narrative campaigns only. Phoenix Lords aren't even Lords of War, whereas Calgar and even Gabriel Seth were apparently notable enough to be even higher than HQ.

 

Chapter Masters are more generic along with Ork Warbosses, Farseers, Greater Daemons, etc is that they're ultimately upgrades of a default. Units like Phoenix Lords and Primarchs are the exception to the norm so they're the only thing I don't know how you could fit into the system. But all these special characters are ultimately unnecessary clutter when they could be easily built from a completely custom and open character builder, including tiers even for what special rules you can include at what point/power levels for maximum balance. By this you not only give the players far more options to customize their armies, but also make balancing easy as you can tweak individual things to increase/decrease the costs of certain abilities/wargear or nerf/buff their powers.

[Silas7]

I agree that some measure of characterization is necessary. Take Primaris, for example. They are bland as it is, without interesting special rules, but they also lack cool named characters, making it a massive snore fest.

 

Not true, every single captain, chaplain, apothecary, librarian, techmarine, lieutenant and ancient are special characters waiting to be made!

 

One of those models will do something awesome on the table that you'll remember for years and when that happens a new special character is born, begging for a name and a reason to fight the way he does and the wargear he takes. Why he uses a grav-pistol over a combi or how after events transpired came to be wielding a relic of the chapter. You can mold this new personality to explain why your army is composed of the types of squads and tactics it favors.

 

All of these things are part of the reason to start a successor chapter, where the lines are blurry and nothing is set in stone.

 

GWs special characters shouldn't have more crunch than the rest of 'em.

[Volt]

 

I agree that some measure of characterization is necessary. Take Primaris, for example. They are bland as it is, without interesting special rules, but they also lack cool named characters, making it a massive snore fest.

 

Not true, every single captain, chaplain, apothecary, librarian, techmarine, lieutenant and ancient are special characters waiting to be made!

 

One of those models will do something awesome on the table that you'll remember for years and when that happens a new special character is born, begging for a name and a reason to fight the way he does and the wargear he takes. Why he uses a grav-pistol over a combi or how after events transpired came to be wielding a relic of the chapter. You can mold this new personality to explain why your army is composed of the types of squads and tactics it favors.

 

All of these things are part of the reason to start a successor chapter, where the lines are blurry and nothing is set in stone.

 

GWs special characters shouldn't have more crunch than the rest of 'em.

 

Also what makes Primaris Marines trash in my opinion is their lack of options. Frankly I don't give a rat's arse about characters. Yeah they're cool. But often it's silly to have them on the table according to their fluff or they're taken just because they are objectively superior to everything else. What makes or breaks an entire army is customization, and it's probably why Marines are so friggin population- their hallmark is the sheer amount of customization in all their armies from Space Wolves to Chaos. What customization is there however with Primaris HQ's? A power sword or a stinking boltgun. 

 

That's not how you build an attractive HQ model to be fielded in an army, that's how you make a monopose paperweight that babysits devastators/hellblasters. The whole point of warlords in 40k is that they are supposed to be you on the table, and thus are fully customizable with virtually every item in the faction's wargear.

[DuskRaider]

Unique characters add an historical feel to the game and can be great for some narrative play, like Horus Heresy, Badab War... whatever well known campaign from the lore. However, the thing is you don't NEED to use them. The thing about them is, while they usually have great abilities and stats (and they should, they're historical figures and great warriors), they're obviously also pigeon-holed into whatever it is they do. They usually have a specific Warlord Trait and they cannot be customized as you'd like. That's where generic HQs come in, and with many you can make them almost as good as the unique characters, sometimes better in some aspects.

 

This is what seperates 40K from, say, Warmachines or Hordes where you HAVE to take a named character. There's no generic base HQ from which to build off of. That's kind of why I got sick of those games.

[Bjorn Firewalker]

Also what makes Primaris Marines trash in my opinion is their lack of options. Frankly I don't give a rat's arse about characters. Yeah they're cool. But often it's silly to have them on the table according to their fluff or they're taken just because they are objectively superior to everything else. What makes or breaks an entire army is customization, and it's probably why Marines are so friggin population- their hallmark is the sheer amount of customization in all their armies from Space Wolves to Chaos. What customization is there however with Primaris HQ's? A power sword or a stinking boltgun.

