Is it time to ban special characters (from matched play)?

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Heck, we didn't even have venerable dreadnoughts yet (game wasn't old enough yet for any dreadnought to be old enough XD).

 

 

We did, actually, though only Space Wolves and Iron Hands could take them.

 

 

On the topic at hand, though, I've always been very pro-special character because I feel that it's an easy and fluffy way to reinforce the theme of a list. Starting in 4th edition, when sub factions started to go away with the Eldar codex, we lost rules for differentiating sub factions. Without Eldrad, a black and bone Eldar list - even when packed with Guardians - didn't feel as much like an Ulthwé army. Hell, I've been playing with Maugan Ra since I picked up Eldar with the Ulthwé Strike Force and he's never been an absolute beast of a model...but since Altansar is my Craftworld, it was thematic.

[Warhead01]

I agree with a lot of the opinions in the replies above. 

I'm not overly enthusiastic about using special characters or facing them, at least not in every game. 
I do find that I will select one for a specific use in my lists every now and them but not because I actually am interested in that character or their story that day. I don't feel that I theme my lists around them. 

I took 6 mobs of Kommandos and Snikrot in a tournament list saying that "clearly these Kommanos were Red Skull kommandos as Snikrot buffs Red Skull Kommandos. 

I have no invested interest in Snikrot at all beyond the buffs he provided that list that day. 
This is part of my problem with special characters in general. I much prefer my own characters that I have and continue to use to this day over the 20 years or so that I have been playing my chosen army.  Some options to advance or upgrade standard characters from the codex would, to me, be preferable.  I tend to not bring Special Characters in regular games or very rarely.  

 

On the other hand, if using a particular Special Character unlocks an army build then I'd have no problem, well less of an issue with special characters as I would expect that would at least create a theme.  To my mind though, it is sad that some armies would require a special character at all to be played. ( Thinking Death Wing from a few editions ago. ) 

[Evil Eye]

IMHO, the problem with special characters runs much deeper than the characters themselves- it's a problem with the shift in attitude of wargamers in general, and how that impacts on 40K (and wargaming as a whole really). I was discussing this issue with a friend of mine and we both came to roughly the same conclusion.

 

Once upon a time, wargaming wasn't really intended as an ultra-competitive/tournament-style hobby. It was far more narrative-driven (or history driven if we're talking historicals) where armies were picked based on events, ranging from recreating famous battles of history/the backstory or homebrew/what if campaigns/battles, always with a clear "story" to it. As such, armies were picked based on theme, real-world statistics or just what would make for a cool battle. Battles would usually use a tonne of homebrew rules and custom scenarios, and in some cases points values were either uneven or barely observed at all.

 

40K was just as much of an example of this as any other game, especially given its origins as more of a miniatures based RPG than an out-and-out wargame, complete with game master. OP units still existed, as did potential game-breaking loopholes, but as with most RPG based systems, the solution was usually player-based rather than rules-based; which is to say, if a gamebreaking loophole was discovered, most good players would just not use it, and actively exploiting said loopholes would probably be frowned upon. Likewise, whilst some units/characters were more powerful than others, they were also used in moderation because, again, just taking a list of nothing but the most powerful units and characters was not only very poor form, it was also usually not particularly thematic.

 

With regards to characters in particular, usually if someone was taking a character it was not because of some crazy loophole or them trumping every other HQ option- it was because they actually wanted to take them, either because their presence made sense in the context of the scenario or because they just liked the character. You didn't take Abaddon because of the particular bonus he has against certain armies, you took him because he was the goddamn Warmaster of Chaos.

 

Somewhere down the line, something changed and wargaming seemed to shift from a custom-made board in your garage with specially tailored rules in pursuit of recreating awesome battles to standardized boards in a tournament venue in pursuit of winning at all costs, no matter how boring the game was as a result. Exactly what caused that change is a discussion to be had elsewhere, but the outcome with regards to this discussion is that characters stopped being viewed as characters and started being viewed as tools to win tournaments with. Which would be bad enough without certain circles that shall remain unnamed chastising anyone who dared enjoy the game in any other way for the terrible crime of badwrongfun.

 

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, the solution isn't to ban special characters. The solution is to stop approaching every game as a tournament match where only the strongest units can be used.

[Bryan Blaire]

If your Matched Play game doesn’t have a narrative to it that you discussed with your opponent, then it absolutely doesn’t matter if 50 named characters are on the field on each side - let’s stop calling them “Special Characters”, because the game doesn’t, that’s no longer a 40K game term - you aren’t playing a story anyway.

