Unique Characters in Army Builders

[Deathleech]

I know this topic has been brought up a lot in other threads, but I figured it would be nice to have a thread to discuss it in greater depth. With that said I am wondering what people's thoughts are on army builders/battle packs that include a unique named character. I know a lot of people defend them because they say the unique character appeals to kids (and AFOLS) who might otherwise not buy the set. I just don't understand that mentality.

Obviously if the army builder is the ONLY set to contain a character like Eomer people will get at least one of them if they are a fan of the theme since it's the only way to get him. Lego could easily circumvent this by just offering Eomer in another set like Helm's Deep. Sure it sucks for people who can't afford Helm's Deep, but it's no different for them trying to get Theoden, King of the Dead, Grima, Haldir, etc. who only appear in expensive sets.

I think even without a unique character army builders would sell extremely well, and possibly even better without them! Lego just has to be smart about it and put special prints or molds in for the grunts which would be exclusively available in the army builder. That way they still have the appeal of offering something unique, but they don't discourage people from buying multiples because they don't want all the extra Eomers or Thranduils.

Do kids honestly look at a set and say "hey, this set only has 4 Uruk-hai and 2 Rohan Soldiers, I'm not buying it cause it doesn't contain any unique characters!" I know when I was a kid I ALWAYS wanted to buy tons of soldiers, even if my funds didn't allow it. I actually HATED when companies would not do the grunts like Storm Troopers, Foot Soldiers, etc. I think Lego might lose out on a FEW sales of army builder sets if they don't include a named character, but I think it would more than be made up for by all the people buying so many extra because they are "true" army builders.

What are you guys thoughts for/against named characters in battle packs? How do the children in your life feel about it, or did you feel about it as a kid yourself?

[Saint]

I create my own special characters !

Love the BP's , but more special troops I make myself, I like Clone Troopers, and have a few specialists in my army .

grtz Saint

[Infernum]

It depends. I think there should be one, but one that's generic enough to be another grunt with a little customization. I'd love for the character to be one that wouldn't otherwise be available, like Eomer in Uruk-hai Army.

[Ardelon]

I would prefer there were no named characters, but I doubt the fans that build massive armies are that much of a market for TLG to reconsider their strategy of including one such character to increase the sets' appeal to buyers of single sets.

[Deathleech]

I would prefer there were no named characters, but I doubt the fans that build massive armies are that much of a market for TLG to reconsider their strategy of including one such character to increase the sets' appeal to buyers of single sets.

True, but this doesn't just effect people just buying dozens of each set to army build with. Even if you buy just doubles it effects you.

[TheOrcKing]

I suppose it depends on how unique that one character is. For example, a few Lurtz' from The Orc Forge can go great with just about any army of Orcs, but then you have special cases like Thranduil from Mirkwood Elf Army. Eomer from Uruk-Hai Army was a bit more versatile than him in my opinion. Still, I like having at least one unique character in the mix although it would help if that one was generic enough for changeability.

[Deathleech]

I suppose it depends on how unique that one character is. For example, a few Lurtz' from The Orc Forge can go great with just about any army of Orcs, but then you have special cases like Thranduil from Mirkwood Elf Army. Eomer from Uruk-Hai Army was a bit more versatile than him in my opinion. Still, I like having at least one unique character in the mix although it would help if that one was generic enough for changeability.

Ya, that is a fair compromise I think and better than some super distinct looking character in an army builder. I almost wish Lego would just include an alternate head and/or hair or helmet piece and then Eomer or Thranduil would be even less unique looking and more easily serve as a normal soldier.

[SirBlake]

A truly great army builder set wouldn't have unique characters. Uruk-Hai Army was close, and I've done all I can to genericize Eomer, but in the back of my mind, I know his armor is unique, and I know I've got 6 of the same guy manning the walls of Helms Deep and I wish that wasn't the case.

[Knave]

I think I am against the unique characters. They do some fantastic torso designs but usually they are so specialized and distinctive that I find them hard to fit into my armies. I suppose as long as they are in the theme the army is in then it works. Otherwise they dont usually fit in.

[Only Sinner]

I am considering getting four of the MEA. I would like to use the pieces to make a bigger fort / tree and as for the four Thranduil figs, I will just put helmets on them and maybe switch a few heads. He looks like maybe an elite elf warrior with his fancy tunic on anyway. As far as unique characters go, I agree as long as it is still customizable, then it's ok. Bejorn in a BP? Not cool, LEGO. That's like putting Spiderman or Gandalf or Darth Vader in a battle pack. It dosn't really matter though, as TLG still has not been able to do a right proper BP for Hobbit / LOTR as of yet, and I doubt they ever will.

[greeny]

If the minifigure can be easily changed into a generic looking grunt I don't mind. I really don't like some of the Star Wars battle packs because you get two 'bomber' clones that are bright orange, which makes it very hard to use that battle pack as an army builder.

[Wardancer]

I like special characters in army sets. I like armies with variety, i.e. army building as opposed to mere army collecting. Armies need regiment leaders, noble characters and much more. Therefore, Special figs can be used in many ways. If for some reason the fig doesn't fit, you can still trade it. Sometimes Single parts are useless, like having 7 Thanduil hairpieces, but this is still ok.

