Are Unique Characters 'Good' for the Hobby?

[Ishagu]

When someone says Guilliman is overpowered, or Cawl is overpowered, etc, I'm wondering if you're playing with enough terrain.

 

Both create immobile armies with minimal board control, and they aren't winning tournaments.

 

Create LoS blocking!

[the jeske]

yeah, thing is this is a two player game. you think that opponent who does play a G-man based list, or any other list that works and requires terrain to function  at an above top efficiency level, is just going to say yeah, lets just more terrain then it is asked for?

Not to mention the fact that this would just mean switching from razor centric lists, to more LoS ignoring stuff like mortars and flyers. And this is coming from a person who in 4th was buying tank traps so genestealers could charge them for the extra move assault gave. Who should love labyrinth type boards with what tyranids, have.

It cold maybe work on a tournament level where judges make up tables, in one on one games you more or less would have to force the other guy, if he doesn't want to play with more [or less] terrain then normal.

 

The system would be quickly analysed to death on the internet, the two or three best builds identified, and then that's all you'd see on the tabletop

 

yes, you are right. But there is a difference between "Your army will consits of as many hive tyrants as you can possibly take" and a "So 5 out 9-11 HQ are actualy viable in your codex, the dude that opens infiltration builds is tier two, buffers are tier one and the one that makes the melee almost close to being ok, the rest sucks take them at your own peril" and "Eldrad is so good, that when  you are starting a dark eldar and tau army by taking him and an allied eldar detachment".

It is not a question of power. Powerful unit sare great and in a perfect world all units/models should be at least tier 2[like almost eldar were in 7th ed], what we should not have is stuff that skews armies in to having one HQ[DP for chaos under gav dex, tyranids and hive tyrants with wings], are clearly breaking an editions rule[edition is supposed to be streamlined and a special suddenly brings a bucket of powerful additional options], or is powerful and undercosted.

 

Powerful and "fair" priced? no one cares. Having rules tailored to an edition? its ok[not saying that people may not hate an edition basic rules or not liking the fact that their army is not suited for a new edition] ? One of 5-6 viable option in the HQ slot? envy of others and a "can I have one more" reaction from those that play the faction.

[Ishagu]

I'm just saying, if you think Guilliman is too strong you simply aren't playing with enough terrain that blocks line of sight.

[Yodhrin]

​

I'm just saying, if you think Guilliman is too strong you simply aren't playing with enough terrain that blocks line of sight.

​

​You mean GW didn't sufficiently consider the level of terrain required by the rules when writing his rules.

​

​In an ideal world every 40K game would be between two people with perfect reason and compassion who would work together to craft the best possible play experience for both, and cars would run on sunbeams & rainbows rather than petrol, and everyone would get free jelly & icecream at every meal. Back in Reality World, however, there are plenty of situations where the experience is going to be far from ideal, and that's why there are rules to follow. If a character is unbalanced based on using the amount of terrain(or any other metric) mandated in the actual rulebook, it is unbalanced, period, finito, because the rules are the only truly common frame of reference and so are the only rational standard of measurement.

​

​Now you won't catch me pretending 40K was balanced when Special Characters were still rare, and I doubt it would be balanced properly if they did the sensible thing multiple folk have already suggested and just provided "archetypes"/build your own characters with SCs as examples using specific combos, but at least things would be equally unbalanced across all the subfactions of a given faction rather than the situation we have now where a handful of subfactions are fair wallowing in SCs with useful abilities and the rest are lucky to get one.

[Slave to Darkness]

Guilliman (and other SC's) should be balanced regardless of how much scenery used, not all wars are fought over ruined city's.

 

[Ishagu]

Isn't the first rule of the game to have fun?

If you refuse to give your opponent a fun experience outside of a tournament setting, you're cheating :-P

[Warhead01]

I have little to no excitement for Special Characters.  They're fine sure. But I want to have my own Characters with they're own story and they're own history. Over the years I've played against armies just constructed just to gain special rules from Characters and chapter tactics/what ever the equivalent was. One or two games is fine after that not as much.  
To be honest if we're playing a battle that's part of a larger conflict and My forces slay the other player special character it makes me happy. That characters story is over. Torn to bits by a mob of bloodthirsty Orks, cooked and eaten. Or worse, what ever that could be. 
Makes me wonder why in 40K when that kid of thing happens there aren't rules making recovering that character or their equipment some kind of mandatory objective. 

