PDA

View Full Version : No characters? (Crazy idea of the day)



Malorian
28-04-2010, 21:21
I was just wondering, if this new percentage system is to replace the current system could that also mean that you don't need to take a general anymore?

It all comes from the same page of rules in the army books so I think it would be possible that if one part would go then it all would go... maybe...

So the question really is: Do you think it will be possible to play without characters (0% is less than 25%)? And if it is possible would you give it a try?

Davo
28-04-2010, 21:26
Interesting idea but I think has zero chance of ocurring.

As for whether theoretically I would try it I suppose it would depend on the force I was playing with. Some could get away with it, some not. With my Beastmen, no.

Nice idea for discussion though. :)

Grymlok
28-04-2010, 21:26
For me, I don't think it would "feel" right not having at least a single model representing the leading persona of fighting force. Game wise it could work I'm sure, but I would need at least a hero to act as my general.

Malorian
28-04-2010, 21:29
There are some armies that it just wouldn't work for (like VC) but I think others like WoC, lizardmen, or brets could do just fine without a character to lead them.

I understand that you might want to have a model that is the 'leader' of the army but if I can save the points and get more troops I'll do it.

I would certainly give it a try at least :)

Alltaken
28-04-2010, 21:38
this screams lizards, dwarves or elves really. I guess so with lizzies, could say yes with DE and HE, I guess dwarves not so much.

Alltaken
28-04-2010, 21:39
There are some armies that it just wouldn't work for (like VC) but I think others like WoC, lizardmen, or brets could do just fine without a character to lead them.
Brets will need the LD pump of their lord I guess

Galatan
28-04-2010, 21:46
An awesome idea, but since generally every army has a general, this would mean my army's general would be cowering behind the front lines! Such a unheroic thought :) .

But besides the whole background/heroic thing, I think it really could work for high Ld army's. You'll only have to find a way to deal with magic.

If it's gonna happen with the new rules? I don't think so. Characters are still a pivotal part in warhammer and it won't surprise me if GW says that you need at least 1 hero character to lead your forces.

Malorian
28-04-2010, 21:53
Brets will need the LD pump of their lord I guess

I don't even take a lord now ;) My trusty damsel is the general for my knights :D

And as much as I like my CR generating BSB I'm sure I could do just as well putting those same points into getting more knights.

artisturn
28-04-2010, 22:02
As a VC player I am required to have a vampire as my general.

Now I can see two loaded characters becoming the new norm.

Grom Wronghand
28-04-2010, 22:09
In smallpoint games (500-1000ish) as Dwarfs I definately wouldn't bother with characters if given the chance. I don't get any leadership boost anyway and four dispel dice is plenty at that level, so I'd rather have a few extra models or an artillery piece for the points.

Misfratz
28-04-2010, 22:13
Well, of course, one could designate one of the rank and file troops to be your general, and just point out that his leadership abilities are not matched by a strong constitution, prowess with the blade, nor even, sadly, appreciated by the soldiers under his command...

Alltaken
28-04-2010, 22:35
I don't even take a lord now ;) My trusty damsel is the general for my knights :D

And as much as I like my CR generating BSB I'm sure I could do just as well putting those same points into getting more knights.

You're deffinetly a total oddball regarding army builds Malorian! My hats of to you and your daring army composition.

I will say I find your lizar armies tempting

Grimstonefire
28-04-2010, 22:42
I did actually hear a crazy rumour about 8th; that wizards cannot be the general if there is another suitable character in the army!

That's as close as I think they would go to not having a 'general'.

Spiney Norman
28-04-2010, 23:13
There are some armies that it just wouldn't work for (like VC) but I think others like WoC, lizardmen, or brets could do just fine without a character to lead them.

I understand that you might want to have a model that is the 'leader' of the army but if I can save the points and get more troops I'll do it.

I would certainly give it a try at least :)

I might have missed something, but Bretonnians must take a BSB according to their book yes? So no 0% chars for them whatever the new book says about generals.

Even with Lizardmen you need a general to keep your skinks around, even if its only a scar vet.

Spiney Norman
28-04-2010, 23:14
I did actually hear a crazy rumour about 8th; that wizards cannot be the general if there is another suitable character in the army!

