TLDR; Please, please, please give us "build-a-character" options in the game instead of adding endless profiles for characters from the lore. Infinity has had a great many characters added to it, especially lately, so I wanted to give my view on this for WarCrow. Characters are critical part of games' lore - they make the world come alive more than mere facts, their stories inspire and enchant players. I love reading their exploits and learn about the universe through them. They make me want to play in that world - but with my character, not with them. I strongly dislike when they are available in regular games as core part of the faction. Even more when you cannot have access to their skills, abilities, or weapons otherwise. Does no-one but Teucer know how to pick up a Feuerbach in Steel Phalanx? It forces me to use those characters, and creates a strong ludo-narrative dissonance. "Why is there so many Uxia's running around? Does Ariadna posses a cloning facility that just throws them out?" Infinity, at least, had a slightly easier time explaining it via Cubes but even so. I at least pretend it's not the specific characters but similarly equipped ones ("it's not Machaon, it's just a Myrmidon he trained"). It still takes extra effort and honestly can only get you so far. On the other hand, giving us the option to build own own characters, PLEASE. It is something I sorely miss in Infinity - SpecOps are a very poor and limited attempt. Give us a way to create (and hopefully develop, too) our own characters. I would argue this also takes care of people who *do* want to play with existing characters, they can just build and equip these "generic" characters appropriately. I know in some ways it's extra effort in design, but I think it brings so much benefits to a game that it is worth it.
I think that would be neat for the Warcrow Adventures. Not sure how I'd feel about that for the wargame, but i just need to give it some time.
God, no. If this game is gonna have competitive scene, custom characters should not be allowed, except something a la spec op style
Named characters are awful in general. One of my biggest gripes about Infinity is how every single spec ops squad has one or more of these named characters in it.
I don't necessarily care about a build-a-character thing or know if that would be a good idea, but I do hope there is less of a character focus than Infinity. It works in some places (Steel Phalanx for example), but I've never really cared about named characters that much in any games and I'm not a huge fan of how many there are in Infinity.
For Infinity N3 there was the 2d20 to N3 conversion guide, but as it's not balanced, it can only be played in friendly/narrative format (a game mode that is not played very often). https://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1485800458210.pdf We'll have to see how the warcrow games play out, but I don't think they'll do better than aristeia or defiance (so just fanmade by yourself).
Are You referring to something like the "Build Your Own Special Force Agent" from the N2 Paradiso Front era. . .?? A sort of "Create Your Own Warcaster + Goon Squad" that was attempted (unsuccessfully) for Warmachine (or maybe was "Build Your Warlock + Assorted Critters Warband" for the twin wargame of "Hordes"). . . . .??? So each "Warcrow Faction" would have what amounted to "Customizable Personalized Infinity Lieutenants", at least for the "Skirmish Version" of the Fantasy Wargame, if I understood the gist of it. . . . .
For tournament style wargame - please God no. This would be a mess to balance. But they could give us a "The Anvil of Apotheosis" for Narrative playstyle to create your own Units (and maybe some exp/lvl up system). Or even separate rulebook to make "Mordheim-like"/"Blood Bowl-like" campaign/league playstyle.
No. About fifteen minutes after release it will be distilled down to "the most competitive" and that's all "serious" players would use. Unless it didn't measure up, in which case they'd never get used.
I think it's a very good idea and it also adds that depth of roleplaying, and customization, that I always miss making comparisons with other wargames. In addition, you can encourage the use and creation of your own characters that evolve throughout the narrative campaigns that are developed to advance the background of Warcrow. Creating our own personal stories that do not have to cause ludo-narrative dissonance with the official story. And, finally, you can always ban this type of character in official ITS tournaments so as not to cause an imbalance. Everyone would win.
Can work and would be great for diversity if done right. Has a bunch of prerequisites that don't match well with CB's track record (or Infinity). 1) Willingness to rebalance stuff - including the easiest way to do so there is - point adjustments 2) Synergy cost. A HMG combined with Mimetism+MSV should cost more that a HMG combined with CC Stats and MA. An EXP CCW combined with MA Levels and NBW should cost more than an EXP CCW on a CC 15 guy. Just to make some obvious examples. 3) A system designed to make multiple approaches (CC, Shooting, Magic or hybrids) viable by default without making saturation in a main area of expertise supported by bare minimum of complimentary other approaches (i.e. all out on shooting with some Magic for synergistic buffs and/or even more shooting) ideal strategies. If saturation strats are dominant (i.e. a lot of Shooting in Infinity) it's much harder to make other approaches work at all, not to mention balanced. You could achieve this by making several separate SWC pools for each type of offense (Shooting, Magic, CC, while allrounders/Specialist equivalents don't cost "special" SWC) to make sure you can't stack choices in one area until you're spent all your resources. It's a pretty good idea to prevent armies that are >50% ranged focussed in an environment if melee focus should be a viable option as well. Forcing everyone to run some sort of hybrid comp makes balancing a lot easier. 4) Direct or indirect Rock, Paper, Scissor mechanics in troop types. I.e. when in direct competition the equivalent of a -3 /+3 to the disadvantaged/advantaged Weapon class, Polearms > 2Handers 2Handers > Sword and Board Sword and Board > Polearms That way any class of weapon can have a purpose (at least for CC) and while there will can be generally stronger weapon classes (i.e. 2Handers giving +DAM which in a our hypothetical vacuum environment would be superior to polearms granting range/frist strike) The additional MODs make a weaker base bonus superior when faced with a more "optimal" weapon class. -> the more popular an "optimal" choice the more valid the "suboptimal" counter. Overall I've never seen this done right in a Tabletop game, balance usually goes down the drain as soon as a physical game board is involved.