[micahwc]

I think some of the names characters need some minimum point level to field. G man isn't taking to the field with a bunch of scouts and Abbadon isn't concerning himself with a few cultists. Magnus isn't getting involved unless it's a larger fight. Say you can't take G man under 2000 point games, and force him to lead a supreme command detachment.

[Slave to Darkness]

Isn't the first rule of the game to have fun?

If you refuse to give your opponent a fun experience outside of a tournament setting, you're cheating :-P

Tell that to all the players where I live who use the G'man in every game, I have even seen Guilliman vs Guilliman on the tabletop, though it did give me a reason to stand in the corner going 'I'm BAD Guilliman, and your GOOD Guilliman, your goody little two shoes'. 

[MadGreek]

If you are playing a specific chapter with established lore and characters, then those are the characters you have signed up for. When I play a successor I would LOVE to be able to customize a character using a points/build system. I don't like using that guy who looks, dresses, and is equipped exactly like Dante, but he isn't Dante. If I take the time to create my own chapter I should be able to create my own commanders and NCOs.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

When someone says Guilliman is overpowered, or Cawl is overpowered, etc, I'm wondering if you're playing with enough terrain.

 

Both create immobile armies with minimal board control, and they aren't winning tournaments.

 

Create LoS blocking!

 

I think the only unreasonable thing about Guilliman is that he basically gives +6 CP compared to a list without him. +3 for taking him, +3 for not having to take a Chapter Master. Guilliman himself, including his abilities, are reasonable. Maybe increase his points cost a tiny bit if it's really truly a problem, but the CP ability is what breaks him for me. And that's in addition to refunding CP already, with your +6 CP pool.

[DuskRaider]

 

 

Unique characters add an historical feel to the game and can be great for some narrative play, like Horus Heresy, Badab War... whatever well known campaign from the lore. However, the thing is you don't NEED to use them. The thing about them is, while they usually have great abilities and stats (and they should, they're historical figures and great warriors), they're obviously also pigeon-holed into whatever it is they do. They usually have a specific Warlord Trait and they cannot be customized as you'd like. That's where generic HQs come in, and with many you can make them almost as good as the unique characters, sometimes better in some aspects.

 

This is what seperates 40K from, say, Warmachines or Hordes where you HAVE to take a named character. There's no generic base HQ from which to build off of. That's kind of why I got sick of those games.

I'm sorry but what? Named characters in 40k are ridiculously powerful compared to the stock ones. Only by min-maxing the stats to create an absolute cheeselord and picking chapters to reflect that, and not your chapter's fluff can you get something able to go toe-to-toe with characters. Forge World characters are by and large the worst offenders where even obscure guys like the Executioner's Chaplain can potentially kill a generic HQ in 2 hits but even Azrael, Dante, Calgar, etc are fairly disgusting compared to their generic cousins. The only real exception is a Salamanders Chaplain Dreadnought taking the mantle for ridiculous toughness or the armor indomitus for a 2+. That and the buffs characters provide often make them completely superior to generic lords. The only reason to take generic guys is the points cost(s). And that needs to end.

 

Plus y'know, reducing the amount of redundant datasheets is good. We don't need 10 pages of characters when all of that could be consolidated down to a single datasheet for maximum efficiency and reducing Codex size.

Yeah, but you're wrong.

[Kassill]

I really miss the old days where special characters were 'by permission only' and were almost universally frowned upon.

Wow am I glad that doesn't exist today...

 

Imagine reading your first 40k novel (Helsreach for this example) and building and painting a Black Templar army, only to show up for your first game and have your opponent deny you playing Grimaldus. 

 

Less fun police and more dice rolling. 

[tdemayo]

I don't care to play with Special Charcaters very often. I prefer generic heroes. I find it hard to suspend my disbelief with I'm fighting a Primarch or Abaddon in a 2000pt battle.

 

Even with that preference, though, I think special characters are good for the game. A significant number of players really like them, they sell models, and they keep people playing the game. Why should I gripe?

[Toxichobbit]

 

I really miss the old days where special characters were 'by permission only' and were almost universally frowned upon.

Wow am I glad that doesn't exist today...

 

Imagine reading your first 40k novel (Helsreach for this example) and building and painting a Black Templar army, only to show up for your first game and have your opponent deny you playing Grimaldus. 

