Are Unique Characters 'Good' for the Hobby?

[Damo1701]

Can't say I can understand someone who wants to play with, or against SCs, but in 6 pages of dancing around the actual thread title, we've had plenty reasons why they're bad for the hobby, no terms as to why they are 'good' for the hobby

Can Special Charaters enhance the hobby?

 

Are we talking on or off the table?

 

Let's take a look at off the table. Some people adore creating a "better" model for their favourite special Character. We've seen some truly amazing models for Shrike or Issodon in the Raven Guard forum.

 

It can encourage people to test their converting and sculpting skills to their limit or beyond, and thus, improve said skills.

 

Then we have painting. Again, another opportunity to go all out and test your boundaries, push past them, and improve.

 

So, are Special Characters Good f9r the hobby? I'd say yes there.

 

What about on the table?

 

Let's take a look.

 

There are many characters that appear OTT on paper, but perform poorly in reality, while others look poor, but can win a game by being underestimated, or by being the fire magnet leaving your army untouched.

 

What do special Characters do for an army? The simple fact is that they provide another layer of flavour for an army list, and enhances the story being told in the table. That only flies in a narrative environment though. In the competitive zone, sure, disallow special Characters by all means. There is no real story being told, just list optimisation for the sake of kurb-stomping people.

 

Should players set their own limits on Special Character usage?

 

Only to avoid duplication. To avoid daft situations, like mentioned above of 3 Bobby G's having a smackdown... unless that was the point.

 

Why do some people use counts as characters?

 

Speaking from experience, Shrike simply isn't alive during the period I have set my army, and I don't have 40K rules for Corax yet. So, following that train of thought, I use a Raven Guard Chapter Master, perhaps even the first to wear the Raven's Talons, with a Jump Pack. So, perhaps it's to get the official rule for a character "out of time" as it were. I don't think I could convert the plastic Bobby G into Corax well enough to pull off counting him as Corax, neither could I use the Corax model with Bobby's stsas, because WYSIWYG would be totally wrong.

 

So, are Special Characters Good for the hobby on the table top? That, like a lot, is totally down to YOU, the player/reader/etc.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

I don't believe people get into this hobby, see the lore, and then say "I hate that character. I hate all characters. I hate Shrike, I hate Shadowsun, I hate Dante, I hate Bjorn, I hate everyone."

 

No. Nobody says that, ever. You might hate Ultramarines or Sicarius or certain characters, but there's always characters you will like. 40K is a setting and a story about characters. People love Gaunt's Ghosts, people love Cain, people love Primarchs.

 

With that FACT out of the way, now consider this:

 

If people love certain characters, how can they hate the chance to play with that character in the game and on the tabletop?

See? It doesn't make sense. Even people all about customization and creating their own characters have to admit it's nonsensical, unless they hate every. Single. Character. In the setting. And if that's the case, how could they possibly enjoy the setting and involve themselves in it by creating their own characters when the setting is LITERALLY 100% filled with things they hate?

It's an intellectually dishonest stance through and through. People may hate that they have to share named characters with others. People may hate that named characters are too good. People may hate that too many people take named characters. But for anyone that likes 40K, it's impossible and illogical to say they hate the concept of named characters. It would be like Dynasty Warriors without any of the characters, custom officer creation only. Street Fighter with no characters, you have to make your own fighter only. Justice League without any superheroes, only custom characters.

[Brother_Gneecapper]

I am always of the mind allowing freedom of personal choice and tastes is the way to go, I will discourage anything that removes that and to that extent I do enjoy special characters. I do wish I could customize my own guys a bit more to give them some abilities I cannot get w/o a character (+1 str from Helbrecht) but as has been stated, Codex Commanders through the use of Warlord traits and Relics can be made almost as powerful as their SC counter parts. I usually take a Commander / Leuitenant in addition to Helbrecht just so I can give him a better warlord trait and relic that suits my lists play style. Fluff wise I think of it as Helbrecht taking the field to oversee a mission lead by one of his subordinates.

 

 

Reasons why special characters are good for the hobby:

 

1) It allows players to reenact famous battles they have read about in lore.

 

2) It allow players to command what many feel to be the very pinnacle of their chosen faction.

 

3) Because they are "unique" one off sculpts typically this allows the sculptor to put allot more detail into a model allowing for a "centerpiece" for an army. Not everyone is an expert with green stuff to make a super cool model themselves and would rather purchase one that GW has made that they like the asthetics of. Typically they are some of the coolest sculpts in the game, originally in 4th Ed I bought the Helbrecht model not because I ever planned to use him as Helbrecht but because it was a really cool looking model for my army I wanted to paint.

