Named Generals and Command Traits + Artefacts

[Bradifer]

How do you all feel about Named generals not being able to take Artefacts or Command Traits?

I don't mind Artefacts, as you can give it to another hero and its not wasted. Plus, from a fluff standpoint, that named character already has their set artefact(s).

The Command Trait bothers me though. It does essentially feel like you are throwing it away. The power level really varies from army-to-army, but I certainly don't want to drop my Death Army's Ruler-Of-The-Night command trait (The one that makes your 6+ death save into a 5+). Again the army makes these more/less interesting.

1. Any ideas that GHB 2.0 could add in?
   • What about letting you pass the command trait onto another hero like the artefact? Surely the other heroes can be leaders as well, exhibiting a command trait. They are heroes after all.
2. Do you like this rule that, in a way, has you throw away the command trait if your general is a named character?
3. What is supposed to be the named General's stand-in for command-trait the way that the named-items are a stand-in for his/her artefact?
4. From a fluff standpoint, how do you feel about this rule?
5. Lastly: Do you find yourself specifically avoiding certain named general's because you want the Command Trait + Artefact on your general?

[TerrorPenguin]

I don't really get it, but again, another death player here. Mannfred, Arkhan etc do not seem much more op than vampire lord on zombie dragon and I feel that lack of 5+ save every time. I am unsure what effect, for example, Arkhan has on the army overall which is a substitute for any of the command traits that the vlozd could take. Lord celestant on dracoth is another example of a non named character whose command ability has a huge effect on a massive chunk of the army.

Also, I was surprised to learn that spirit of durthu and great unclean one were not named characters. It seems like the choice as to whether something is a named character is based purely in the fluff, with little consideration to balance. Not necessarily a bad thing, but does feel very uneven in some cases

[Beardyface]

I think the intention is to offer a bit more character to vanilla generals. As Named Characters generally have lots of bonus stuff on their warscrolls they don't need it. 

 

Guess it's just a choice over which rules you prefer.

[aquietfrog]

I wish that they either already incorporated a similar enough ability to balance out the lack of command trait, or did it like how in 40K where named characters get a fixed warlord trait.

[Mortarch]

Personally I dislike the restriction. For sake of transparency (as you might guess from my name... ) I'm a death player.

The reason I dislike the restriction is that it doesn't entirely make sense. Some points:

• On one hand you have all the non named characters who are a lot more powerful than many named characters, before even considering this boost.
• Fluff wise, named characters are great hero's, personas of legend, which the ability to reshape reality in many cases... why the hell wouldn't Nagash (for example) be able to take Ruler of the Night ... he IS the ruler of the night at the end of the day... (Pun TOTALLY intended).
• For Open play games it shouldn't make any odds as you are crafting your own narrative,  and if you want Nagash to rule the night, then by agreement with opponent you can over rule that rule so you can rule over the night.
• For Matched Play games named characters and generic heroes are for the most part pointed appropriately.. named characters (for Death anyway) are somewhat OVER costed. So if you have paid your points for a hero (named or generic) it should allow the addition of those traits.. as you should have already paid for it. With the somewhat overcosting of named heroes, this is doubly true.

 

In summary vote no on proposi.... I think named characters should be allowed to take at LEAST the traits.

 

Cheers

M

[Captain Marius]

I think named heroes should get command traits, they kind of represent different strategic approaches to a given battle.

Losing out on free rules is a disincentive to field named heroes, and it has a massive impact on death and destruction alliances where they have battle traits worth using (and therefore buffing with comand abilities).

Mind you once we see a few more battletomes for Death they wont have to rely on the 5+ save crutch so much, so they might end up more like stormcasts for whom the command traits feel like theyre just some extra rules for the sake of it!

[Veillotron]

Good post and  valid points.

Named characters should get Command Traits. The idea of named characters being overpowered does not hold - with the points system, you get what you pay for. Assuming that the models are costed fairly, then if you decide to take Mannfred over the VLOZD you will end up paying more points, and will have less to invest for other units.

I'm on the fence regarding Artefacts. On one hand, the logic above remains valid. On the other hand, some artefacts might contradict some of the named hero's existing artefacts (for example, it would be OK a hero to have an artefact such as a Ring of Immortality or a luckstone; however, any type of "obsidian/magical blade" to power-up his already unique and magical sword would not make sense)

 

[PJetski]

Command Traits turn generic character into Your General and that feels awesome. Two different players can use the same Warscroll in totally different ways and it opens a lot of great combinations.