 

Less fun police and more dice rolling. 

 

 

Agreed. As someone who played through that period it was an idiotic rule.

 

Player 1 "Hey, mind if I use Sergeant Lysander? I've just finished converting and painting him and I've built a list specifically for him with lots of Tactical Marines."

Player 2: "No."

Player 1: "Guess I'll go find a different person to play them."

[deathspectersgt7]

Played through that period also and never had any problems either way. I figure that these Sc are not for everyones liking . And some of us do not play Ultras or BAs and do not want our guys to be Count as some one else . 

[Toxichobbit]

There's lots of stuff in the game that isn't to everyone's liking and many of them aren't SCs, yet nobody has to ask permission to use them. Eldar Windriders last edition, for example. You take the good with the bad, that's just the way the game is. Giving people a rule that allows them to refuse to play against certain models isn't the right answer. When someone has put a time & monetary investment into buying & painting a model they should be able to play it without having to jump through an official permission hoop first. I don't ever want to see us return to a game where we have to say "Please may I use model X" to an opponent before playing, especially when it only applies to a handful of models which may or may not be balanced but not the rest of the models, which also may or may not be balanced. That's why I used the Sergeant Lysander example above (plus it actually happened at hte store I was playing at). Lysander was awful back then. Yet people would refuse to play against him just because he was a SC and in their minds because you needed to ask permission, he was automatically more powerful than regular models. Anyone who played through 3rd and actually saw Lysander in action knows that just isn't true.

 

For the record, I don't really like SCs. I very rarely play them and that's coming from a regular (though not exclusive) Ultramarine player. I've owned Guilliman since he came out but never used him, for the reasons lots of others in this thread don't use SCs. However, I don't think SCs are bad for the game. Guilliman is bad for the game, you can see that by going into the Ultramarines forum and looking at how many posts are "use Guilliman" or are about learning to not play with Guilliman. It feels like the entire Ultramaines faction revolves around him, which is bad for creativity, it's bad for people who want to use variety rather than the same list every time (while remaining competitive) and it's bad for people playing against Ultramarines because they face a never ending queue of Guilliman lists. But, and this is the important bit, that's not because he's a SC. SCs can be balanced and not auto-includes, just like non-SCs can be unbalanced and auto-includes. The problem is with specific model's rules, not their status as a SC.

[deathspectersgt7]

Yeah but not everyone uses SC in their Army. I have no problem with them I like killing them . But a lot of people use them as a crutch. But I game with a bunch of like minded people who play a different style and only use SC in a Campaign setting. And we are not talking about units this is about SC . And if I play at a different place I tend to ask others what the feel is on the play style and I always have a list to meet whats going on . So I find it is unsettling that people get upset that someone does not want play against SC. So I guess it goes to play style .

 

And for the record I like SC but i would rather play a game without them it tends to be more fun. Having a no name Captain carry the day for the Astral Hawks against the Ork Horde  .

Have a Great Day !!

[Slave to Darkness]

There's lots of stuff in the game that isn't to everyone's liking and many of them aren't SCs, yet nobody has to ask permission to use them. Eldar Windriders last edition, for example. You take the good with the bad, that's just the way the game is. Giving people a rule that allows them to refuse to play against certain models isn't the right answer. When someone has put a time & monetary investment into buying & painting a model they should be able to play it without having to jump through an official permission hoop first. I don't ever want to see us return to a game where we have to say "Please may I use model X" to an opponent before playing, especially when it only applies to a handful of models which may or may not be balanced but not the rest of the models, which also may or may not be balanced. That's why I used the Sergeant Lysander example above (plus it actually happened at hte store I was playing at). Lysander was awful back then. Yet people would refuse to play against him just because he was a SC and in their minds because you needed to ask permission, he was automatically more powerful than regular models. Anyone who played through 3rd and actually saw Lysander in action knows that just isn't true.