 

4) It may fit with their particular fluff, some of you may enjoy playing your own made up factions some may playing an established one or there may be other reasons. Back int the day when I first started and didnt know about thinning paints I couldn't for the life of me get good looking white shoulder pads on my Templar. As a result of this I painted most of their shoulder pads black with a red trim, this was before the official codex with sword brethren introduced that scheme. Now I view my Black Templar as essentially the 1st company or "High Marshall's House" of the Templar which then adds a fluff reason for why special characters often accompany my forces. Now that I am back in the hobby and can paint better, I've started expanding my forces to include White and Black pads and one day I'll just have a full crusading force.

 

5) Despite protests to the contrary it provides options to the game which is ultimately a positive, yes some people are always going to take one to have the most powerful army which also lessens diversity in some cases. Ultimately that depends on the playgroup you have and the type of players you surround yourself with.

 

6) It can provide its own unique story telling experience as well. It's fun cutting killing them in games (IMO), my Emperors Champion and Helbrecht have a personal vendetta against my buddies Immotekh the Stormlord and I will typically B-line straight for them in most games ignoring objectives due to this reason.

 

 

 

Reasons Why They Are / Could Be Bad For the Hobby:

 

1) Some (a rare few) have very powerful rules and bonuses that are completely unobtainable by other means or out class comparative units. This is the first and foremost issue that people have, this ultimately is not a problem that applies only to SC but a ton of units in the game. This is a balance issue and should be looked at as such, by adjusting points or applying restrictions to these units they can be balanced properly.

 

A flat out banning of characters rather than attempting to balance them is lazy, restricts player options and overall is a negative experience if I dropped $140 on Mortarion and spent 50 hours painting the guy expecting to use him only to have everyone go "NERP!" I probably would find a new play group or look to a new hobby where I could actually use my toys.

 

I do think if any restrictions are imposed the fairest one is a point level restriction, ____ character can only be fielded in a game size of 2000+ pts sort of thing, this is also a balancing tool forcing units to be in games where there will be adequate options to deal with said threat. 

 

This is really the only reason I see with any validity and again I will state its a balance issue first and foremost and not an issue with special characters. The snowflake status of an SC may encourage GW to make snowflake super powerful rules to sell the model, but they will do this with just about any new models or factions introduced not an SC. Ultimately GW is about selling models, if they make attempts to balance the game it's so that they have a healthy player base to sell more models. 

 

No one is forcing you to play with SC's or to play against them you can have a personal rule that flat out bans them but a sweeping "official" rule such as this is not good for the hobby as it reduces options available to the players. 

 

 

Now onto the CDR rules I proposed earlier, I do believe they would have alot of things to consider to properly balance it. I do not honestly think it'd be great for competitive unless it was pretty tightly tuned, I was suggesting it more for Narrative play which is where the VDR is expected to be used. Just because it could be potentially "gamed" or "broken" by players seeking to min-max and is not a reason to not explore that idea. 

 

This can be done by any player in any game system short of maybe Rock-Paper-Scissors. Though I'm sure you will find websites online that break down what is the optimal choice in that game as well to ensure you win at a slightly higher %. Complexity adds choices and replay value, introducing more of it if well crafted is always a good thing IMO.

[Atrus]

Im wondering if a rule of 10% for special characters would be feasable. A special character cannot take up more than 10% of your army points. Fir example Girlyman is 300-odd points. You wouldnt see him in 1-2k pt games as he exceeds the 10% limit but youd see him in 3k+ games. (Which imo is around the point hed bother taking the field. Hes an administrator. Every moment he spends on the field is another moment where a part of the imperium suffers due to a piece of paper he should be signing.)

[Yodhrin]

​

I don't believe people get into this hobby, see the lore, and then say "I hate that character. I hate all characters. I hate Shrike, I hate Shadowsun, I hate Dante, I hate Bjorn, I hate everyone."

 

No. Nobody says that, ever. You might hate Ultramarines or Sicarius or certain characters, but there's always characters you will like. 40K is a setting and a story about characters. People love Gaunt's Ghosts, people love Cain, people love Primarchs.

 

With that FACT out of the way, now consider this:

 

If people love certain characters, how can they hate the chance to play with that character in the game and on the tabletop?