 

That's not how you build an attractive HQ model to be fielded in an army, that's how you make a monopose paperweight that babysits devastators/hellblasters. The whole point of warlords in 40k is that they are supposed to be you on the table, and thus are fully customizable with virtually every item in the faction's wargear.

Well said. Clearly, we're not the only people to wish Games Workshop will release a "Create your own Special Character!" guide, with details like the increase in Points value a Character would receive if, for example, I want to give a Space Marine Captain Strength 5 instead of Strength 4.

[Sete]

I agree that your warlord is like your RPG character.

It's what makes the game fun, the stories you create around them.

 

For instance, I'm interested on Primaris, and my DiY Chapter Grey Talons (shameless bump) could use them. But I like to equip my warlord with a relic blade (broadsword) and a bolt pistol. Simple. Super simple. And I don't even have that option. :/

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

I enjoy that take too. Especially when coming up with a backstory and making a really cool model for your HQ out of dozens of different spare parts.

 

But I also enjoy playing established characters. I'm sure you guys have played video games that you enjoyed even though you couldn't make your own character.

[graysparrow]

I agree that your warlord is like your RPG character.

It's what makes the game fun, the stories you create around them.

I wish I could make my warlord like I do an RPG character!  To me, half of the fun of RPG's is making the character.  Juggling attributes into different combinations, trying to squeeze every ounce out of a limited budget for armor and weapons...or as an RPG player friend of mine once put it, 'all that accounting ****!'. 

 

Which is why I kinda hate special characters.  I really do wish special characters were 'by opponent's permission' again. In my opinion special characters take the fun out of choosing an HQ, all that 'accounting ***'.  They also, in my opinion, take the fun out of fighting an enemy HQ as well.  

 

What I mean by that, is that everyone knows what special characters there are.  Everyone knows which one's are 'the best', and everyone knows that X-army either will typically take Y-character...or will always take Z-character.    So everyone brings specific counters to those specific characters in their armies, because fighting enemy HQ's is predictable with special characters. 

 

With making your own HQ's though, your opponent can't predict what you'll bring, and won't know until they face you on the tabletop. Will it be a jetpack and combi-melta character for tank hunting?  Will it be a biker and power weapon character for assaults?  Or will it be a terminator armor shooty monster acting as a central hardpoint that shapes the movement of both sides? 

 

With special characters, those questions are already answered and accounted for.  You face army after army with the same HQ, that makes the same impact, and has the same counters.  Special characters, in my opinion, make the game boring. 

 

Sign me up for the 'With Opponent's Permission again' and the 'Character Design Rules' petitions.  :)

[Schlitzaf]

So....honest question for everyone. Sense I am appearing the only one of this mind. How Special Character > Generic b/c limit of Modeling opportunities (sense as mentioned by others, Special Characters can easily be your own characters). If we simply return to the days of Relic/Shield Captain of 5th or Hammer/Shield CM of 6th-7th?

 

Atleast with SC being viable and useful choices, you don't see the same essentially 1-2 HQ Models in every Marine Army ever. Sense BT will use Helbrect, Raven Shrike, UM Gulliman/Calgar etc. instead of some prior editions where every Marine army was Captain w/ (Relic or Hammer)&Shield.

 

If SC are viable but not necessary strictly surperior than their Vanilla Equivalent is what we should be wanting. (Helbrect for example is argueably better than most Marshalls than BT could take. But a BT Marshall with Teeth of Terra and CombiMelta is 93 points (and 3 Command if CM Upgrade) is 77 points less than Helbrect and has better Melee).

 

Helbrect is paying for StR Buff, and his 2+ Armor save. Shrike who grant rerolls charge is 150. If memory serves. A Captain and Pack with TwinClaw is 105. So you are paying essentially 45 Points for Reroll Charges and cool Claws. (And given from Khornate Icons charge rerolls are worth 10points. Shrike needs to buff 2-3 squad and is paging 15-20 points for his cool claws).

 

Pedro is 170 a Captain with Fist and CoolBolter is about 97-100ish 3 Command Points. So you are paying 70 (and no command points) for his +1 Attack, Rerolls and having Cool Weapons. (Which you can get something atleast as good as his cool Bolter with Primarch's Wrath or you can take the Crimson Fist Relic).

 

I could go down the list but SC atleast in terms of CM are paying what looks like 20-30ish points for rerolls and depending on the model 15-30 points for the rule. And then 10-20ish Points for Cool Weapon.