 

For the record, I don't really like SCs. I very rarely play them and that's coming from a regular (though not exclusive) Ultramarine player. I've owned Guilliman since he came out but never used him, for the reasons lots of others in this thread don't use SCs. However, I don't think SCs are bad for the game. Guilliman is bad for the game, you can see that by going into the Ultramarines forum and looking at how many posts are "use Guilliman" or are about learning to not play with Guilliman. It feels like the entire Ultramaines faction revolves around him, which is bad for creativity, it's bad for people who want to use variety rather than the same list every time (while remaining competitive) and it's bad for people playing against Ultramarines because they face a never ending queue of Guilliman lists. But, and this is the important bit, that's not because he's a SC. SCs can be balanced and not auto-includes, just like non-SCs can be unbalanced and auto-includes. The problem is with specific model's rules, not their status as a SC.

Same with Mortarion, I have seen lots of posts around the interwebz and local gamers are saying the same thing 'I will have x units and Mortarion to lead them for BEST RESULTS'. Now for a new edition that has been 'HARDCORE TESTED GOLD PLATED MONKEYS THAT :cuss GLITTER AND EVERY UNIT IS JUST AS GOOD TO STOP MONOBUILD ARMIES SO BUY OUR NEW GAME' *ahem* sorry I meant to say playtested for balance how come everybody is using virtually the same units buffed by the same characters? Stick named characters in Narative play where they belong.

 

Brb, I'm off to play Bolt Action, today my SS are invading Blackpool led by Adolf and his sidekicks Hess and Penfold.

[Toxichobbit]

Yeah but not everyone uses SC in their Army. I have no problem with them I like killing them . But a lot of people use them as a crutch. But I game with a bunch of like minded people who play a different style and only use SC in a Campaign setting. And we are not talking about units this is about SC . And if I play at a different place I tend to ask others what the feel is on the play style and I always have a list to meet whats going on . So I find it is unsettling that people get upset that someone does not want play against SC. So I guess it goes to play style .

 

And for the record I like SC but i would rather play a game without them it tends to be more fun. Having a no name Captain carry the day for the Astral Hawks against the Ork Horde  .

Have a Great Day !!

 

I could literally change every referance to SCs in that post to scatter laser Windriders (or Conscripts if you want to keep it relevant to 8th) and it'd still say the same thing. Not everybody used Windriders/Conscripts. Windriders/Conscripts can be viewed as a crutch. Etc, etc. SCs aren't the problem, certain models rules are. Whether it's an SC or not is irrelevant. And you can't just say "we're not talking about units, only SCs" because then you're taking 10% of the existing models in a vacuum and trying to judge if they are damaging or not to the game. I don't need to explain why that doesn't work.

 

Why shouldn't people be upset that someone doesn't want to play against a SC? Until SCs are given away free & fully painted by GW, they cost the same money and take the same effort to assemble/paint as any other model, so players should have the same right to use them as any other model. I'm sure we'd all be upset if GW allowed our opponents to cherry pick models from our collections and ban us from using them just because of a certain criteria. Today it might be no SCs, but tomorrow it might be no Scouts, or no Terminators, no Cultists, no vehicles etc.

 

I agree that a game is a social contract and both players should ideally be coming to a compromise, so I get that sometimes players just want a break from seeing the same thing and sometimes it's fine to say that you don't want to face a certain model, stype of list etc. After all, both players should be in it to enjoy themselves and if one persons list is making the game horrible for the other player, what's the point in playing? However, that's not what the 3rd ed rules on SCs were. It was a blanket ban on SCs unless your opponent gave you permission. Or to put it another way, you can't use the models you paid for, assembled and painted unless I say so. Sounds like two kids arguing about who gets to use the most "powerful" toys, doesn't it.

 

Also remember that while you and I may prefer games without any SCs, other people really like using them (and not just because they are OP, sometimes people just like using cool models/characters). So why do we get to play the game our way, but they have to ask permission to play the game their way?

 

Glad to hear you've got a group where you can discuss this kind of stuff and are happy to not use SCs. My group is the same.

[deathspectersgt7]

 

Yeah but not everyone uses SC in their Army. I have no problem with them I like killing them . But a lot of people use them as a crutch. But I game with a bunch of like minded people who play a different style and only use SC in a Campaign setting. And we are not talking about units this is about SC . And if I play at a different place I tend to ask others what the feel is on the play style and I always have a list to meet whats going on . So I find it is unsettling that people get upset that someone does not want play against SC. So I guess it goes to play style .

 

And for the record I like SC but i would rather play a game without them it tends to be more fun. Having a no name Captain carry the day for the Astral Hawks against the Ork Horde  .

Have a Great Day !!