Special Characters already have an established power, personality, and story. Their role on the battlefield should reflect them accurately. If they have options then it should be something unique on their warscroll like Drycha. From a narrative perspective the player should not be able to customize special characters.

In terms of balance I think it's better that named characters can't get command traits because their command abilities should be impressive enough on their own. As an example, giving Settra Red Fury or Ruler of the Night would make him even more absurd and then his points value would have to increase to compensate for the new power level.

[Captain Marius]

6 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Considering that named characters are usually one of the basic characters with more power, if you could also give them command abilities you'd basically be saying "why would I never NOT take the named version"?

Named characters would be more points - that would be the trade off.

Personally i dont like allegiance abilities and dont use any traits or artefacts in normal narrative games - in this context theyre just extra rules that turn units into unneeded death stars.

In matched though, allegiance abilities do allow for more strategic variety (some of which is lost by sticking to the same 6 scenarios all the time). Command traits are free rules for each army and taking a named hero means you miss out, unlike with artefacts which can go to other heroes.

[Captain Marius]

@Auticus interesting, ive found the opposite to be the case just this week when i fielded a tooled up celestant on dracoth (powerful hero 220pts) who went around killing this and that while my shieldwall got decked - i would have done better with the 100pt foot celestant buffing my guys with +1 to hit!

Regardless, im sure the er, point of points is to provide a comparative value. If the more powerful guy is ALWAYS taken over the regular guy, then powerful guy needs a point increase (or regular guy a decrease) until you can objectively ask yourself "do i want this powerful guy or more units?"

An example for a unit where this is an issue is with Judicators. I think the bow ones are objectively better than the crossbow ones, yet theyre pointed the same. Result: crossbow ones arent gonna get used in matched.

Back to the main point, i think named heroes should get to pick a command trait if they are the general. Points dont even come into it as command traits are free, and ultimately all heroes are just a bunch of good stats and special rules, whether theyre named or not. Equality for generals!

[PJetski]

4 minutes ago, Captain Marius said:

Back to the main point, i think named heroes should get to pick a command trait if they are the general. Points dont even come into it as command traits are free, and ultimately all heroes are just a bunch of good stats and special rules, whether theyre named or not. Equality for generals!

Points absolutely come into play. Different warscrolls benefit in different amounts from the same ability.

For example, Settra gets more value from Red Fury than a Tomb King on foot because he does way more damage in the combat phase. He also gets more value from Ruler of the Night because he is a larger model and the area of effect would be larger.

[Bradifer]

Look at

• Mannfred, Mortarch of Night vs. Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon
• Drycha Hamadreth vs. Spirit of Durthu/Ancient Treelord
• Gordrakk vs. Megaboss on Mawkrusha
• Skarbrand vs. Bloodthirster
• Kairos Fateweaver vs. Lord of Change
• Lord Kroad vs. Slann
• Alarielle vs. ___
• Nagash vs. ___
• Celestant Prime vs. ___

Direct point values aside, it's safe to say that these iconic characters are often missing from the tabletop. Instead their lower pointed "less" powerful generic hero is taken way more often.

Is it the point %? Maybe, but easily adjustable with GHB 2.0.

Command Traits / Artefacts? Very possibly. But will GHB 2.0 touch this?

Personally I wish you could equip a command trait to named heroes. I don't see why they couldn't change their trait for a battle.

• Mannfred wakes up, "Well, Golly I today I want my minions to survive. Ruler of the Night it is."
• Tomorrow: "My zombies died, I am angry , face my Mannfred wrath." He's feeling the Red Fury.

Drycha could potentially be a mainstay in Sylvaneth lists if she was allowed to take the -1 to hit or the ignore rend trait so she could be unkillable like the rest of the Sylvaneth heroes.

Apparently Alarielle was one of the best selling/most profitable center pieces, but I've never even played against her. 

[Captain Marius]

But what if hes not the General? What if your other big guy eg VLoZD is not your general? I dont think you should pay extra points per hero on the chance theyll have a command trait (which as was just illustrated are not all of equal value either, even from model to model!)

