"Named Characters" in GHB2017 Mega-Battalions

[Thomas Lyons]

It has occurred to me that the required heroes in the Seraphon and Ironjaws mega-battalions in the GHB2017 assign a name to these heroes and the subsequent rules refer to these heroes by name.  No other contemporary mega-battalions are doing this, which I thought was quite curious.  I've also noted that the cost of these mega-battalions is under 300 points (cheaper than almost all other equivalent 1 drop options).  It has  dawned on me that this may not allow these heroes to take items and traits by the GHB2017, which may be why these were made cheaper.  I've attached the appropriate images with the rules below.  What are peoples thoughts on this?

 

 

[Arkiham]

18 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

It has occurred to me that the required heroes in the Seraphon and Ironjaws mega-battalions in the GHB2017 assign a name to these heroes and the subsequent rules refer to these heroes by name.  No other contemporary mega-battalions are doing this, which I thought was quite curious.  I've also noted that the cost of these mega-battalions is under 300 points (cheaper than almost all other equivalent 1 drop options).  It has  dawned on me that this may not allow these heroes to take items and traits by the GHB2017, which may be why these were made cheaper.  I've attached the appropriate images with the rules below.  What are peoples thoughts on this?

 

 

i suspect they may have said if they were named characters?

" when taken in this battalion such an such model becomes a named character and cannot take items " 

also. that FAQ

Q: Are all units designated ‘Only one of these may be included in a Pitched Battle army’ classed as named characters (for example, Exalted Greater Daemons, of which there are more than one)? A: No – they are only named characters if the model represents a specific, singular character.

 

looks like that battalion is representing a specific, singular character.

but you can also take two identical battalions 

 

?????

good conundrum 

 

[Thomas Lyons]

1 minute ago, Arkiham said:

Q: Are all units designated ‘Only one of these may be included in a Pitched Battle army’ classed as named characters (for example, Exalted Greater Daemons, of which there are more than one)? A: No – they are only named characters if the model represents a specific, singular character.

Humorously, this is being contradicted by the new named Vampire Lord who just uses the generic VLoZD model, lol.  I agree, it is an interesting issue that may need further clarification.

[Arkiham]

Just now, Thomas Lyons said:

Humorously, this is being contradicted by the new named Vampire Lord who just uses the generic VLoZD model, lol.  I agree, it is an interesting issue that may need further clarification.

unique model =/= unique warscroll.

i don't see why there couldn't be a special named character with the same model as a generic one.

but that's a separate discussion. 

it'll need clarifying soon as i suspect the death battletomes might have some in, maybe best to tweet someone in the know? ben johnson or someone 

[Thomas Lyons]

1 hour ago, Arkiham said:

unique model =/= unique warscroll.

i don't see why there couldn't be a special named character with the same model as a generic one.

but that's a separate discussion. 

it'll need clarifying soon as i suspect the death battletomes might have some in, maybe best to tweet someone in the know? ben johnson or someone 

I've already passed this along to @Ben Johnson but I was curious to see how other folks read the battalions and understood the situation. 

[stato]

The huge battalions I think were intended to be a fun 'stretch goal' for hobbyists who like to create huge collections of models.  Giving them 'named' characters was to give them a bit of a story and I doubt they particularly thought about these characters when they had to make more and more rules to combat against ever more zealous players hunting out broken rules.  I forsee the simple solution for this being taken in GHB2018, and that will be removing points from these battalions and putting them firmly into open and narrative play.

[Thomas Lyons]

1 hour ago, stato said:

The huge battalions I think were intended to be a fun 'stretch goal' for hobbyists who like to create huge collections of models.  Giving them 'named' characters was to give them a bit of a story and I doubt they particularly thought about these characters when they had to make more and more rules to combat against ever more zealous players hunting out broken rules.  I forsee the simple solution for this being taken in GHB2018, and that will be removing points from these battalions and putting them firmly into open and narrative play.

Quite the contrary.  My observation makes these battalions less powerful, not more powerful.  If they did intend for these to be named characters, then it is the current player base that are taking these battalions with items and character traits that are abusing these battalions.  

[kozokus]

On 04/02/2018 at 11:08 PM, Thomas Lyons said:

I've already passed this along to @Ben Johnson but I was curious to see how other folks read the battalions and understood the situation. 

Have already thougt about that and followed your reasoning.

What stopped me is that usually, GW are quite explicit with limitations and if they intended to prevent us from taking artifacts/traits to Dakkbad/Kuotek, there would have been a note about that. Plus, thoses bataillon should give the hero some kind of forced trait/artifact or abilities  which is not always the case.

In the end i think they just added a little bit of lore to the warscrolls, but i wish they would have gone further. Having a generic hero with forced trait/artefacts inside a bataillon is something i would LOVE <3.