See? It doesn't make sense. Even people all about customization and creating their own characters have to admit it's nonsensical, unless they hate every. Single. Character. In the setting. And if that's the case, how could they possibly enjoy the setting and involve themselves in it by creating their own characters when the setting is LITERALLY 100% filled with things they hate?

It's an intellectually dishonest stance through and through. People may hate that they have to share named characters with others. People may hate that named characters are too good. People may hate that too many people take named characters. But for anyone that likes 40K, it's impossible and illogical to say they hate the concept of named characters. It would be like Dynasty Warriors without any of the characters, custom officer creation only. Street Fighter with no characters, you have to make your own fighter only. Justice League without any superheroes, only custom characters.

​

​

​Well, I know you're not actually interested, but I'll give you the answer anyway - someone can love reading about Gaunt's Ghosts, or Angron, or Rowboat McAwesomeman, yet never ever want to actually use them on the table or play against them because we're meant to be fighting in a setting consisting of an entire bloody galaxy with hundreds of thousands of active conflicts occurring at every level from gang wars all the way up to crusades with tens of millions of soldiers, and running into the setting's Big Damn Heroes on a continual basis in a company level engagement makes a total mockery of that premise. It also means, for those of us who do actually like the setting and care about how it interacts with our tabletop experience, that we lose any real control of the narratives of our own armies - a Special Character is in a certain place doing certain things based on whatever the related official "story" is, and so to fight them your army must be in that place and time as well. You might have an elaborate story in your mind for your character and where they are in terms of the setting's "present day", but unless that story is "they are wherever Rowboat is" it means the square root of thin-air if you show up for a game and someone plonks down Guilliman. Your present-day army is going to have to experience some pretty gnarly timey-wimey stuff in order to end up centuries in the past to fight Gaunt's Ghosts, or Tycho.

​

​Special Characters should be what they were initially conceived as - special. As in, for special occasions, for refighting the stories tied explicitly to those characters, for campaigns dedicated to those times & places, not something you need to use to get the best rules for a given faction. But hey, GW figured out they can use the Saturday morning cartoon model to flog people big ol' build-your-own action figures, so it's not like this is actually a discussion, they're not going to go back now.

[Jagus Kumkani]

This thread can be boiled down to...

 

-Characters take away from the overall feel of 40k. I like "my guys" better.

or

-Special Characters are what cement the setting of 40k, they're essential for the role they play in the universe(40k).

 

Like I said before, this is a matter of preference. If you don't like a certain style of play or SC's then don't use them or play against them. But this elitist ideology that's being pushed from the anti-SC group is getting no where.

[Damo1701]

​Well, I know you're not actually interested, but I'll give you the answer anyway - someone can love reading about Gaunt's Ghosts, or Angron, or Rowboat McAwesomeman, yet never ever want to actually use them on the table or play against them because we're meant to be fighting in a setting consisting of an entire bloody galaxy with hundreds of thousands of active conflicts occurring at every level from gang wars all the way up to crusades with tens of millions of soldiers, and running into the setting's Big Damn Heroes on a continual basis in a company level engagement makes a total mockery of that premise. It also means, for those of us who do actually like the setting and care about how it interacts with our tabletop experience, that we lose any real control of the narratives of our own armies - a Special Character is in a certain place doing certain things based on whatever the related official "story" is, and so to fight them your army must be in that place and time as well. You might have an elaborate story in your mind for your character and where they are in terms of the setting's "present day", but unless that story is "they are wherever Rowboat is" it means the square root of thin-air if you show up for a game and someone plonks down Guilliman. Your present-day army is going to have to experience some pretty gnarly timey-wimey stuff in order to end up centuries in the past to fight Gaunt's Ghosts, or Tycho.

​

​Special Characters should be what they were initially conceived as - special. As in, for special occasions, for refighting the stories tied explicitly to those characters, for campaigns dedicated to those times & places, not something you need to use to get the best rules for a given faction. But hey, GW figured out they can use the Saturday morning cartoon model to flog people big ol' build-your-own action figures, so it's not like this is actually a discussion, they're not going to go back now.

I think your point about "company level engagement" is the biggest limit people are applying to themselves.

 

Just because that 4-8 foot section of battlefield you are fighting on is considered "company level" doesn't mean the entire Warzone is that little section. This is partly the reason for special Characters. Fighting where they are. Using the forces they are commanding. Fighting the foes they need to vanquish. Seeing then wounded and out of the fight, or a bloody crater where a hero used to stand.

 

If named characters and chapter heroes are the purview of the fluff only, then the fluff is further divorced from the game, and there is much less immersion in the sense that if you see yourself as Guilliman or Mortarion then shouldn't you be able to be that character on the table top?