 

And on average 60-70 points are saved bar for Shrike where only 45 is saved. (I didn't do the Math for Calgar, Dante, and Logan but I imagine it won't turn out that terribly different)

 

Through as an aside Seth in particular if you equated Hammer to his Eviscerator is 20 points more than an equivalent Captain. Through his Weapon is worse and has one of the least reliable CM auras. Needing on average 3-4 units for it to trigger. You are essentially saving 20-30 points if it does (3 Command Point fight again strategem). Because you are essentially only paying for the CM upgrade on Seth he is one of the few examples where he is argueably better than a generic equivalent (he boils down to what you value more, Command Points or Points, Hammer vs Cool Chain).

 

He is honestly very similar to Shrike where Seth and Shrike are very much "Command or Real Points". Special Characters (Chapter Master) are not at fault for being better than a generic Captain (sense you are essentially giving up an entire squad to use them bar Seth and Shrike. Instead you are likely skimping on cool weapons elsewhere).

 

Gulliman is what Eldrad was in 4th-5th, Whip Princes in 4th-5th, and X/Shield Captains were in the days of 5th-7th Edition or Khan was during 6th-7th. A unit that is too hard to kill and/or is force multiplier to absurd degrees that no other unit. In one sense in a BT List during 4th-5th, an Emperor's Champion was the same thing.

 

I bet even if he wasn't mandatory, not a single Templar wouldn't have spent the 140 points to bring him and his army wide CC Rerolls. And if the army was competitive the moaning about BT PE would have been unreal. I skipped a lot of 6th-7th so I bet there are examples folks more informed can point out.

 

To answer the question; Special Characters are fine. Even I never use him, if I have Helbrect on the BattleField I want my High Marshall to feel like my High Marshall not a worse version of my TwinClaw Marshall Schlitzaf Iuris (which in his 4th Ed Incarnation he certainly did). Sense he is my High Marshall and should be able to live up to the presence he should inspire from his fellow Templars.

[Volt]

Unique characters add an historical feel to the game and can be great for some narrative play, like Horus Heresy, Badab War... whatever well known campaign from the lore. However, the thing is you don't NEED to use them. The thing about them is, while they usually have great abilities and stats (and they should, they're historical figures and great warriors), they're obviously also pigeon-holed into whatever it is they do. They usually have a specific Warlord Trait and they cannot be customized as you'd like. That's where generic HQs come in, and with many you can make them almost as good as the unique characters, sometimes better in some aspects.

 

This is what seperates 40K from, say, Warmachines or Hordes where you HAVE to take a named character. There's no generic base HQ from which to build off of. That's kind of why I got sick of those games.

I'm sorry but what? Named characters in 40k are ridiculously powerful compared to the stock ones. Only by min-maxing the stats to create an absolute cheeselord and picking chapters to reflect that, and not your chapter's fluff can you get something able to go toe-to-toe with characters. Forge World characters are by and large the worst offenders where even obscure guys like the Executioner's Chaplain can potentially kill a generic HQ in 2 hits but even Azrael, Dante, Calgar, etc are fairly disgusting compared to their generic cousins. The only real exception is a Salamanders Chaplain Dreadnought taking the mantle for ridiculous toughness or the armor indomitus for a 2+. That and the buffs characters provide often make them completely superior to generic lords. The only reason to take generic guys is the points cost(s). And that needs to end.

 

Plus y'know, reducing the amount of redundant datasheets is good. We don't need 10 pages of characters when all of that could be consolidated down to a single datasheet for maximum efficiency and reducing Codex size.

[Heru]

I only really like Unique Characters for count-as. SM Codex though became a pain for it when they assigned particular Chapter rules to each character. You stopped being able to have a Telion count-as running in the same force as a Shrike count-as.

[the jeske]

well I don't mind stuff being powerful. Specially if it opens up a new game style. And while I would love for custom HQ building to be a thing, I do not think it is the future as far as GW stuff goes. What I hate though is + something stuff, and HQs that are tailored for an edition to make them better then anything else. That is something I hate, and I think it makes people resent either their own or other people armies.

[Schlitzaf]

Volt you realize anyone can take a ThunderHammer and two hits (and wounds from Hammer) will two shot any/most generic characters. Named Chapter Masters beside Draigo even it worse sense they normally only have a 4+.

 

And it's not like Generics cannot get Teeth of Terra, Relic Blade, Burning Sword, Thunder Hammer, and Chapter Specific Relics like Irons Hand cool Ax, that can eat a named CM for breakfast. For sake of example.