[Nico]

Look at

• Mannfred, Mortarch of Night vs. Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon
• Drycha Hamadreth vs. Spirit of Durthu/Ancient Treelord
• Gordrakk vs. Megaboss on Mawkrusha
• Skarbrand vs. Bloodthirster
• Kairos Fateweaver vs. Lord of Change
• Lord Kroad vs. Slann
• Alarielle vs. ___
• Nagash vs. ___
• Celestant Prime vs. ___

Skarbrand is probably the only one of the named characters which is not overcosted in that list and that's with half an eye on Blades of Khorne which will help him indirectly. In some cases both columns are overcosted (Gordrakk and Cabbage, Kroak and Slaan).

However, allowing traits and/or artefacts would make rebalancing the game incredibly hard! Some of these would synergise incredibly well with the named characters.

[Sleboda]

It's a fluff thing.  This is nothing new. Way back when,  you could swap out the bits on named characters.  Like, 4th ed. Then you couldn't. 

Since then,  you've always been able to build more powerful characters than the named ones,  but that's ok.  In theory (I know,  I know)  you are taking what is fun and creates a nice story, not just what's most powerful.  From that perspective,  why world you ever want to modify, say, Drycha? She's crazy-cool as is!

In my 1000 pt Sylvaneth list for Adepticon,  I ran into the issue.  I made my Treelord my general so he could get a trait while Drycha ran around and died in rage or bitterness. Problem solved. 

[Bradifer]

7 minutes ago, Nico said:

However, allowing traits and/or artefacts would make rebalancing the game incredibly hard! Some of these would synergise incredibly well with the named characters.

I don't necessarily think that being too offensive via synergies is a problem in a game where you really want to kil each other's stuff.

Being too defensive, now that is an issue. Potentially balance issues there.

But if you look at overcosted characters, they're all scary in offense but usually just die really fast, that's the main issue.

If it's down to preference, I would prefer to see more of these iconic, beautifully sculpted (and usually painted) models on the table more often, rather than not. Allowing these Command Traits would also add more diversity to the game, and I think that's a good thing.

TL;DR Synergies always exist. They are fun to play with, add diversity, and might encourage more of the iconic characters to hit the tabletop.

[Veillotron]

12 minutes ago, Nico said:

However, allowing traits and/or artefacts would make rebalancing the game incredibly hard! Some of these would synergise incredibly well with the named characters.

Very good point... The game works well overall as it is, and with every change comes the risk that new imbalances are generated. Status quo is the safest option if we want to avoid creating another Sayl...

[Nico]

Quote

Being too defensive, now that is an issue. Potentially balance issues there.

But if you look at overcosted characters, they're all scary in offense but usually just die really fast, that's the main issue.

If it's down to preference, I would prefer to see more of these iconic, beautifully sculpted (and usually painted) models on the table more often, rather than not. Allowing these Command Traits would also add more diversity to the game, and I think that's a good thing.

TL;DR Synergies always exist. They are fun to play with, add diversity, and might encourage more of the iconic characters to hit the tabletop.

I should have spelled out that the way to get these named characters back on the table is though recosting, or adding new combos (e.g. Archaon can now be part of a DoT army and get a lore spell). 

I'm not hostile to synergies (many of my own armies involve stacking synergies), my point was just that if you allowed all of the named characters to have traits, some of them would have to be recosted to make them a lot more expensive.   

[Nico]

Quote

Very good point... The game works well overall as it is, and with every change comes the risk that new imbalances are generated. Status quo is the safest option if we want to avoid creating another Sayl...

I wouldn't put it that strongly. We have a healthy and evolving meta. At the moment pew pew and sniping is a bit predominant, but the Blades of Khorne Book looks like it might mitigate that.

I'm certainly not saying don't change anything, more don't make a sweeping change that is all but guaranteed to lead to unexpected consequences. For the same reason - sweeping changes to shooting like cannot shoot if in combat or into combat looks like overkill, when only a handful of shooting units are undercosted (but those units are having an oversized impact on tournaments). Somewhere in between these extremes would be modest changes to things like Damned Terrain or tweaking the rules on cover.

[Goodapollo4]

I'm actually running into this planning a Verminus list for my groups upcoming Escalation Path to Glory campaign. It forces you to rethink how you construct your army, in my case Tretch is only really useful if he is my general, so now I've got to find ways of working around the potential loss of abilities from other generals I could be using. 

As to potential GHB changes, I think most people would welcome relaxing these rules, I tend to think GW won't make those changes, especially not for named characters from the world that was. 

[Veillotron]

3 hours ago, Nico said:

I'm certainly not saying don't change anything, more don't make a sweeping change that is all but guaranteed to lead to unexpected consequences.

Exactly my point - maybe not explained clearly, but we are on the same page.