[Ishagu]

Is everyone's imagination really so limited?

 

You can't imagine Guilliman taking to the field in a smaller game? Can you not imagine that there is a larger battle taking place around him that you simply aren't focused on for the 5-7 turns of your game, or that it's simply a VR training exercise?

 

Also a 10% rule is stupid beyond anything. You've just banned Magnus and Mortarion from practically every game, not to mention any of the Daemon characters etc.

[Eddie Orlock]

You've just banned Magnus and Mortarion from practically every game, not to mention any of the Daemon characters etc.

They'll just show up in Apocalyptic conflicts. Where they belong

 

Yes, I can contrive to imagine why any meeting is present on the table top and reconcile it in my head. It's just I'd rather not too, too, often with some configurations. The screams of the tortured fluff already haunt my dreams.

[Toxichobbit]

Can't say I can understand someone who wants to play with, or against SCs, but in 6 pages of dancing around the actual thread title, we've had plenty reasons why they're bad for the hobby, no terms as to why they are 'good' for the hobby

 

True, but is it needed? Surely it's obvious. Step into any GW, any games club, any gaming group* or any painting forum and you will see examples of people enjoying special characters. It's like my nephew. He loves the Marvel franchise, but he doesn't want to play with generic S.H.I.E.L.D agents or random Chitari (sp?) soldiers, he wants Iron Man, Thor, Black Widow and Hulk. He wants to play the cool characters he sees in the film. Plenty of us are no different, we want to see the characters that we read about on the table, we want them to have awesome sculpts and spend ages giving them a paint job that's just right, because it's what we enjoy. That's what this hobby is about, people enjoying themselves. To that, everything else, every argument, discussion, theory and opinion about what's good and bad for this hobby, is secondary. Because for something to be good in the hobby, ultimately all that's needed is that the players enjoy it**.

 

 

* there should probably be an "almost" in front of "any" here as there are bound to be some clubs and groups where SCs aren't ever used. Maybe even some forums. But I left it out because it flowed better and I liked how it sounded .

 

** both players fun. So if someone doesn't want to play against SCs because they find it unfun, for whatever reason, then it's up to both players to come to a compromise. Nobody should be forced to play with or against SCs if they don't want to and likewise nobody should be having to ask permission to use their models, be they SCs or regular models. What matters is that none of us impose our fun, onto someone elses fun.

[Schlitzaf]

I got to ask for the No-SC folks what is a unique special character?

 

A character who is only allowed to be 0-1 in an army such as my Cenobyte Servitors or back in the day Assassins? Or is it some unique wargear?

 

Should we just remove Relics from the game entirely? The Teeth of Terra is better than any equivalent normal weapon in terms of damage output in most cases (Relic Sword, Hammers and Fist can get it a run for its money admittedly I still say personally Teeth is better), and a Captain with Teeth beat most named characters in Combat. Is it for Named Chapter Masters having Super Rerolls?

 

Well any SM Captain can spend 3 Command Points to get Super Rerolls. Perhaps it's their buff (Pedro +1 AtK, Helbrect +1 Str) or Calgar's Super Armor and his +2(5)Command?

 

Well any SM Captain can take Shield Eternal and PowFist. And you know they are 99 points less than Calgar, a whole 2nd 5 MSU Squad. And Command Points equate to 20 points give or take to my understand.

 

Also for Super Auras + Super Rerolls, Generic Warlord Traits you get in your Codex can be similar to that. Space Marines in particular have three good ones that are aura buffs not link to chapters. Which no named character is allowed to even take.

 

1) Shock Immune (Rites of War)

2) -1 LD to units within 6 (Angel of Death)

3) Additional AP on roll of 6

And additionally out of the core book itself

4) Friendly units nearby use Warlord Morale

 

They are not +1 STR/+1 AtK/Reroll Charge Jump/+5 Command Points/2nd Strike they are not inconsequential abilities. Now if you are referring to Gulliman.

 

Do you have issues with Deamon Princes? Whose essentially works the same way save they are half of Gulli, and only affects (Legion) and (alignment). Save Forged World all Chaos Units will be (Legion) or (alignment keyword), so are funntionally (without R&H from Forged World) Gulliman.

 

Which within the context of the actual game, is essentially how Gulliman Normal Rerolls. Because Gulliman aura is 12" (with Ultras have Super Awesome 6" Rerolls)! But sense Gulliman is Double Prince in prince you can have 2 Princes. Furthermore Gulli has 9 Wounds on a 4+ stands up gets D6. Two Princes have 18 wounds.

