Are Unique Characters 'Good' for the Hobby?

[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.

Yeah, but you're wrong.

 

I fear Emperor that I must inform you of your nakedness.

[Toxichobbit]

The  'permission only' rule wasn't about denying someone the use of a critical part of their codex that they paid money for, as special characters were not practically mandatory for some armies.

 

With all due respect, it's nothing to do with SCs being critical to an army nor being mandatory for that army to work properly. Only a small percentage of SCs actually are critical to an armies success and even then only at competitive levels. It's about letting people use the models they've invested time and money into.

[Schlitzaf]

Volt you have givens exactly 1 one example. And that example he is double the cost of the equivalent chapter master for other armies. And he isn't overpowered in all fairness. Once again double cost.

 

So do you have another?

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

And I'm just sitting here happy my HQ finally got a 4++.

[D3L]

 

 

The 'permission only' rule wasn't about denying someone the use of a critical part of their codex that they paid money for, as special characters were not practically mandatory for some armies.

With all due respect, it's nothing to do with SCs being critical to an army nor being mandatory for that army to work properly. Only a small percentage of SCs actually are critical to an armies success and even then only at competitive levels. It's about letting people use the models they've invested time and money into.

Surely for a healthy Hobby (back to the topic title), it would be far better for people NOT to follow OR BE ENCOURAGE NOT TO FOLLOW, the marketing hype train and be investing (or encouraged otherwise) in expensive paperweights that people either refuse to play against or think that are unbalanced, thus inadvertently ruinging to "scene" and making the bad consumer feel bad about their spuriously bad purchase.

 

No one enjoys playing against SCs in 8th because they're spectacularly unbalanced or untested.

 

Not only that but the physical investment in time and money for these double sized scale figures has skyrocketed, AND their points cost require a substantial secondary investment (for the new kids) to field them

 

How can any of the above possibly be healthy for the hobby?

[Kassill]

 

 

The 'permission only' rule wasn't about denying someone the use of a critical part of their codex that they paid money for, as special characters were not practically mandatory for some armies.

With all due respect, it's nothing to do with SCs being critical to an army nor being mandatory for that army to work properly. Only a small percentage of SCs actually are critical to an armies success and even then only at competitive levels. It's about letting people use the models they've invested time and money into.

Surely for a healthy Hobby (back to the topic title), it would be far better for people NOT to follow OR BE ENCOURAGE NOT TO FOLLOW, the marketing hype train and be investing (or encouraged otherwise) in expensive paperweights that people either refuse to play against or think that are unbalanced, thus inadvertently ruinging to "scene" and making the bad consumer feel bad about their spuriously bad purchase.

 

No one enjoys playing against SCs in 8th because they're spectacularly unbalanced or untested.

 

Not only that but the physical investment in time and money for these double sized scale figures has skyrocketed, AND their points cost require a substantial secondary investment (for the new kids) to field them

 

How can any of the above possibly be healthy for the hobby?

 

 

Bold sweeping statements like that need to be put into context. 

 

Just the other week I watched two friends throw down a match Blood Angels v. Black Templars. Templar player had Helbrecht, BA player had no SC's. That game was a blast to watch. Helbrecht took a beefy hit early on from a thunder hammer, and died later on just before the game ended to a rando tactical with grav. That's the kind of stuff that people remember. Yeah, Helbrecht killed a high number of dudes, but in the end he bought it by the luck of the die which ultimately led the BA player to win. 

 

I refuse to accept that ALL SC's are unbalanced and that NO one enjoys playing them. 

 

In my example, both players had a blast, and we haven't stopped talking about that game since when we meet up. 

 

 

[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.

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.

Yeah, but you're wrong.

 

I fear Emperor that I must inform you of your nakedness.

