The Meaning of the Pitched Battle note "Unique" in narrative perspective.

[EMMachine]

Hi Community,

over all the years I heard that people want more named characters in the game. I'm actually unsure if the cry for more named characters is actually a good thing for Age of Sigmar or not. From a narrative standpoint hey are unique (like there pitched battle profile says in the notes) in the entire universe and so nobody, except the creator, can write background for them, without creating a paradoxon (or should even use them in battle).

Most of the time named characters aren't played because of there background, instead they are often used because they have stronger effects than the generic ones. And often they are forced to be nearly immortal in the story, because the death of the character would make the warscroll invalid.

Instead it would be better if the named characters would only exist in the background and players woild have more freedom for creatig their own characters, crafting their own legacy. In case of Stormcast Eternals we never had a problem that we had the 3 generic Warscrolls for Lord Celestants and dozens of names in the background, that used those models on the table. But we are forced now to play Gavriel Sureheart as a Named Character because there is no generic Warscroll for a Lord Celestant with Sword and Shield.

 

In the 2.0 Rules of AoS Unique is actually connected to "named Character", while in the older books it was split in two parts, the mentioning of Named Characters in the Names Character Section (most times in the Description how Allegiance Abilites work + the restriction term "no more than 1 xxx may be included in a Pitched Battle army". (interestingly GW even removed the Term in case of Units that were restricted to more than one (for example gaunt summoners, which were restricted to 9)

 

I have seen or heard about fanmade battletomes using unique to restrict models the army can have. I heard something that for example the King of Breton in a Fanmade Bretonia Battletome will become unique. This would mean, that there is only 1 king all the eight realms. Does something like that really make sense? I have the feeling, making a model/unit unique is actually a death sentence to the use of the model from a narrative standpoint.

In case of my Fan Made Lion Rangers Battletome or my Order of the Verdant Cycle, I have the feeling that each Temple/Cult, should only have one Lion Lord / High Priestess, but not that there should ne only one of them in all the realms and not every Lion Lord is the same, so making them unique would be an entire wrong direction. I actually have the feeling, if we want that everyone can play such a model and write his own narrative about it, but want to restrict the use in the army, we should use the older sentence "no more than 1 xxx may be included in a Pitched Battle army" instead of unique.

What do you think. We can't change much in case of Battletomes GW created, but we can bring the right feeling in our fanmade battletomes.

[JPjr]

I can understand people wanting more 'named characters' for their armies as it (a) adds instant flavour without you having to put any effort in and (b) they're by definition generally pretty powerful, but unless it's a model for something utterly distinct (Nagash or Alarielle for example) I much prefer to have the flexibility to build my own story around my army and also much prefer the idea that these kind of games are bottom-up not top-down driven (and to their credit GW consistently make the point 'ITS YOUR GAME, DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH IT', it just seems that a vocal % of people in wargaming (compared to RPGs) dont like any uncertainty and want everything to be fully ordained from on-high.

Still as long as most named characters also get a generic version with warscrolls that are roughly equal then I can't see too much of an issue and that generally seems to be the case*. I get the feeling this might be more of an issue with a faction like Stormcast, where there's a favoured sub-faction, 'The Hammers of Sigmar, with specific colours, rules etc etc  that seem to get all the named characters and odd units (like Shadespire warbands).

In terms of creating 'unique' non-named units for things like fan-made battletomes (and indeed the official rules too) I think it probably does make sense to limit certain types of unit if in-universe that particular unit would be 'unique'. For example 'Freeguild General on Griffon' something like that you could easily imagine being an un-named character which you can only take one of in any army.

The paragraph on Unique Units in the GHB would still be 100% fine as it is if they just removed the second, superfluous, sentence.

UNIQUE UNITS

Units that are listed as 'Unique'... can only be included once in a Pitched Battle army. Such units are named  characters as described in the allegiance abilities section of the core rules.

But then again if it's a fanmade tome, used I assume, in more narrative based play (with or without points) so as long as the people you're playing with agree then you can do what you like, after all it's your game make it the version you want it to be.

54 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

I have the feeling, making a model/unit unique is actually a death sentence to the use of the model from a narrative standpoint.

Not sure this is a problem at all though. Say you've made your Verdant Cycle's Lion Lord unique and given him a name and backstory etc etc and then he gets ROFLstomped in the first game of a narrative campaign, you just make up the story that as he lay bleeding out on the mud and ****** strewn battlefield, flickering between this life and the next, a faithful retainer dragged him away and so he gets to live again.