 

What would be the point in banning named units from Matched Play? Crippling some Codex army types that they were designed to run?

 

Not every army has a replacement character for everything - the Dark Angels have no way of fielding an alternate “Company Master of the 2nd Company”, so they have to run Sammael if they want someone to lead the Ravenwing. I don’t recall the Blood Angels having Chapter Masters other than Dante or Seth.

 

Again, if your game doesn’t have a narrative to it, then you shouldn’t be bothered by named characters being used. If it does have a narrative to it, then you have to establish reasonable and narrative limits with your opponent beforehand, not complain after the fact.

[MARK0SIAN]

I am sick of seeing Magnus and Mortarion (and to a lesser extent RG) show up to every minor skirmish involving a handful of units but that’s because those units are too good not to use.

 

I don’t think the answer is a ban on special characters, I mean, Grimaldus is good but he’s hardly a game changing addition to a BT army. And Sly Marbo is fun and decent but hardly a real problem.

 

They just need to reign in some of the more ridiculous characters and it’d be fine.

 

That said, I wouldn’t object to a game size limit before you could bring in any character costing more than 300 points or so. Realistically Primarchs should only be involved in serious battles :)

[Ishagu]

Why don't you speak with your opponent before a game and agree about not using those units for the sake of variety?

[ERJAK]

So this is something that I've been thinking about, because it's an issue that I have disliked ever since Special Characters became the norm - the fact they are the norm.

 

When I started in 3rd, Special Characters were completely absent. Nobody used them, and the reason was simple: first, many of them had a points restriction (ie: you had to play a 2,000 point game or more to field the likes of Dante, Abaddon, etc) and all of them required your opponent's consent to field.

 

I suspect everyone here is more familiar with the time when Special Characters were not only free to use, but essential for certain army types. Various characters let you move certain units to the Troops slot, allowing you to field specialists lists like an all-Terminator list. On top of that, Special Characters became so much better over time. Gone are the days when a Special Character was essentially an existing character with a minor perk, and now a Special Character can often be a totally unique and amazingly powerful unit - like a Primarch.

 

So with matched play getting changes like removing super-factions from detachments, and the gimping of Turn 1 Deep Strike, should the next step be the removal of Special Characters from matched play?

 

Now again, this is not about banning them from the game entirely - if you want to use them, they should still be there. But the emphasis should be that bringing a Special Character is an occasion, or at least something done with the prior knowledge of your opponent. To my mind, Robute Guilliman is a character an entire scenario, or even an entire campaign should be built around, not merely someone to include in a random game because he lets you spam Command Points.

No. Wow can't believe we solved that so fast!

 

You CAN'T ban special characters anymore. Not with the rule of 3. 

[MARK0SIAN]

Why don't you speak with your opponent before a game and agree about not using those units for the sake of variety?

It’s not just opponents though, it’s almost every battle report, video or tournament list that uses those armies features those characters. They’re just too good, they’re a no-brainer to include because nothing else at those prices even comes close to them.

 

Tournaments are an exception I’ll admit because it’s WAAC and obviously people are going to take them but it’d just be nice if those three units weren’t that prevalent in every game. But like I said, I don’t support a ban on special characters and I wouldn’t fight for a point limit before you could bring Primarchs, I just wouldn’t object to one :)

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

So this is something that I've been thinking about, because it's an issue that I have disliked ever since Special Characters became the norm - the fact they are the norm.

 

When I started in 3rd, Special Characters were completely absent. Nobody used them, and the reason was simple: first, many of them had a points restriction (ie: you had to play a 2,000 point game or more to field the likes of Dante, Abaddon, etc) and all of them required your opponent's consent to field.

 

I suspect everyone here is more familiar with the time when Special Characters were not only free to use, but essential for certain army types. Various characters let you move certain units to the Troops slot, allowing you to field specialists lists like an all-Terminator list. On top of that, Special Characters became so much better over time. Gone are the days when a Special Character was essentially an existing character with a minor perk, and now a Special Character can often be a totally unique and amazingly powerful unit - like a Primarch.

 

So with matched play getting changes like removing super-factions from detachments, and the gimping of Turn 1 Deep Strike, should the next step be the removal of Special Characters from matched play?