 

 

No, but your previous observation was incorrect ESPECIALLY with FW characters. One character does not set the precedent, and yes while some GW characters are also pretty gamey, the majority are not. Most are a slight buff to a couple stats, perhaps an aura of some sort, and are forced to take a Warlord Trait instead of choose their own. They're also more points (with the exception thus far being Typhus compared to the Lord of Contagion which has been corrected in the codex).

[D3L]

 

 

 

The 'permission only' rule wasn't about denying someone the use of a critical part of their codex that they paid money for, as special characters were not practically mandatory for some armies.

With all due respect, it's nothing to do with SCs being critical to an army nor being mandatory for that army to work properly. Only a small percentage of SCs actually are critical to an armies success and even then only at competitive levels. It's about letting people use the models they've invested time and money into.

Surely for a healthy Hobby (back to the topic title), it would be far better for people NOT to follow OR BE ENCOURAGE NOT TO FOLLOW, the marketing hype train and be investing (or encouraged otherwise) in expensive paperweights that people either refuse to play against or think that are unbalanced, thus inadvertently ruinging to "scene" and making the bad consumer feel bad about their spuriously bad purchase.

 

No one enjoys playing against SCs in 8th because they're spectacularly unbalanced or untested.

 

Not only that but the physical investment in time and money for these double sized scale figures has skyrocketed, AND their points cost require a substantial secondary investment (for the new kids) to field them

 

How can any of the above possibly be healthy for the hobby?

 

Bold sweeping statements like that need to be put into context. 

 

Just the other week I watched two friends throw down a match Blood Angels v. Black Templars. Templar player had Helbrecht, BA player had no SC's. That game was a blast to watch. Helbrecht took a beefy hit early on from a thunder hammer, and died later on just before the game ended to a rando tactical with grav. That's the kind of stuff that people remember. Yeah, Helbrecht killed a high number of dudes, but in the end he bought it by the luck of the die which ultimately led the BA player to win. 

 

I refuse to accept that ALL SC's are unbalanced and that NO one enjoys playing them. 

 

In my example, both players had a blast, and we haven't stopped talking about that game since when we meet up. 

 

 

 

one anecdote does not make a summer, or indeed a fit

 

for the case of my statement, I'd point to this thread's existence as proof enough

[Kinstryfe]

I firmly believe

1) A build-a-bear system for characters could definitely work.

2a) It would need to be more tailored and specific than people tend to think, and would likely only be successful if it actually expanded, rather than shrunk, available datasheets. What I mean by this is that I don't think having "Space Marine Chapter Master" would necessarily add enough, and would immediately be analyzed to death. It would still probably need to be balanced to make sure that things don't break when combined with chapter traits, etc. Have a variety of CM abilities that are available for most or all chapters, then a couple extra per chapter to give them enough variety without creating game-killing combos.

2b) Having X datasheets for Chapter Masters (one per supported chapter archetype) would add sheets, but potentially break even when all the existing CMs are factored out.

[Toxichobbit]

Surely for a healthy Hobby (back to the topic title), it would be far better for people NOT to follow OR BE ENCOURAGE NOT TO FOLLOW, the marketing hype train and be investing (or encouraged otherwise) in expensive paperweights that people either refuse to play against or think that are unbalanced, thus inadvertently ruinging to "scene" and making the bad consumer feel bad about their spuriously bad purchase.

 

No one enjoys playing against SCs in 8th because they're spectacularly unbalanced or untested.

 

Not only that but the physical investment in time and money for these double sized scale figures has skyrocketed, AND their points cost require a substantial secondary investment (for the new kids) to field them

 

How can any of the above possibly be healthy for the hobby?

 

 

I'll be polite and call this hyperbole. I'm sure you know full well that it's incorrect, that there are people out there who do enjoy playing against special characters and that some of them are balanced. You also have no idea how tested they were (or do you have inside info the rest of us don't?), GW aren't exactly open with their testing.