That's the whole spirit of narrative gaming for me, now he has a story that is organically growing out of your games and an incentive to get revenge for his defeat in the next battle etc etc (I'm sure rules already exist for this or you can easily home-brew them for scenarios like that and add in things like that he has to seek out and attack the enemy that killed him last time but he's gets a +1 attack/to wound against them or something fluffy like that).

 

 

 

* Gavriel as you say, appears to be one and there's one odd one I noticed the other day and that's 'Astreia Soulbright'. GW doesn't advertise a regular 'Lord Arcanum on Dracoline' and if you go to her listing on the site the DL is just for her warscroll, though weirdly 'Lord Arcanum on Dracoline Warscroll' is in the GHB and if you google it the PDF exists it just doesn't appear directly linked to on the GW site (or maybe I've totally missed it somehow).

[AdamR]

2 minutes ago, JPjr said:

* Gavriel as you say, appears to be one and there's one odd one I noticed the other day and that's 'Astreia Soulbright'. GW doesn't advertise a regular 'Lord Arcanum on Dracoline' and if you go to her listing on the site the DL is just for her warscroll, though weirdly 'Lord Arcanum on Dracoline Warscroll' is in the GHB and if you google it the PDF exists it just doesn't appear directly linked to on the GW site (or maybe I've totally missed it somehow).

It's on the Evocators on Dracolines page on the website, as there is an option to build one from the box.

[JPjr]

Just now, AdamR said:

It's on the Evocators on Dracolines page on the website, as there is an option to build one from the box.

aha! well of course that makes sense, not sure how I missed that. Though strange then they didnt just provide an extra head or something for the Astreia kit like they did with the Aventis on Tauralon model (I mean of course, nothing stopping you from just playing it as it is as whatever you want).

[Overread]

I think sometimes its possible to over-think things when it comes to writing your own army lore.

 

First up named character have been a thing for ages in wargames. From generals in historical games to warriors, gods, dragons, beasties and more in fantasy and sci-fi games. It's not just about having a character with an instant background and powerful abilities; its about playing with a character who features in the games lore and who might have inspired a person to get involved with a certain army. GW puts out a LOT of lore for their game and whilst it has its up and downs, its still a large body of fantasy work that inspires many into their armies. So its no surprise that people want to play with those heroes and warriors on the battlefield in their game. 

That said there's also the fact that most heroes are just powerful models and nothing stops you writing your own bit of lore about who your  characters are. That isn't Nagash that's a greater skeleton lord, blessed by Nagash etc.... Official lore never stops you doing this and you can go as nuts as you want. 

 

In terms of pure gameplay "unique" means that a unit has abilities that are more powerful than normal, thus its number you can take is strictly limited down to 1 model. This might combine with other limits as well to further restrict you. It accepts that the model does something that could be considered abusive if you took more than one of them.

[EMMachine]

5 minutes ago, JPjr said:

In terms of creating 'unique' non-named units for things like fan-made battletomes (and indeed the official rules too) I think it probably does make sense to limit certain types of unit if in-universe that particular unit would be 'unique'. For example 'Freeguild General on Griffon' something like that you could easily imagine being an un-named character which you can only take one of in any army.

When we look at the Rule for 'Unique units' in the Generals Handbook it states:

Quote

Units that are listed 'Unique' on the Pitched Battle profile, can only be included once in a Pitched Battle army. Such units are named characters as described in the Allegiance Abilities section on the core rules.

So, making a 'Freeguild General on Griffon' Unique would mean that the model can't get Command Traits or Artefacts anymore (after they would be named characters then).

[JPjr]

@EMMachine aye, that's why I'd just erase the second line from that paragraph in there GHB. 'Named' characters would still be limited to the traits/artefacts on their warscroll as per the entry on named characters in the core rules, but then non-named 'Unique' units would just be limited to one per army and could be accessorised to your hearts content.

 

As I say at the end of the day if it's narrative play amongst a group of friends it's your game, make of it what you want. ESPECIALLY with something like this where you're not giving yourself an advantage, and in fact could be hobbling yourself for the sake of in-universe veracity.