 

Now Gulliman does have some advantages notably his super sword and 3+ IV. But he has on average 4 less wounds and he won't move as fast if Princes are Winged and he cannot cast powers. Yarrick for Gaurd is 130 Points and gives everyone rerolls of 1. A regular Commissar is 51 and you could take 4 Company Commanders so 8 units rerolling 1's.

 

If it's just an immersion thing? Well Gulli isn't fighting everywhere, he is fighting with or against you on that battlefield in particular. In that that specific moment in time. Is it an RPG? The existence of named characters in no way cheapens your own characters.

 

Tycho is a named here who is secretly a generic. Every character has chance to become a Tycho. If you send a letter to GW writing your story of your super awesome Captain with some cool personal tid bit. Maybe you'll become the next Tycho. It likely won't ever happen.

 

The moment your character has a name he is no longer Generic SM Captain. He is now (in my case) "Twin Marshall Schlitzaf Iuris of the Dalthus Crusade". He is armed with TwinClaws, is he better or worse than Chaplain Grimaldus or Helbrect. Maybe? He is cheaper by 40 to 90 points

 

If Helbrect is better does he somehow invalidate my Marshall? No. My Marshal is Marshal Schlitzaf Iuris not High Marshall Helbrect. If he does....why would he? No one is forcing you to use him and your backstory isn't the same as "Named Character 84", and your loadout certainly isn't the same. And you can even make them super cool with Warlord Traits and Relics post-Codex in their own right.

 

Let me ask the no special crowd? Exactly what is your issue with Special Characters. If you say rules are better let's see some math, don't forget to include points. (And remember 20ish points = 1 Command Point).* If you say "RPG" how does a named character invalidate all your years of playing your personal Special Dude?

 

 

*Relics will cost 10 points because 0/1 Command points I have yet to see someone get 3 Relics

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

​​​Well, I know you're not actually interested, but I'll give you the answer anyway - someone can love reading about Gaunt's Ghosts, or Angron, or Rowboat McAwesomeman, yet never ever want to actually use them on the table or play against them because we're meant to be fighting in a setting consisting of an entire bloody galaxy with hundreds of thousands of active conflicts occurring at every level from gang wars all the way up to crusades with tens of millions of soldiers, and running into the setting's Big Damn Heroes on a continual basis in a company level engagement makes a total mockery of that premise. It also means, for those of us who do actually like the setting and care about how it interacts with our tabletop experience, that we lose any real control of the narratives of our own armies - a Special Character is in a certain place doing certain things based on whatever the related official "story" is, and so to fight them your army must be in that place and time as well. You might have an elaborate story in your mind for your character and where they are in terms of the setting's "present day", but unless that story is "they are wherever Rowboat is" it means the square root of thin-air if you show up for a game and someone plonks down Guilliman. Your present-day army is going to have to experience some pretty gnarly timey-wimey stuff in order to end up centuries in the past to fight Gaunt's Ghosts, or Tycho.

​Special Characters should be what they were initially conceived as - special. As in, for special occasions, for refighting the stories tied explicitly to those characters, for campaigns dedicated to those times & places, not something you need to use to get the best rules for a given faction. But hey, GW figured out they can use the Saturday morning cartoon model to flog people big ol' build-your-own action figures, so it's not like this is actually a discussion, they're not going to go back now.

 

But could you understand why people would see the appeal in that?

 

If you can't, the issue isn't special characters or the people who want them, I can tell you that much.

 

Being able to take Pedro Kantor to really drive home the Rynn's World and Crimson Fists theme of your era specific force doesn't make Pedro Kantor any less special of a character.

 

You don't see anyone here forcing YOU to take stuff YOU don't like. You don't see anyone here saying we should ban all non-named characters. You're the one saying only your feelings on the narrative are right, and nobody else should be allowed to take named characters. Not every battle needs to take place in 999.M41 either. Thanks for assuming I'm not interested though, it really highlights why everyone is so upset at the anti-character crowd and their poor attitude. The fact that you think anyone who takes a named character doesn't care at all about how the lore interacts with their tabletop experience is laughable. In fact, I can probably gather a good few thousand laughs from all the Badab War participants who field their characters to recreate the campaign. The entire reason I take named characters is specifically BECAUSE I care about the lore. Otherwise I'd just use some generic min/max Chapter Master or Librarian like everyone did in 7E.