 

Furthermore, balance isn't a reason to restrict or indeed dislike SCs, because balance is an issue that supersedes SCs. It's like saying all fruit is bad because you don't like oranges. Balance premeates every model in the game, not just the ones that GW have given unique names to. Following on from that, if we start encouraging people not to follow marketing hype we may as well just tell them not to buy models at all. Quit the hobby and go pick up chess, because any model GW release might turn out to be an expensive paperweight that someone might refuse to play against or think is unbalanced. It's not a problem restricted to SCs. It could be a problem that applies to Primarchs, however this thread isn't specifically about Primarchs, but rather SCs in general.

 

 

one anecdote does not make a summer, or indeed a fit

 

for the case of my statement, I'd point to this thread's existence as proof enough

 

 

Sure, it's one anecdote and not a strong case at all, but all it needs is one anecdote to prove your previous statement wrong. Even though more evidence is needed, at least it's evidence rather than the sensationalism of your previous post, which lets face it, gets us nowhere. This thread's existence isn't proof either, as it shows that people do care about and like SCs enough to discuss it. Unless you're going to claim that every person arguing the case for SCs only ever uses them and never plays against them? You'd be better off starting a poll. It'd only be a small sample size, but at least then you have some evidence to say something more useful like "approximately X% of the player base don't like playing against SCs". That's something we can work with as it gives us an (admitedly inaccurate) idea of how much of the player base really doesn't like SCs.

 

I've still to see a decent argument for why SCs ruin the game. I've seen lots of personal reasons as to why people dislike SCs (some of them very good reasons, some not so good) but as of yet not one bit of evidence that makes it even worth considering restricting players models, never mind actually doing it. Nor have I seen anyone address the issue that some non-SC models are bad for the game.

[Malios]

I don't have a problem with special characters personally: if you want to collect Ultramarines, then I have no problem if you want to feature Calgar in your army because thematically speaking Calgar IS the Ultramarines down to his rules. Just as Kantor IS the Crimson Fists, Shrike IS the Raven Guard, Kharne IS the World Eaters etc.

 

What I do have a problem with personally though... is people using "count as" special characters in their army purely for gaining an advantage from their rules.

 

Don't get me wrong, I won't refuse to play someone who has a "count as" character: I can be empathetical to a degree as to why people do it. A Novamarines player wants his / her army to feel more like a rigid, codex worshipping army so they make a kit-bashed Calgar. But, when its a count as character purely to use a character's special rules to advantage with no actual link to the special character, my eye starts ticking. 8th edition mitigates this somewhat, but its a relatively easy rule to bypass by those who are determined to do it. (my upcoming Angel's Encarmine army for example just has to take the "Blood Angels" key word instead of "Angel's Encarmine" to have access to the special characters. Very few people who weren't Blood Angels fans probably wouldn't know otherwise)

 

But, for context, I'm not a fan of "count as" armies for rules advantage either.

[D3L]

I've still to see a decent argument for why SCs ruin the game. I've seen lots of personal reasons as to why people dislike SCs (some of them very good reasons, some not so good) but as of yet not one bit of evidence that makes it even worth considering restricting players models, never mind actually doing it. Nor have I seen anyone address the issue that some non-SC models are bad for the game.

 

There's been quite a few arguments pointed out in this thread already, from game breaking combos, to small-world setting, to the seemingly anti-custom character building game model

 

No one has addressed the non-sc models being bad for the game line, because that's literally not what this thread is about, unless we're no longer going of thread titles as the topic...

[Shockmaster]

I happily play against special characters while never really using them myself due to the armies I have played over the years lacking a SC that appealed to me, sure I would get bored or frustrated playing against the same handful of under costed SCs if I had to play against them every game but that is why I stopped playing in so called Competitive gaming scenes in my adult life, maybe others should do similar if they find those SC are spoiling their gaming time.

 

The claim that nobody likes playing against SC of any kind is clearly laughable hyperbole, most players don't have a problem with SCs, they have a problem with under costed or over powered SCs in the same way they have a problem with under costed or over powered units in general.