[EMMachine]

@JPjr

I think, the point is GW made Unique the indicator for AoS 2.0 what models are named characters without having to list up every named character in one place of the Battletome (don't know if a NAMED CHARACTER Keyword would have been more elegant for that reason, so Unique could have been a simple armylist restriction. It is way shorter than "no more than 1 xxx may be included in a Pitched Battle army" , but this sentence wasn't combined with named characters at all (if I remember correctly, the exalted Greater Daemons had the restriction in the old AoS Edition, but weren't named characters (and were able to get Artefacts thanks to the FAQ).

17 minutes ago, Overread said:

That said there's also the fact that most heroes are just powerful models and nothing stops you writing your own bit of lore about who your  characters are. That isn't Nagash that's a greater skeleton lord, blessed by Nagash etc.... Official lore never stops you doing this and you can go as nuts as you want

The problem with this is, that most of the time it feels like fighting with or against clones (especially if it is a god or godlike creature).

[JPjr]

13 minutes ago, Overread said:

That said there's also the fact that most heroes are just powerful models and nothing stops you writing your own bit of lore about who your  characters are. That isn't Nagash that's a greater skeleton lord, blessed by Nagash etc.... Official lore never stops you doing this and you can go as nuts as you want. 

yeah totally agree. I guess it comes down to how comfortable people are doing their own thing. Obviously some people like everything to be 100% laid out and structured and some people like to cut the game to suit their jib.

actually on a bit of a tangent (though slightly related) I think it's not unit models so much where this might be affecting the game but terrain. even just in the last few months since I've been paying more attention I've noticed people complaining about lack of terrain, or how irrelevant it is and I feel like it's one of those things that's become an issue because people expect everything to be 100% official GW.

GW only really seem to provide rules/warscrolls for terrain they actually produce (which is kind of fair enough) but I've got to assume terrain is always one of their worst sellers, just as if most people have a spare £50 they'd rather spend it on something for their army than something that might even end up helping their opponent.

because of this the official terrain options are going to be limited and will be focused on big dramatic things like Warscryer Citadels so we dont end up with rules (or at least interesting ones) anymore for what I'd think would be really obvious, if mundane, things like rivers, marshes, hills even, that would make the game much more tactical and interesting.

but then that's what playing with mates is for I guess, making all this stuff up, easy enough to do.

[JPjr]

24 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

don't know if a NAMED CHARACTER Keyword would have been more elegant for that reason, so Unique could have been a simple armylist restriction

yep, totally. all it would require is to change just that one paragraph to...

UNIQUE UNITS

Units with the Keyword 'Unique' can only be included once in any Pitched Battle army. 'Named Characters', as listed on their warscroll, are 'Unique' units with their own history, special traits, artefacts and abilities and as such cannot be given additional blah blah blah.

Job done. 

[XReN]

1 hour ago, JPjr said:

aha! well of course that makes sense, not sure how I missed that. Though strange then they didnt just provide an extra head or something for the Astreia kit like they did with the Aventis on Tauralon model (I mean of course, nothing stopping you from just playing it as it is as whatever you want).

I guess she just haven't earned unique helmet as Aventis (Magister of Hammerhall!) did
And honestly SCE wizards are just a pile of robes, plumes and staves that really can be matched however you like

[zedatkinszed]

I get this. And I agree AOS needs more options for UNNAMED characters. This was my #1 issue with AOS and it is to this day the only 1 GW never addressed. Generals/Heroes need to be properly customizable.  I get what GW did by going "all you need for this character is in the box" but IMHO they did go too far here.

A general should be able to have ANY weapon (from their own alliance) that they want. They should be able to ride ANY mount (from their own alliance) that they want. They should be placable on chariots etc. I mean these days mortal Tzeentch Wizards can't ride a Disc because the warscroll doesn't exist.

There has to be a way to do this. It would also encourage converting and kitbashing which IMHO is a good thing not a barrier to entry.

[kenshin620]

Funny enough I believe Warmachine-Hordes (a wargame literally built on Characters) side steps the narrative issue of "why is Character X fighting...himself" with the excuse of "theres a doppelganger! Kill him" ?

 

2 hours ago, zedatkinszed said:

I get this. And I agree AOS needs more options for UNNAMED characters. This was my #1 issue with AOS and it is to this day the only 1 GW never addressed. Generals/Heroes need to be properly customizable.  I get what GW did by going "all you need for this character is in the box" but IMHO they did go too far here.

Unfortunately I think those days are long gone.