That's as close as I think they would go to not having a 'general'.

Would that mean my Slann couldn't be the general if I also took a scar vet?

That seems rather idiotic, I can't see the army background easily allowing for a Slann taking orders from a saurus character

Grimstonefire
28-04-2010, 23:34
Not to mention the huge impact it would have on VC as well.

That's why I dismissed it as crazy talk.

yabbadabba
28-04-2010, 23:37
You could have a "brigade" rule as an upgrade for some characters, giving them a command radius of 6". Makes larger games more feasible.

BigbyWolf
28-04-2010, 23:52
I sometimes run a WoC army with just a caddy for characters, so taking no characters at all wouldn't be too much of a drop from that (as all the important things in the army have the same Ld as him anyway). The only thing I'd miss would be the magical defence, but on the other hand, the VC army I'm currently running seems to cope without it, so it's tempting to give it a go.

Botjer
29-04-2010, 08:10
i'd love it.

a compromise would be to only allow heroes, and no magic items.

Urgat
29-04-2010, 08:43
You can already do that though.

Leogun_91
29-04-2010, 09:09
I did actually hear a crazy rumour about 8th; that wizards cannot be the general if there is another suitable character in the army!

That's as close as I think they would go to not having a 'general'.
Sorry Azhag but it just looks like I have to use the goblin bigboss as my general.

Not to mention the huge impact it would have on VC as well.

That's why I dismissed it as crazy talk.
It's only vampires that count a generals anyways so they are allowed to have them as leaders as no other suitable characters exist.

ChaosVC
29-04-2010, 09:14
All you need is one HQ and max 2 HQ unit...hmm somethings not right here, but it fit so well with the coming new Funk!

Wildcard
29-04-2010, 09:16
How about having any unit champion be the army general if no character choice is present. Back before 6th edition you did buy champions from the character allowance hmmmm :muse:

Desert Rain
29-04-2010, 09:47
It would feel very wrong to not have at least one guy who is commanding the army. I doubt that I would try to play without any characters if you can do so in 8th edition - which I doubt that you can do.

Grymlok
29-04-2010, 13:13
I actually like the idea for small games, say 1000 - 1500. Anything bigger I think a general would be a must to get the right feel.

Woodsman
29-04-2010, 15:16
Yeah I think brets could do it without the BSB must-have rule.

Dwarfs could quite easily having high Ld and getting 4dd straight up.

I've been trying out less and less characters recently, seems to work pretty well.

Ozorik
29-04-2010, 15:24
I would do it, I often play with minimal characters anyway.

rtunian
29-04-2010, 18:23
i think "no characters" would be an interesting scenario: an invasion has been repelled, and the invading forces have lost their general! as the invading army falls apart, each regiment tries to escape the hostile lands, led only by the lowest officers. meanwhile, regiments of defenders have been dispatched by the king (or whomever) to destroy the last remnants of the broken invasion.

BigbyWolf
29-04-2010, 18:39
i think "no characters" would be an interesting scenario: an invasion has been repelled, and the invading forces have lost their general! as the invading army falls apart, each regiment tries to escape the hostile lands, led only by the lowest officers. meanwhile, regiments of defenders have been dispatched by the king (or whomever) to destroy the last remnants of the broken invasion.

And lets not forget that quite a few unit champions nowadays can take magic items, infact there's even a few special character unit champs. I could quite easily see a band of beastmen lead by Gharros Warhoof.

Heck, even some normal champs are a match for some lords- I've seen a Blood Knight Castellan take out plenty of characters before.

Urgat
29-04-2010, 19:14
Mmh, I'd probably like it (I've been trying to convince my pals to play with no magic and magic items for ages to no avail), but my gobs really need the general. Let's be honest, while some armies could do very well w/o (if the opponent has no character too of course, WoC for exemple, or elves of all kinds) , others really need the various boosts to face certain troops. You can't really expect skavens or gobs to fare well against fear/terror causers with no general, for exemple.

Malorian
29-04-2010, 19:25
Depends on how fear and terror change ;)

Dark14
30-04-2010, 02:17
mabey champs can lead the force now.