[Ishagu]

I can't wait to fight Mortarion, hoping for craziness on the tabletop :-D

[Grim Dog Studios]

I have no issues with Special Characters myself, but I don't really use them. I like creating fluff/themes for armies revolving around a character of my own making, my Ultramarines are lead by a Centurion called Jay Burgii, a play on my own real life name. 

If I was to have a gripe with special characters, its that they are overpowered compared to regular HQ choices. I understand that Special Characters are meant to represent the best fighters the galaxy has to offer, but it would be nice for my regular Space Marine Captain to go toe to toe with the likes of Khârn etc every once in a while.

 

Special Characters are often big and easily noticeable on the tabletop, a fact that GW utilises as it allows new players and none-players to recognise them and perhaps be brought into the game. Special Characters sell, and as long as they keep selling GW will keep making them!

[Toxichobbit]

 

There's been quite a few arguments pointed out in this thread already, from game breaking combos, to small-world setting, to the seemingly anti-custom character building game model

 

No one has addressed the non-sc models being bad for the game line, because that's literally not what this thread is about, unless we're no longer going of thread titles as the topic...

 

 

We're discussing SCs impact on game balance. Game balance is a large topic, you can't have much meaningful discussion on one facet of it and come to a conclusion like "SCs should be permission only" without considering the game as a whole. I don't get why people are arguing that SCs should be permission only when that's a clumsy, blanket solution to a more delicate problem. That's why I've been saying about non-SC models, because it's not just SCs that are game breaking. Individual models are game breaking, not one entire "class" (for want of a better word) of model. That is, unless people are going to start claiming that all SCs allow game breaking combos?

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that none of the SCs are overpowered. I'm saying that only some of them are and like the rest of the game, overpowered models need to be addressed on a case by case basis, not caught up in a trawler net of restrictions that also affects none overpowered stuff. Balance isn't an argument against SCs, it's an argument against unbalanced models regardless of if they are SC or non-SC.

 

SCs aren't the problem when it comes to custom character building either. SCs have existed since late Rogue Trader alongside some of the most lauded customisation options across several editions. The problem for people who like customising characters is GWs current policy of only allowing options that are available in the kit (Primaris characters being the flagship for this imo), not the existance of SCs, most of whom are 2-3 editions old and predate this one weapon option character nonsense.

 

The small world syndrome (and by extension breaking immersion within games) is the only sensible reasoning I've seen to dislike SCs. It's why I don't like using them, I much prefer to see personalised characters on the table than Guilliman or Calgar. However, that's my personal opinion, my problem to deal with. It's not a reason for SCs to be restricted.

[apologist]

Lots of very interesting discussion here, but I just wanted to pop back in to address this:

 

If I was to have a gripe with special characters, its that they are overpowered compared to regular HQ choices. I understand that Special Characters are meant to represent the best fighters the galaxy has to offer, but it would be nice for my regular Space Marine Captain to go toe to toe with the likes of Khârn etc every once in a while.

 

I think Jay's brought up a very important point in that the special characters that get discussed do tend to be the 'best' in game terms; and that in itself is a bit of a problem. 

 

When the personality and background of the character are secondary to the 'rules heft', then I think that's when the point of having a character is lost – and why it becomes awkward for their non-special equivalents. 

 

+++

To address the opening question of the topic, I think it's unnecessary (and undesirable) for the Studio to make so many characters simply 'Codex choice +1' in rules terms. These examples are, I'd argue, bad for the hobby.

 

The attraction of a character should come from their story and personality before their rules. If that could be done, the awkwardness of count-as would be removed – Malios, for example could make his own characters exactly as he wanted them, rather than (presumably) having to take his Chapter Master with a power axe and death mask.

 

Characters are attractive because they appeal on a charismatic level – 'I admire his/her/its philosophy', 'I want to explore this interesting person's story', or 'This character makes me think a little deeper about the faction'. Their rules, to this approach, are largely irrelevant. In fact, they can be detrimental – I'm sure we all know players who hesitate to take a character because of a perception that they are overpowered or underpowered.