 

A humble Captain with Teeth of Terra vs Helbrect in Melee. I'll let Helbrect charge, he gets 2 extra attacks. Assuming 6 hit. Wounds 4 times. Gen Mars falls 2.5. Hel does 4 wounds. Captain on crackbact. Will also have 6 Attacks. Hits all 6. Wound 4. Helbrect fails 2 left a 2 wound. My turn. Captain 6 hits. 4 wounds. Helbrect dies.

 

If Helbrect is charged it's even worse bar lucky overwatch Melta. Pedro vs a Captain with Cool Hammer. Pedro hits 4 times ish. Wounds 4 times. Captain fails 2 saves. Pedro does 4 damages Captain swings back. Hits 3ish times. Wounds 3 times. If Pedro fails two he dies.

 

....um what? Now if you are referring to there auras. Yes. But you are playing normally a the price of a full squad for that aura. Making an elite army (marines) even more elite.

[the jeske]

ok, why do you compare then normal HQs to bad hq of a sub faction that has not won a big event in years[and maybe even decades]? Compare the utility of lets cpt/chapters to something like G-man. who is more point efficient, both can and are used re-roll bots, bt G-man also gives up kill the warlord harder, and is way better then at being a counter unit, and a re-rolls shoting army does need its counter units. What is worse is that the named dudes do not get worse with fewer or huge points[maybe aside for those moments when people start spaming FW stuff at 2500pts and more, but that is a separate can of worms]. They dominate small point games[and can be legally taken in them. Remember when specials had "can be used only in X point games?"] and because of target saturation stay as powerful or get even more powerful in higher point games.

[Silas7]

 And while I would love for custom HQ building to be a thing, I do not think it is the future as far as GW stuff goes. 

 

With the way GW is pumping out FAQ's and point PDF updates, they could totally drop a 'build-a-character' PDF and just say it's only useable in narrative and open play. I wouldn't be surprised if the vehicle design rules are popular enough that this couldn't be done as well.

[Volt]

Volt you realize anyone can take a ThunderHammer and two hits (and wounds from Hammer) will two shot any/most generic characters. Named Chapter Masters beside Draigo even it worse sense they normally only have a 4+.

 

And it's not like Generics cannot get Teeth of Terra, Relic Blade, Burning Sword, Thunder Hammer, and Chapter Specific Relics like Irons Hand cool Ax, that can eat a named CM for breakfast. For sake of example.

 

A humble Captain with Teeth of Terra vs Helbrect in Melee. I'll let Helbrect charge, he gets 2 extra attacks. Assuming 6 hit. Wounds 4 times. Gen Mars falls 2.5. Hel does 4 wounds. Captain on crackbact. Will also have 6 Attacks. Hits all 6. Wound 4. Helbrect fails 2 left a 2 wound. My turn. Captain 6 hits. 4 wounds. Helbrect dies.

 

If Helbrect is charged it's even worse bar lucky overwatch Melta. Pedro vs a Captain with Cool Hammer. Pedro hits 4 times ish. Wounds 4 times. Captain fails 2 saves. Pedro does 4 damages Captain swings back. Hits 3ish times. Wounds 3 times. If Pedro fails two he dies.

 

....um what? Now if you are referring to there auras. Yes. But you are playing normally a the price of a full squad for that aura. Making an elite army (marines) even more elite.

The Thunder Hammer has a -1 to hit. The Executioner's Chapter Master has a fiendish power axe that hits at weapon skill and will kill very swiftly. And I'm talking more about the good characters. Obviously characters like Helbrecht or Shrike go squish against most things, they aren't and never have been terribly effective HQ's. The big characters tend to just be ridiculous compared to generics with super special relics and super special rules. The game would be better off if that system was axed, and instead it was all point-buy with GW selling the character models simply if you buy an HQ with the same loadout or if you just proxy. The models are fine but the rules are redundant and don't bring much to the game at all.

[Eddie Orlock]

... it's not like Generics cannot get Teeth of Terra, Relic Blade, Burning Sword, Thunder Hammer, and Chapter Specific Relics like Irons Hand cool Ax, ...

I'll give you the hammer and the relic blade plainly, but you can't factor in the Generic having the relic without factoring in an opportunity cost elsewhere on the field. A sidekick Lieutenant with the teeth of terra running about somewhere is meaningful.