 

I could literally change every referance to SCs in that post to scatter laser Windriders (or Conscripts if you want to keep it relevant to 8th) and it'd still say the same thing. Not everybody used Windriders/Conscripts. Windriders/Conscripts can be viewed as a crutch. Etc, etc. SCs aren't the problem, certain models rules are. Whether it's an SC or not is irrelevant. And you can't just say "we're not talking about units, only SCs" because then you're taking 10% of the existing models in a vacuum and trying to judge if they are damaging or not to the game. I don't need to explain why that doesn't work.

 

Why shouldn't people be upset that someone doesn't want to play against a SC? Until SCs are given away free & fully painted by GW, they cost the same money and take the same effort to assemble/paint as any other model, so players should have the same right to use them as any other model. I'm sure we'd all be upset if GW allowed our opponents to cherry pick models from our collections and ban us from using them just because of a certain criteria. Today it might be no SCs, but tomorrow it might be no Scouts, or no Terminators, no Cultists, no vehicles etc.

 

I agree that a game is a social contract and both players should ideally be coming to a compromise, so I get that sometimes players just want a break from seeing the same thing and sometimes it's fine to say that you don't want to face a certain model, stype of list etc. After all, both players should be in it to enjoy themselves and if one persons list is making the game horrible for the other player, what's the point in playing? However, that's not what the 3rd ed rules on SCs were. It was a blanket ban on SCs unless your opponent gave you permission. Or to put it another way, you can't use the models you paid for, assembled and painted unless I say so. Sounds like two kids arguing about who gets to use the most "powerful" toys, doesn't it.

 

Also remember that while you and I may prefer games without any SCs, other people really like using them (and not just because they are OP, sometimes people just like using cool models/characters). So why do we get to play the game our way, but they have to ask permission to play the game their way?

 

Glad to hear you've got a group where you can discuss this kind of stuff and are happy to not use SCs. My group is the same.

 

Cool .  I just never had a problem with the ask permission thing it really never turned up much in the places I have played. so moving on. 

@ Slave to bad your in the UK I'd challenge you with my Polish Airborne.

[Slave to Darkness]

 

 

Yeah but not everyone uses SC in their Army. I have no problem with them I like killing them . But a lot of people use them as a crutch. But I game with a bunch of like minded people who play a different style and only use SC in a Campaign setting. And we are not talking about units this is about SC . And if I play at a different place I tend to ask others what the feel is on the play style and I always have a list to meet whats going on . So I find it is unsettling that people get upset that someone does not want play against SC. So I guess it goes to play style .

 

And for the record I like SC but i would rather play a game without them it tends to be more fun. Having a no name Captain carry the day for the Astral Hawks against the Ork Horde  .

Have a Great Day !!

 

I could literally change every referance to SCs in that post to scatter laser Windriders (or Conscripts if you want to keep it relevant to 8th) and it'd still say the same thing. Not everybody used Windriders/Conscripts. Windriders/Conscripts can be viewed as a crutch. Etc, etc. SCs aren't the problem, certain models rules are. Whether it's an SC or not is irrelevant. And you can't just say "we're not talking about units, only SCs" because then you're taking 10% of the existing models in a vacuum and trying to judge if they are damaging or not to the game. I don't need to explain why that doesn't work.

 

Why shouldn't people be upset that someone doesn't want to play against a SC? Until SCs are given away free & fully painted by GW, they cost the same money and take the same effort to assemble/paint as any other model, so players should have the same right to use them as any other model. I'm sure we'd all be upset if GW allowed our opponents to cherry pick models from our collections and ban us from using them just because of a certain criteria. Today it might be no SCs, but tomorrow it might be no Scouts, or no Terminators, no Cultists, no vehicles etc.

 

I agree that a game is a social contract and both players should ideally be coming to a compromise, so I get that sometimes players just want a break from seeing the same thing and sometimes it's fine to say that you don't want to face a certain model, stype of list etc. After all, both players should be in it to enjoy themselves and if one persons list is making the game horrible for the other player, what's the point in playing? However, that's not what the 3rd ed rules on SCs were. It was a blanket ban on SCs unless your opponent gave you permission. Or to put it another way, you can't use the models you paid for, assembled and painted unless I say so. Sounds like two kids arguing about who gets to use the most "powerful" toys, doesn't it.