[deathspectersgt7]

@ Schlitzaf My main issue with GW/ SC is all I see on table tops everytime every where I go . The only time I can get a game without one is in my group. And I really don't mind going against them but I would like to see more Generic home made SC on the table top . I have my own SC now for 70 Chapters I have . And they are all non GW main Chapters That is what I want to see more of.

 I don't dislike GWs but I would rather see What the Hobbyist can do .  

[graysparrow]

I got to ask for the No-SC folks what is a unique special character?

...(and other various questions)...

 

It, to me, is not an immersion thing.  It's not a Relic thing, or an Aura Buff thing, or a faction specific thing, or even a rules or balance thing..   It is, to me, as I posted earlier in this thread, a question of making the game more predictable and thus boring.  I have nothing against special characters in custom scenarios, or narrative campaigns, but when unique special characters are in every army and every game it makes them no longer unique or special. 

 

 

 

I kinda like the 10% of army points idea that was suggested, it'd keep some special characters from showing up in every game and make them truly special once more.  With their exclusion from lower points games, there would be more variety to your average army as those pricey special characters are no longer an automatic inclusion.  So your average pick up game would be less predictable and thus more exciting. 

 

If Big Bobby G and his girlfriend Celestine (as an example) are no longer in every Imperial army in every pickup game, then prospective players watching those games won't think they have to drop all the money those models require just to get into the basic game.  So people who right now would be scared off from the game because of the high price those special character models have attached to them would instead pick up a generic / customizable character model kit (or kits) and join in the fun. 

 

If people who already play who are perhaps getting sick of seeing multiple examples of Big Bobby G and his girlfriend Celestine (again, examples), stopped seeing them in every single game, but instead started seeing them in those large point mega-battles that always draw a crowd, they might stop thinking 'ugh, that character' and start thinking 'cool, that character' instead.  They might even one day buy that character in order to paint up for their own large, crowd gathering mega-battle. 

 

Crowd gathering mega-battles, as the name implies, draw crowds.  Crowds attract players too, especially the ones who like larger than life characters that everyone is ohhing and ahhing over in those mega-battles.  If those prospective players see that those characters are drawing positive attention instead of eye-rolls and mutters of 'oh great, another that character' from their opponents, then they too will join in this hobby we all love and start working towards their own mega-army for those mega-battles. 

 

More variety and excitement in small pickup games, more eye drawing excitement in larger games, more acceptance of special characters all around, and more players being attracted into the hobby by whichever of those two things appeals to them the most/is easiest on their wallets. 

 

....I think all of those things would be VERY good for our hobby!  Which proves that yes, unique characters ARE 'good' for the Hobby....so long as they are handled correctly. 

 

 

 

So I change my petition vote from 'permission only' to '10% rule', as it would do what I desired with the 'permission only' rule without making people who told GW to 'shut up and take my money' for their special characters go out into the streets with pitchforks.  (I hope, anyway). 

 

(edit for spelling, changed an 'a' to an 'an' because its 'an' an not 'a' an.)

[Schlitzaf]

If folks start doing every character has a Hammer-Shield Eternal. We are back to square 1. There is always gonna be a best option at the end of the day

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I want to know where this "every game" fallacy is coming from.  I've played exactly three games of 40K in 8th Edition and spectating about another dozen (my "local" GW doesn't have a lot of table space).  Call it 15 games total.  In all of those games, exactly two of them had special characters: Lemartes and Guilliman.  Two, out of fifteen.  Now I realize that every meta is different and I'm sure that characters are plentiful in other areas (like the previous poster who saw three versions of Guilliman on the table at one time).  But drop the hyperbole, please?

[MysticTemplar]

 

I got to ask for the No-SC folks what is a unique special character?

...(and other various questions)...

It, to me, is not an immersion thing. It's not a Relic thing, or an Aura Buff thing, or a faction specific thing, or even a rules or balance thing.. It is, to me, as I posted earlier in this thread, a question of making the game more predictable and thus boring. I have nothing against special characters in custom scenarios, or narrative campaigns, but when unique special characters are in every army and every game it makes them no longer unique or special.

 

 

 

I kinda like the 10% of army points idea that was suggested, it'd keep some special characters from showing up in every game and make them truly special once more. With their exclusion from lower points games, there would be more variety to your average army as those pricey special characters are no longer an automatic inclusion. So your average pick up game would be less predictable and thus more exciting.