But this is only true if the sets contain enough regulars as well. Including only 1 Rohan soldier was foolish, this should have been either another uruk or One More Rohan.

[Trance89]

I don't mind unique characters in army buildes as long as they aren't too unique looking and can be changed to a regular looking knight. Eomer of the Uruk-Hai army set is a great example. He is easily editable by just giving him an other head or even change his flesh-colored head and hands to yellow. The same counts for the Rohan soldier in the set since he's only available in army set.

[Rogue Angel]

As mentioned above, as lomg as the character isn't so distinct that they can't be changed out (Darth Vader, Gandalf), I actually prefer it. Unique characters privide new outfits that I can create new troops with - Eomer and Thranduil have beautiful armor that can be used for an entirely new type of soldier. Lurtz on the other hand, added some variety to my Uruk Hai. I am however not using them strictly for LotR. I have been using LotR to bulk up my castle armies.

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

Armies need regiment leaders, noble characters and much more.

Sure, but how many men form a regiment? IRL, 8-12 men form a group, 3-6 groups a platoon, 2-4 platoons a company, 3-6 companys a batallion, 2-3 batallions a regiment - so a IRL regiment has about 1000-3000 soldiers.

[Wardancer]

Yeah, umm, if you buy 1000 MEA sets to make a regiment of 3000 elves, one might indeed be annoyed by 999 useless Thranduils.

But they could still help defeating orc platoons, killing so many that only a few groups can return to their batallion.

[LegoFjotten]

I don't mind Eomer or Thranduil in their respective sets, and I think they make the sets better (Lurtz I could do without though...)

The Thranduil hairpiece is not so useful in huge amounts, but the rest of the fig is great. Shame the orc's don't have hair.

4 fig true BP's like in SW would be great...

[gedren_y]

I'm not a large army builder, nor am I a builder of any IP. I don't care who the character is supposed to be, so I would buy multiples of some 'unique character' if I wanted the parts for a uniform of a small group of soldiers. I'd make them distinct from one another with heads, hair, armor and weapons. I also have no problem with having flesh and yellow minifigs together, though I avoid using flesh neck torsos with yellow heads and vice versa.

[SerenityInFire]

I personally think Eomer was fine for the Uruk-Hai Army set, since all the riders of Rohan look the same anyway.

[Dorayaki]

Interesting. I'm personally inclined to unique characters and I'm no army builder, but others would have that need and "we" can solve via trading. Mostly army builders that appear in physical sets would be blamed for no other unique character that fans want (mine is Eowyn). Generally, if each individual of the army can have some differences in prints, that's okay to me.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Dorayaki

[Flieger]

I am not an army builder and admittedly, pure army building sets seldom appeal to me. But sometimes they do. Let me explain:

In a character driven world like LotR/Hobbit I have very little desire buying tons of soldiers. Helm's Deep, the Orc Forge and the Urukhai army were almost that I needed (plus Legolas). I understand many AFoLs hold different views on that matter.

It is a little different with Star Wars, where the Clones have become stars of their own (and the license may allow for battle packs). But even in the SW universe, I found the Mandalorian battle pack with four identical figures to be the worst set for quite some time.

The point is, I would buy battle packs for certain scenarioes, but I strongly dislike if they only include multiple identical figures. Give me at least variations. Like the recent Utapau-set, two Airborne Troopers, two regular Troopers. That was ok with me. Two Rohirrim and two Urukhai... I would consider it.

[CommoScout]

I voted yes, but with a caveat - Unique army builders should always have that special character, from a licensed perspective.

I find uses for them though.

Every army has platoons, platoons have squads and squads and platoons need unique leaders. Swap out some hair here, a weapon there and each squad and platoon has a little more personality.

If we are talking generic castle, then by all means no. I do miss the old sets where you got 5 guys and a boat-load of gear for around 9-12 bucks.

[tacozftw]

This might have already been said, but I feel like if that special character can also function as a soldier (e.g. Eomer) then it's fine. But with Thranduil? No. It just makes no sense. I don't think a whole lot of us want an army of Thranduils. I'll be buying 1 MEA. IF Thranduil had been replaced by an orc or elf warrior, I'd probably buy 2-4

Edited January 4, 2014 by tacozftw

[Deathleech]

This might have already been said, but I feel like if that special character can also function as a soldier (e.g. Eomer) then it's fine. But with Thranduil? No. It just makes no sense. I don't think a whole lot of us want an army of Thranduils.

If Lego had included some sort of helm with Thranduil on top his hair and crown, I don't think it would of been as bad. You could have one of the minifigures with the crown be Thranduil and all the other duplicates could be his royal guard or something. As is there is no way to make the other Thranduil's useful unless you use them for some other purpose and BL extra parts to change him up.

[J bij de W]

Like most people said, I think an named caracter is fine, as long he/she looks like Eomer or Lutz. Thranduil is to specific. Maybe when we get the Legolas polybag, his hair can be used.