[Schlitzaf]

Than he should claim "Gulliman is overpowered and unbeatable by Normal Generic HQ." G-Man is also 300 some points which I hope a single 100 point character will lose too. It's like saying "I dislike Apples. All Fruit is Bad." Is a total non secutor.

 

Also a Captain with Hammer hits just as well as he did in previous edition. Furthermore Kane is 190 points and any of my previous examples could potentially kill him. Let me show you. 5 Attack. 5 hits. 3 wounds. I fail 1. I hit back I kill you. Because on my turn I strike first.

 

So your just wrong. The one who wins this combat is the one who doesn't charge. Or you have to spend 2 command points.

[Volt]

Than he should claim "Gulliman is overpowered and unbeatable by Normal Generic HQ." G-Man is also 300 some points which I hope a single 100 point character will lose too. It's like saying "I dislike Apples. All Fruit is Bad." Is a total non secutor.

 

Also a Captain with Hammer hits just as well as he did in previous edition. Furthermore Kane is 190 points and any of my previous examples could potentially kill him. Let me show you. 5 Attack. 5 hits. 3 wounds. I fail 1. I hit back I kill you. Because on my turn I strike first.

 

So your just wrong. The one who wins this combat is the one who doesn't charge. Or you have to spend 2 command points.

Except the other characters who aren't OP just act as useless clutter in a Codex that could be consolidated neatly into a point-buy system with no issue.

[Schlitzaf]

So let me be clear about this. SC > Generic and overpowered and ruin the game. But that same generic with Hammer/Relic/Teeth whom can win that same combat vs him. (Depending on who charges). Is useless? And never should be taken.

 

And that you are literally only referring to a small hand full of character and not to all the special characters in the game when you are referring 'overpowered character ruin generic' just a very very small subsection.

 

And you believe if that we go back to 5th-7th where everyone ran a Captain with X/Shield, is better? Then now seeing the lesser used named characters have an actual point and reason to use them over their generic equivalent. Exactly what is the issue with special characters again?

[Volt]

So let me be clear about this. SC > Generic and overpowered and ruin the game. But that same generic with Hammer/Relic/Teeth whom can win that same combat vs him. (Depending on who charges). Is useless? And never should be taken.

 

And that you are literally only referring to a small hand full of character and not to all the special characters in the game when you are referring 'overpowered character ruin generic' just a very very small subsection.

 

And you believe if that we go back to 5th-7th where everyone ran a Captain with X/Shield, is better? Then now seeing the lesser used named characters have an actual point and reason to use them over their generic equivalent. Exactly what is the issue with special characters again?

Did you miss the entire point of the system? The goal at hand is to create an easily adjustable point-buy character building mechanic that can be tweaked on the fly with FAQ's and easily updated, maximizing balance in the game and leveling the playing field for all armies. Storm Shields and Thunder Hammers don't need to be the new meta when you can tweak everything in a consolidated codex entry with a PDF file to be printed off. What such a system would achieve is-

 

1) Eliminate special characters' superiority to generics and kill FW wonkyness by making HQ's the sole dominion of GW for better consistency.

2) Eliminate Codex clutter by reducing the page count of pointless character datasheets, instead condensed into maybe 2-3 pages of pure rules.

3) Allow representation of any character by players being able to tailor an HQ to fit any character in the canon, or their own homebrews. 

4) Allow swift changes to broken lists by adjusting the point/power levels of auras, abilities, wargear, or stat buffs.

 

Nothing is lost and everything is gained. Frankly there is no point in having special characters instead of Build-A-Bear. It's more efficient, wastes less space, and provides the players more freedom of choice without imbalancing the game.

[Schlitzaf]

Because the biggest reason to be in favor of such a system is point 1. Which is resoundingly not true. Special Character are not in any appreciable fashion that much better than their generic equivalent (this edition atleast). With exceptions being something like Gulliman.

 

And honestly I like having SC and more, sense it espacially in 5th Ed C:SM, the fluff profiles for Vulkan etc told me more about the Salamander chapter and I understood better who they were. Then I ever did previously.