 

 

What makes a character special?

To take the Space Marine Chapter Masters as an example, there's nothing inherently special about the Studio;s named characters. As a number of posters have said already, they could, very easily be accommodated by expanding the armoury, along with a block of colour text and a suggested loadout – Terminator armour, twin master-crafted power fists and a stormbolter, for example; or jump pack, artificer armour, relic axe, inferno pistol and death mask, as a second example.

 

Does it undermine Marneus Calgar of Dante if other Chapter Masters can take the same equipment? I'd say no. There's nothing that makes these exceptional figures inherently more heroic and unique than other, unnamed, Chapter Masters – exceptional figures in their own right. In fact, opening it up allows players to explore historical periods – perhaps when the Ultramarines were led by a figure preferring a bike (or whatever).

 

Of course we might then say that Calgar or Dante deserve some unique special rule to differentiate them; but again this could be incorporated into a selectable choice. The difficulty this would bring is in avoiding the typical 'optimal' builds, which misses the point of having individuals as characters – that's the balancing factor that weighs against a free-for-all library of equipment, skills and rules.

 

 

Where do you draw the line?

It's idiosyncracies and weaknesses that make a character as much as their strengths. Characters like Chaplain Cassius, Sergeant Harker or Varguard Obyron are generally regarded as second-tier in competitiveness stakes; and as a result, we don't hear much about them.

 

However, such characters represent what I think is the best bit of such individuals – something completely different, with no equivalent in the main lists. They are simply an interesting addition. As a result, a player's army is unlikely to revolve around them.

 

This leads on to a second point, which is the personality of the army as whole. GW seems to be moving away from the restrictive Force Organisation Chart and giving players more options on how they build their army; taking things back to self-imposed limitations (and an arguably more friendly approach) and pre-game discussion. This gives players much more freedom on making their own stories, rather than replaying someone else's.

 

I'm not arguing for or against the appeal of historical accuracy/personal freedom within building an army. I think both have their own appeal; but the nature of special characters – as they currently stand at least – works against the direction GW is taking the game of 40k.

 

So what would I do? Well, I think there's a good halfway house to be had in splitting the special characters into two groups – those that are subsumed into the standard rules; their Codex entry becoming more based on background and artwork, with a simple suggestion for building them from the standard (expanded) rules; and making the special characters into the genuinely unique individuals with no equivalent in the rules – individuals like the Primarchs and C'Tan on the one hand, and Obyron and Marbo on the other.

 

The additional palette of options that would create would be hugely useful to creating characters of your own, and go a long way to de-escalating the 'power creep'. 

[Bung]

Personly i started playing with third Edition, the time where SC where only ok if your oponent said yes and i thought it was a sad time then.

You had that great models but couldnt field them or just could field them as count as.

But then it was another time, with other rules.

We are now in a time thats a alot more free in what you can field so why should SCs sit on the bank when you can field stuff like knights and baneblades without end?

Stuff that you were only able to field with Armageddon rules and had to bring at least a 3000 point army.

 

Most people  forget, that you werent able to field alot of the stuff in the rules where noone now even lifts an eyebrow.

 

I like playing with and against SCs as it can make me remember a game a long time for victories and defeats not accounted in the GW background.

 

On the topic of a Carakter Creation system for the players:

Please No. A realy big NO.

I have witnessed the old Vehicle creation rules, gang creation rules for Necromunda, Ship Design rules for BFG all officialy released from GW and i dont want that stuff handed to players again.

They have been even worse than the Chapter rules from 4th Edition Space Marine Kodex. Not for the idea behind but for the results that players came up.

Every game with those rules had been very unpleasant in the result either for users of the rules for being acused for being a Win at all Cost (insert insult of choice here) or oponents complainig it wasnt real fun to play against that stuff or people refusing straight to play against that stuff.

