Subtypes, Shmubtypes, or 'Why Are You Being So Ornery?'

If you take a look at my custom figures (Hippogog's Customs Thread), you'll see that I don't use the Personality trait, and that I refer to the Species and Class traits, collectively, as Subtypes. Some members have wondered why I take this alternate, non-official approach, and so this article is an attempt to explain the reasoning behind it.

Keywords, Nothing More

From a game mechanics perspective, the Personality, Species, and Class traits are simply keywords that ability text may reference. This is the sum total of their significance. They have no intrinsic value, and in the absence of abilities, they would not be important at all.

If, however, in a rule-book somewhere there were a rule stating "Figures with a Tricky Personality have Phantom Walk" or "Orc Warriors have Orc Champion Bonding" then this lack of intrinsic significance would not be the case. As far as I know, no such rules exist.

Okay, So They're Just Keywords; But Isn't Personality Different From Species And Class?

Yes and no. You may have noticed that the official game treats Personality differently from Species and Class, in the way it references them in ability text. For example, Otonashi's Attack the Wild ability reads:

"When attacking a figure who has a wild personality, Otonashi rolls 2 additional attack dice."

In contrast, Tornak's Orc Warrior Enhancement ability reads:

"All friendly Orc Warriors adjacent to Tornak receive an additional attack die and an additional defense die."

In this comparison you can see that the Personality designation (Tricky) is referenced as such, while the Species and Class designations (Orc and Warrior, respectively) are not. Mechanically this is different, but it is of no consequence since the various Personality designations are personalities exclusively. In other words, there are no personalities that are also species or classes, and so when a personality is referenced, there is no need to specify that it is a Personality. In our example with Attack the Wild, the following text would be sufficient:

"When attacking a Wild figure, Otonashi rolls 2 additional attack dice."

As a result, we can see that a figure is "Wild" in the same way it is "an Orc" or "a Warrior." The text "Wild figure" translates to "a figure with a Wild Personality" in the same way that "an Orc figure" translates to "a figure with Species Orc." The point I'm trying to make here is that the three traits are essentially the same, mechanically, even though ability text references them differently.

In addition, since a Species or Class designation is referenced without specifying it as a Species or Class, we can deduce that it's not important whether a particular designation is a Species or a Class. For example, a figure with Species Beast would be considered "a Beast" in the same way that a figure with Class Beast would also be considered "a Beast" (it doesn't matter that Beast is a Class and not a Species - even if it were in both categories, the distinction would not matter). This is important, because it points out that the distinction between Species and Class has no mechanical significance.

So They're All The Same And They're Just Keywords - What Of It?

If you agree that the three traits are essentially the same, mechanically, then you must also agree that deeming a particular word a Personality, Species, or Class, is arbitrary, from a rules perspective. It's arbitrary because the rules don't care whether the word is considered a Personality, Species, or Class. The word "works" the same way, no matter what it is called. This means that the only difference between these traits is in their flavor. I don't have a problem with flavor itself (in fact, I rather like artwork and flavor text), but I do have a problem when flavor interferes with mechanics. In my mind, the distinction made between Personality, Species, and Class is an interference of this sort.

For example, a new player might ask, "What is the difference between Species and Class?" The answer - nothing. The player might then ask, "Then why is it in the game?" The answer - flavor. Is this acceptable? In my mind, the answer is no, since it creates confusion (i.e. the confusion is not worth the enhancement brought by the flavor).

If there is no rules significance to the distinction between Species, Class, and Personality, then in my mind the distinction shouldn't exist. This doesn't mean the game can't have concepts that one would associate with Species or Class (like Human or Soldier), it just means that labeling a particular value as a Species or a Class, when there is no rules-based reason to do so, seems to be in error.

Okay, Okay. So They're All Just 'Subtypes' - Why Not Keep Personality?

This decision is more a matter of taste. I'd much rather have a Mutant Cyborg Warrior than a Terrifying Mutant Cyborg or a Terrifying Mutant Warrior. In my mind, the Terrifying doesn't bring as much to the table as the Warrior or Cyborg. Instead, it sort of muddies the water, and takes up space where something more meaningful could be. I'd rather have a very specific and potent 3 word Species/Class designation, than dilute the figure's description with a Personality. If I want for a figure to be seen as Relentless or Precise, I will simply reflect these qualities in the figure's abilities.

In addition, choosing a Personality for a custom figure can be arbitrary in a way that selecting a Species or Class is not. Many times a Species or Class will jump right out at you, while the Personality could be anything. And even when you have an idea of what kind of Personality you are going for, you can get bogged down when you have to choose between "Terrifying" and "Ferocious."

A Possible Objection

In the official approach, there is a list of Personalities, Species, and Classes, and each figure gets one value from each list. It's possible that the official designers see this as a balancing mechanism, since a figure will be able to benefit only from the abilities that reference its particular Personality, Species, or Class, and no others. Since my scheme allows for multiple Species or Class designations, this will not be the case with my approach. For example, suppose I created the following custom figure:

Name: Grut Elite
Allegiance: Utgar
Subtypes: Orc Archer Warrior
Type: Common Hero

As both an Orc Archer and an Orc Warrior, this figure would benefit from both the Orc Archer Enhancement (Swog Rider) and Orc Warrior Enhancement (Tornak or Grimnak) abilities. Is this the sort of thing the official designers were trying to avoid when they wrote the rules? I don't think so. Consider that Swog Rider is a common figure (meaning that you can play with multiples), and that two of them would each grant their bonus to a squad of Arrow Gruts, for a double-bonus identical to the one in my figure's case. Similarly, Tornak and Grimnak would each grant their bonus to a squad of Blade Gruts, again for a double-bonus.

The point is, I don't see the current scheme as motivated by balance concerns, or even a means to prevent these type of concerns (as my example illustrates, even the current scheme doesn't prevent double bonuses and the like, for single Species, single Class figures). This could have been offered as a not-so-obvious counter-argument, however, so I wanted to at least chime in on it.

Why You Bein' A Flava-Hata?!

Some players might say that the flavor benefit of having the Personality, Species, and Class traits is worth the extra complication, and I can understand that. I would simply disagree, and that would be that. As I stated, I am a fan of the flavor aspects. I love artwork and figure sculpts as well as flavor text and biographies. From a game design perspective, however, I simply don't like the Personality trait, or the distinction made between Species and Class.

Thanks very much for reading. I hope this article has been informative and educational, and has provided at least some justification for my particular approach. You may not agree with me, but I hope you can at least see where I'm coming from.


Thanks!

-hippogog