 

If Big Bobby G and his girlfriend Celestine (as an example) are no longer in every Imperial army in every pickup game, then prospective players watching those games won't think they have to drop all the money those models require just to get into the basic game. So people who right now would be scared off from the game because of the high price those special character models have attached to them would instead pick up a generic / customizable character model kit (or kits) and join in the fun.

 

If people who already play who are perhaps getting sick of seeing multiple examples of Big Bobby G and his girlfriend Celestine (again, examples), stopped seeing them in every single game, but instead started seeing them in those large point mega-battles that always draw a crowd, they might stop thinking 'ugh, that character' and start thinking 'cool, that character' instead. They might even one day buy that character in order to paint up for their own large, crowd gathering mega-battle.

 

Crowd gathering mega-battles, as the name implies, draw crowds. Crowds attract players too, especially the ones who like larger than life characters that everyone is ohhing and ahhing over in those mega-battles. If those prospective players see that those characters are drawing positive attention instead of eye-rolls and mutters of 'oh great, another that character' from their opponents, then they too will join in this hobby we all love and start working towards their own mega-army for those mega-battles.

 

More variety and excitement in small pickup games, more eye drawing excitement in larger games, more acceptance of special characters all around, and more players being attracted into the hobby by whichever of those two things appeals to them the most/is easiest on their wallets.

 

....I think all of those things would be VERY good for our hobby! Which proves that yes, unique characters ARE 'good' for the Hobby....so long as they are handled correctly.

 

 

 

So I change my petition vote from 'permission only' to '10% rule', as it would do what I desired with the 'permission only' rule without making people who told GW to 'shut up and take my money' for their special characters go out into the streets with pitchforks. (I hope, anyway).

 

(edit for spelling, changed an 'a' to an 'an' because its 'an' an not 'a' an.)

So the problem with this (and most other suggestions that suggest restricting special characters) is that you're now treating a group of models differently... why? Because you don't like them aesthetically on the battle field? Because they have names? If the problem is that you don't want to see, say, Guiliman in every list, then that's a game balance problem with regards to the strength of that particular data slate.

 

Additionally - a class of models can only cause a game balance problem as a class if the class has inherent rules associated with it that cause problems, like the vehicle rules in 7e, due to how harsh the damage table was. The thing about the class of 'special characters' is that there is only one trait that they share between all of them - the inability to be taken in multiples within an army, which would be difficult to argue as being broken, I suspect. (And even this isn't actually unique to 'special characters', I think. The Harlequin Solitaire is unique despite representing a single unnamed member of a class of individuals.)

 

Apart from that - they are generally a somewhat superior version of some other model in the army, but models like Yvraine and the Yncarne, prove that it isn't a universal trait. They are usually HQ models, but Deathleaper & the Red Terror are Elites, with Guiliman as a Lord of War, so they don't share a trait there.

 

They don't uniquely have monobuild models, either, for most of the Harlequin characters have single pose miniatures (Shadowseer, Death Jester)

 

It could be argued that they have unique abilities, but... how is that defined? The Swarmlord has a fairly unique ability to let things move during the shooting phase, but while moving out of turn is uncommon, it isn't unheard of. And then there's the Malanthrope's ability to grant its entire army rerollng 1s, which is almost entirely unique as far as I know, despite it not being a 'special character' (and in fact, it can be taken in a 'unit').

 

Are some 'special characters' unbalanced? Quite possibly! But given the lack of game wide rules to define the class, I believe it becomes pretty clear that balance errors need to be corrected on a case by case basis - casting the net too wide is generally worse. After all, a Tyranid force could legitimately contain all of its named characters - the Hivemind does as the Hivemind pleases. Guilliman could be on the battlefield because the Alpha Legion decided to replace him again, and so on.

 

</wall of text>

 

Edit: In short, treating 'special characters' differently in the rules of the game is silly, because they uniquely posess no defined trait other than a name that marks them as an individual. And even that can be questionable.

[DuskRaider]

You know what? It's not worth it. 

[graysparrow]

You know what? It's not worth it. 

 

Yea...I think I agree.  I'm out. 

[Calyptra]

At the risk of being Captain Bad Plan, I'm gonna skip the quotes. I figure it's bad enough that I inflict my own walls of text on people, without quoting other walls of text at the same time.

 

@ Ishagu regarding objective reasons

 

I'm not sure it's an objective question. We're basically talking about people's experiences, right? If enough people find that their experience is diminished or negatively impacted, wouldn't that, objectively, be bad for the hobby?

 

I don't know that it is. I can only share my personal experience, but it's clear from this discussion that a nonzero number of people feel that special characters make the game a little bit less fun.