 

It will not make much people happy.

 

Why not come up with a charakter of your owen, build it and write some rules for it and play it with your friends. Do some games for playtesting to adjust the points and rules so everyone is happy (except the jerk that insist only official GW rules count  )

[totgeboren]

Back in the day, up to 3ed, the p&p rpg background of the game was still just taken for granted. The leader of your army was representing You, your character on the table. It was the centerpiece of the story that you told with your force.

Special characters allowed people to tell or retell stories made by GW, but just as in rpgs where people would rather create their own character than play a pregenerated one, so it was assumed players would want to play their own hero.

But times change I suppose.

[DuskRaider]

^ This. I see the named characters as great for historical recreation, such as the aforementioned Badab War characters, but I prefer to make my own. I've had my Death Guard Lord character over a decade now, I have him as my Praetor in 30K (before his fall to Nurgle obviously), and I'm really looking forward to creating a new model for him and utilizing the new rules.

[graysparrow]

Yea...it's a shame that 40k seems to have drifted so far from it's RPG roots.  :(

[Khornestar]

Very well-written original post, and well put, though I don't really agree.

 

 

However, that's my personal opinion, my problem to deal with. It's not a reason for SCs to be restricted.

 

 

Best line in the thread, as far as I'm concerned. Gonna be honest, the idea that anyone would insist that I need their permission to use a specific toy soldier is not someone I'd want to play against in the first place, so maybe both sides would be happy.

[Ishagu]

Yeah some of the opinions are getting a bit silly and anti hobby freedom.

 

Special characters are a massive part of the lore, hobby and game. They sell well. They aren't going anywhere.

[deathspectersgt7]

Yeah some of the opinions are getting a bit silly and anti hobby freedom.

 

Special characters are a massive part of the lore, hobby and game. They sell well. They aren't going anywhere.

   It is not . Some people do not play with GW Sc and just use a regular ole Captain or Chaplain . Yeah they sell well and are part of the Lore I  get that and I love to read their stories . I have most of them and use them for specific games  . But would rather use my no name Captain and go against some equally no named  Alien Warlord or a Unknown Chaos Warlord . Is that anti Hobby ? Many of us invest a lot of cash in bits so we can build our own SC  and do not want to use them as a count as. Some of us do not want those special bells and whistles all the time . 

[Calyptra]

If we only look at game balance, issues with individual special characters being overpowered are a result of the game designers writing overpowered rules for things and not a problem inherent to the idea of special characters themselves.

 

Game balance is really important, but I'm wary of spending too much time examining it in a vacuum. It's only part of the game experience, and game experience is what answers the question: Is it fun?

 

Issues with customization systems like the old Vehicle Design Rules are also, arguably, problems resulting from the execution and not from the idea itself. That said, and I think Privateer Press figured this out a long time ago, the more moving parts a game has, the more difficult it will be to balance. Special characters are easier to balance than customizable characters (whether or not the game designers actually manage it) and are therefore better for game balance.

 

The thing is, we're not just talking about characters anymore. Less options being easier to balance will be as true of squads and vehicles as it is of characters. Getting to choose wargear options and abilities for a character isn't really different from getting to choose wargear and weapon options for a squad. Even your army itself is a single thing that you customized by choosing from lots of options.

 

A game without customization or options (perhaps even your army list would be chosen for you) might be better balanced, but personally I would find it less fun. Ideally there's a happy medium somewhere. I have no idea where it is, but I don't think having a lot of options for equipping a character is inherently more game-breaking than having a lot of options for equipping a unit.

 

It'll be interesting to see how those build your own land raider rules work out.

 

As for characters, it is important to me that my warlord be unique and uniquely mine. My inability to have that in Warmachine is the reason why I stopped playing Warmachine and came back to 40k, even though I consider Warmachine to be a much better game. If 40k forced me to take special characters instead of my own I'd stop playing.