Even 40k now has a bizarre split between Legacy characters/units (who have dozens of options) and new characters/units (who have.....maybe one or none extras).  It's so weird that if I want to make a Primaris Space Marine....I can't really give him anything extra.

I wanna blame the Chapter House controversy...............or it could be GW's "eyy I think we need to make the game easier for newbies" mentality.

 

Now granted there are times when customization goes too far and people try to power game when theres very...loose interpretations like Techmarines with Conversion Beams on Bikes or Death Cult Assassins with Power Axes (man I hated the "we didn't specify power weapons" issue years ago).

[EMMachine]

22 hours ago, zedatkinszed said:

I get this. And I agree AOS needs more options for UNNAMED characters. This was my #1 issue with AOS and it is to this day the only 1 GW never addressed. Generals/Heroes need to be properly customizable.  I get what GW did by going "all you need for this character is in the box" but IMHO they did go too far here.

A general should be able to have ANY weapon (from their own alliance) that they want. They should be able to ride ANY mount (from their own alliance) that they want. They should be placable on chariots etc. I mean these days mortal Tzeentch Wizards can't ride a Disc because the warscroll doesn't exist.

There has to be a way to do this. It would also encourage converting and kitbashing which IMHO is a good thing not a barrier to entry.

 

19 hours ago, kenshin620 said:

Unfortunately I think those days are long gone.

Characters wouldn't need to have all weapon options, but at least 3 to 4 configurations (these could be fix), so, not every Char would be the same. I mean, there are already chars with 2 or more weapon options (on one Warscroll or multiple once)

[kenshin620]

3 hours ago, EMMachine said:

 

Characters wouldn't need to have all weapon options, but at least 3 to 4 configurations (these could be fix), so, not every Char would be the same. I mean, there are already chars with 2 or more weapon options (on one Warscroll or multiple once)

The problem is that theres only so much room in those blister packs, the reason why some characters (even ones made for AoS) have weapon options is that they come in big kits that allow for the weapons to be included (like the Star Drake)

Unless they start making conversion packs for a lot of people, which would be really expensive for them since it would have to be plastic (unless they get FW to do it, but I don't think FW seems interested in AoS conversion packs).

Plus their character models despite being plastic are quite intricate with arms, hands, and/or weapons being in very specific places. Giving some of them a different weapon, under GWs current mentality of "build out of the box" would require said weapon options to seamlessly be attached without cutting or other heavy modifications.

 

I'M NOT agreeing with GWs decision, but thats the path they chose after the Chapterhouse (and other 3rd parties that still exist) problem. I'm not bad mouthing 3rd parties either, but GW basically has the mentality of "well if we include option X...that we do not have on hand easily, another company with make "totally NOT X" and steal out customers".

One example that while GW eventually solved but you can still see the evidence was when they introduced Space Wolf Thunderwolves. Originally they had no normal thunderwolf kit (only the original...fugly squirrel wolf character), so enterprising 3rd parties quickly filled that gap.

 

As I mentioned even 40k is really shying away from "make whatever you dream of". Comparing the amount of builds a Space Marine Captain has vs a Primaris Space Marine Captain has is night and day.

[zedatkinszed]

8 hours ago, kenshin620 said:

Plus their character models despite being plastic are quite intricate with arms, hands, and/or weapons being in very specific places. Giving some of them a different weapon, under GWs current mentality of "build out of the box" would require said weapon options to seamlessly be attached without cutting or other heavy modifications.

I'M NOT agreeing with GWs decision, but thats the path they chose after the Chapterhouse (and other 3rd parties that still exist) problem. I'm not bad mouthing 3rd parties either, but GW basically has the mentality of "well if we include option X...that we do not have on hand easily, another company with make "totally NOT X" and steal out customers".

I see your point but TBH GW is talking out of two sides of its mouth. Duncan and Peachy have conversion videos for Orks, Freeguild even Primaris SMs. I don't necessarily think this is down to 3rd parties. Honestly it's down to a deliberate "it's all in the box" mentality to reduce the barrier to entry and enforce WYSIWYG on the table. This is not a bad thing in and of itself but it has led to a disconnection between the player and their unnamed characters because it constrains the imagination in illogical ways.

Also your argument about converting doesn't stand-up. If you have an army you have a spare bitz pile and doing a head or hand swap or a torso swap should be just as easy as the "Dark Angels Primaris Master with Heavenfall Blade" video Duncan made this week and a lot easier than the Solakain Spearmen video he made previously.