 

I think that sort of thing is unavoidable in a hobby where different people get different things out of it.

 

If you're right that most people love special characters, then they might instead be good for the hobby. However, you didn't cite a source for that and, with respect, you are a person on the Internet, so I don't believe you. We could take a poll on this forum, but I don't think we can demonstrate that this forum is representative of players in general. How most players feel about special characters does not seem like a readily answerable question. I think we should just talk about how we feel about them instead.

 

@ Schlitzaf regarding everybody liking characters in the lore

 

I can't speak for everybody, but with me at least, you're right, there are several characters I quite like in the lore. If we pretend that they weren't all removed from the game with my last codex, I still have zero interest in playing them, just like I had zero interest in playing them before the 7th ed codex, and that's because I have zero interest in watching Malys or Sliscus or Sathonyx die on the tabletop over and over and over again. Those are characters who are supposed to be too intelligent and resourceful and skilled to be torn apart by Tyranids (or whatever), and as such, that is not how their stories end. They are also not my characters to tell stories about.

 

I want my games to matter, and be meaningful, to me. If a big red reset button gets pushed after the game, it feels like everything that happened has been invalidated. (This is why I like campaign games like Necromunda so much.)

 

@ in general

 

Nobody in this thread is wrong (except Ishagu). (Joking!) I am saying that special characters diminish my hobby experience a little bit, not that other players shouldn't get to take them. If you love them and think they make the game for you, that's just as valid as how I feel about them. It matters to me that the person I am playing a game with has fun. If the game is significantly more fun for you with a special character, then bring the special character, and I'll quietly try to write some sort of headcanon explanation (like dopelganger space abominations or something).

 

We are not going to determine if special characters hurt or help the hobby in this thread. We are going to get a whole bunch of perspectives on why various people like or dislike them. Since playing a game is fundamentally a shared, collaborative experience in which you bear at least partial responsibility for whether the other person has fun, that seems valuable.

 

/wall

[Kisada]

@Calyptra Nicely put.  

 

Going back to my 3 Roboute on one team in a 3v3 ... yeah I'm not going to play in something like that again ... I'll just politely excuse myself.

 

My most recent game was a 75 Power Level game vs a Grey Knight.  3 Grand masters in dreadknight armor, 1 storm raven, 2 storm talons.  No "special" characters but still wasn't a fun experience in either game play or narrative for me.  Don't know how to best handle that next time.  Didn't know what he was going to be fielding before agreeing to the game.

 

It's been mentioned multiple times on this thread and many others ... games are supposed to be fun ... talking with your opponent (or prospective opponent) before starting seems like a good way to ensure both players will be having some fun.

[Calyptra]

It's a topic for another thread, but I think a lot of people see other players as potential threats to their fun (which is a very rational view to take), but don't really see themselves as being partly responsible for their opponent's fun.

 

I'm ruminating, not dispensing wisdom, but I feel like if I were to spend more time thinking about what I can do to help ensure that my opponent has fun, it would lead to better games. It's a thing I think I should work on. It seems important.

 

That said, there's always that player whose idea of fun is going to be making me scoop all my models off the table on turn 1 while pointing, laughing, and insulting my mother, and that guy is on his own.

 

But if your regular opponent doesn't like special characters, maybe don't bring them to every single game. If your regular opponent loves special characters and how they interact, maybe bring one every so often even though you don't like them that much.

 

And afterwards, maybe go punch out that guy who said that stuff about my mother.

 

I think the differences of opinion and perspective here are really interesting, but also really not worth getting worked up about.

[Servant of Dante]

@Calyptra I wish I could like your posts multiple times :D

 

Very nicely put. I have mixed feelings on this subject, but I certainly agree with you.

[Ishagu]

To go back to the topic itself and , there is no singular "hobby" that applies to everyone, so to answer that question:

 

Yes, Special characters are additional models and collect/play/build opportunities that are 100% good for the hobby.

[Kisada]

To go back to the topic itself and , there is no singular "hobby" that applies to everyone, so to answer that question:

 

Yes, Special characters are additional models and collect/play/build opportunities that are 100% good for the hobby.

 

Yes, I didn't notice anyone arguing the collect and build part of special characters.  However, the play part is the part that people are debating and you can't say its 100% good for the play part of the hobby because obviously there's a debate about it with differing opinions.

 

"there is no singular "hobby" that applies to everyone"

 

so then .... "Special characters are additional models and collect/play/build opportunities that are 100% good for [MY] hobby"

FTFY