 

Also remember that while you and I may prefer games without any SCs, other people really like using them (and not just because they are OP, sometimes people just like using cool models/characters). So why do we get to play the game our way, but they have to ask permission to play the game their way?

 

Glad to hear you've got a group where you can discuss this kind of stuff and are happy to not use SCs. My group is the same.

 

Cool .  I just never had a problem with the ask permission thing it really never turned up much in the places I have played. so moving on. 

@ Slave to bad your in the UK I'd challenge you with my Polish Airborne.

 

Re locate then :lol: I could do with a few more decent gamer's in my area. 

[Dragonlover]

I'm not really fussed either way. I tend not to use them, but don't really care if my opponent uses the same one every game or not. I ran Huron for most of 7th in my Alpha Legion army for the D3 Infiltrating units, although I made a custom model.

 

I think the problem is that *some* special characters are a smidge too good, and it warps people's perceptions. Nobody in here is moaning about Fabius Bile after all, or Pedro Kantor.

 

Dragonlover

[Arkangilos]

 

There's lots of stuff in the game that isn't to everyone's liking and many of them aren't SCs, yet nobody has to ask permission to use them. Eldar Windriders last edition, for example. You take the good with the bad, that's just the way the game is. Giving people a rule that allows them to refuse to play against certain models isn't the right answer. When someone has put a time & monetary investment into buying & painting a model they should be able to play it without having to jump through an official permission hoop first. I don't ever want to see us return to a game where we have to say "Please may I use model X" to an opponent before playing, especially when it only applies to a handful of models which may or may not be balanced but not the rest of the models, which also may or may not be balanced. That's why I used the Sergeant Lysander example above (plus it actually happened at hte store I was playing at). Lysander was awful back then. Yet people would refuse to play against him just because he was a SC and in their minds because you needed to ask permission, he was automatically more powerful than regular models. Anyone who played through 3rd and actually saw Lysander in action knows that just isn't true.

 

For the record, I don't really like SCs. I very rarely play them and that's coming from a regular (though not exclusive) Ultramarine player. I've owned Guilliman since he came out but never used him, for the reasons lots of others in this thread don't use SCs. However, I don't think SCs are bad for the game. Guilliman is bad for the game, you can see that by going into the Ultramarines forum and looking at how many posts are "use Guilliman" or are about learning to not play with Guilliman. It feels like the entire Ultramaines faction revolves around him, which is bad for creativity, it's bad for people who want to use variety rather than the same list every time (while remaining competitive) and it's bad for people playing against Ultramarines because they face a never ending queue of Guilliman lists. But, and this is the important bit, that's not because he's a SC. SCs can be balanced and not auto-includes, just like non-SCs can be unbalanced and auto-includes. The problem is with specific model's rules, not their status as a SC.

Same with Mortarion, I have seen lots of posts around the interwebz and local gamers are saying the same thing 'I will have x units and Mortarion to lead them for BEST RESULTS'. Now for a new edition that has been 'HARDCORE TESTED GOLD PLATED MONKEYS THAT :cuss GLITTER AND EVERY UNIT IS JUST AS GOOD TO STOP MONOBUILD ARMIES SO BUY OUR NEW GAME' *ahem* sorry I meant to say playtested for balance how come everybody is using virtually the same units buffed by the same characters? Stick named characters in Narative play where they belong.

 

Brb, I'm off to play Bolt Action, today my SS are invading Blackpool led by Adolf and his sidekicks Hess and Penfold.

If I dropp d over a hundred bucks on a model I'd probably include him in all of my non narrative lists.

[graysparrow]

The  'permission only' rule wasn't about denying someone the use of a critical part of their codex that they paid money for, as special characters were not practically mandatory for some armies. 

 

Special characters were something extra, there for people to use in custom scenarios and narrative type campaigns.  For regular pick up games and everything else, there was 'your dudes'.  You could make an army without one being required, you didn't have the fear that someone would say 'nope' and invalidate an integral part of your army.  Special Characters were simply not needed for list-building like they are now. 

 

In order to make that 'permission only' rule valid again we'd need to roll back the clock on some of those 'your dudes' options that are tied up in 'GW's dudes' currently, and move those options out into the codex as a whole.     Which is why, since I think Special Characters are boring anyway, my vote goes to 'Character Design Rules' and 'Permission Only' both.