[Arkangilos]

I say can all special characters, and instead completely overhaul the Special Character datasheets into a build-a-character system where everything is points/power buy. Instead of just selecting Marneus Calgar, you build a Chapter Master with a loadout similar to his fluff, buy special rules you believe fit him well for the points level you're playing at, and just field your old Calgar model. There's no need to give special characters beyond the likes of Primarchs or Phoenix Lords their own datasheet when virtually all special characters in 40k are incredibly cookie-cutter variants over some default. Calgar, Azrael, Dante, etc are all just Chapter Masters +1. Just like Eldrad is an Eldar Farseer +1 or Ghazghkull is just an Ork Warboss +1 for all intents and purposes. Not only does this allow you to tailor a special character to certain levels and select a build that you like, but it also allows homebrews to exist on a level playing field while also hamstringing the ridiculously OP special characters.

 

Plus it allows GW to reduce the amount of pages in a rulebook, which in a sane world would mean a price reduction in the Codex.

An alternative is a "build your own character" (which I have always wanted) with the named characters as examples.

[Yodhrin]

​I'm not a big fan of SCs in standard gameplay. I think though that the problem is less that modern GW have made them available in standard gameplay, and more that the choices GW have made in rules design and in terms of the relationship between the background and sales sides of things have made them into a more frequent sight on the table than they should be or need to be.

​

​In terms of the rules, the issue is that they keep giving Special Characters things you can't get elsewhere. If you're playing melee-focused BT without Grimaldus your list is sub-optimal, if you're playing Raptors without Issodon your list is sub-optimal, Ultras and Rowboat, etc etc. Whether it's making the SC the only way to enable a specific thematically-appropriate way of playing the army, or giving them aura abilities or gear that are unique or substantially superior to generic alternatives, quite often SC are flat-out superior to the alternatives, and while you can argue that they pay for that additional capacity with a higher points cost(sometimes), when you get up into the 2000pt range which is where a lot of folk seem to game these days then spending a wee bit more to gain a lot of extra utility isn't that big of a deal.

​

​In terms of the backrgound/sales thing, GW have shifted over the years from providing a setting to give the models context and models to let us interact with the setting, to producing a more linear wrestling-style ongoing plot with a "cast" of big-name characters with big-size models to buy. And of course, of course GW would rather sell you a Primarch or something similar at 40, 50, 60+ quid a go than a "normal" character model for 15-20 quid, or worse still allow you to put together a character using leftover parts.

​

​But I really do think it diminishes the IP. In their relentless quest to make 40K more "epic" to sell the ever more "awesome"(in an overwrought Saturday morning cartoon sense) big hero models, they've made it feel far less grand, far smaller in scope and scale than it used to.

[Adeptus]

 

So let me be clear about this. SC > Generic and overpowered and ruin the game. But that same generic with Hammer/Relic/Teeth whom can win that same combat vs him. (Depending on who charges). Is useless? And never should be taken.

 

And that you are literally only referring to a small hand full of character and not to all the special characters in the game when you are referring 'overpowered character ruin generic' just a very very small subsection.

 

And you believe if that we go back to 5th-7th where everyone ran a Captain with X/Shield, is better? Then now seeing the lesser used named characters have an actual point and reason to use them over their generic equivalent. Exactly what is the issue with special characters again?

Did you miss the entire point of the system? The goal at hand is to create an easily adjustable point-buy character building mechanic that can be tweaked on the fly with FAQ's and easily updated, maximizing balance in the game and leveling the playing field for all armies. Storm Shields and Thunder Hammers don't need to be the new meta when you can tweak everything in a consolidated codex entry with a PDF file to be printed off. What such a system would achieve is-

 

1) Eliminate special characters' superiority to generics and kill FW wonkyness by making HQ's the sole dominion of GW for better consistency.

2) Eliminate Codex clutter by reducing the page count of pointless character datasheets, instead condensed into maybe 2-3 pages of pure rules.

3) Allow representation of any character by players being able to tailor an HQ to fit any character in the canon, or their own homebrews. 

4) Allow swift changes to broken lists by adjusting the point/power levels of auras, abilities, wargear, or stat buffs.

 

Nothing is lost and everything is gained. Frankly there is no point in having special characters instead of Build-A-Bear. It's more efficient, wastes less space, and provides the players more freedom of choice without imbalancing the game.

 

Build-a-character relies on GW being able to balance it effectively, which I doubt their ability to do. The system would be quickly analysed to death on the internet, the two or three best builds identified, and then that's all you'd see on the tabletop. And while GW could tweak the points costs to adjust the meta, they'd never actually get it right, they'd just change what builds we consider to be the best.