 

Now again, this is not about banning them from the game entirely - if you want to use them, they should still be there. But the emphasis should be that bringing a Special Character is an occasion, or at least something done with the prior knowledge of your opponent. To my mind, Robute Guilliman is a character an entire scenario, or even an entire campaign should be built around, not merely someone to include in a random game because he lets you spam Command Points.

No. Wow can't believe we solved that so fast!

 

You CAN'T ban special characters anymore. Not with the rule of 3. It's also literally the dumbest idea anyone in all of wargaming has ever come up with, even behind 'Maybe if we eat all of our models we'll gain their power.'

Dude, you might not like the idea but the insult is uncalled for!

[Ishagu]

People love the models they've spent money and time on, and want to use them.

 

I think this way of thinking is bad. What's next? Hellblasters? Custodes Jetbikes? Flying Hive Tyrants? I see all these units in all Primaris/Custodes/Nids games.

[ERJAK]

I am sick of seeing Magnus and Mortarion (and to a lesser extent RG) show up to every minor skirmish involving a handful of units but that’s because those units are too good not to use.

 

I don’t think the answer is a ban on special characters, I mean, Grimaldus is good but he’s hardly a game changing addition to a BT army. And Sly Marbo is fun and decent but hardly a real problem.

 

They just need to reign in some of the more ridiculous characters and it’d be fine.

 

That said, I wouldn’t object to a game size limit before you could bring in any character costing more than 300 points or so. Realistically Primarchs should only be involved in serious battles

None of the special characters were really seeing a huge amount of play anymore at the competitive level, and after successive nerfs to Magnus and Guillamen, they're not particularly troublesome anymore.

 

Magnus, Mortarion, Guillamen, and to a MUCH lesser extent Celestine, see play mostly because 1. Running a pure faction army leaves you with relatively few options so many of those lists choose special characters and 2. Because these models tend to be very expensive and have a decent powerlevel, they help make list building simpler. If you can guarantee that 400pts of your army is going to be solid, that makes the other 1600 less of a hassle.

 

The only possible issue with SCs is that, thanks to the(idiotic) rule of 3, special characters across the board are likely going to see more play simply due to not being cut off at the knees by arbitrary nonsense. In fact, it's completely impossible for Sisters of Battle to run a battalion + any 2 other detachements, or double battalion, or brigade+any detachment, without special characters. In fact if you wanted to run Brigade+battalion, You'd have to use every single HQ they have to their max availability.

 

 

So this is something that I've been thinking about, because it's an issue that I have disliked ever since Special Characters became the norm - the fact they are the norm.

 

When I started in 3rd, Special Characters were completely absent. Nobody used them, and the reason was simple: first, many of them had a points restriction (ie: you had to play a 2,000 point game or more to field the likes of Dante, Abaddon, etc) and all of them required your opponent's consent to field.

 

I suspect everyone here is more familiar with the time when Special Characters were not only free to use, but essential for certain army types. Various characters let you move certain units to the Troops slot, allowing you to field specialists lists like an all-Terminator list. On top of that, Special Characters became so much better over time. Gone are the days when a Special Character was essentially an existing character with a minor perk, and now a Special Character can often be a totally unique and amazingly powerful unit - like a Primarch.

 

So with matched play getting changes like removing super-factions from detachments, and the gimping of Turn 1 Deep Strike, should the next step be the removal of Special Characters from matched play?

 

Now again, this is not about banning them from the game entirely - if you want to use them, they should still be there. But the emphasis should be that bringing a Special Character is an occasion, or at least something done with the prior knowledge of your opponent. To my mind, Robute Guilliman is a character an entire scenario, or even an entire campaign should be built around, not merely someone to include in a random game because he lets you spam Command Points.

No. Wow can't believe we solved that so fast!

 

You CAN'T ban special characters anymore. Not with the rule of 3. It's also literally the dumbest idea anyone in all of wargaming has ever come up with, even behind 'Maybe if we eat all of our models we'll gain their power.'

Dude, you might not like the idea but the insult is uncalled for!

 

You're right, my apologies. Edited that bit out.

[ERJAK]

People love the models they've spent money and time on, and want to use them.

 

I think this way of thinking is bad. What's next? Hellblasters? Custodes Jetbikes? Flying Hive Tyrants? I see all these units in all Primaris/Custodes/Nids games.

And meanwhile people have no problems with Troops and DTs escaping the rule of 3 despite at least 2 instances of troops or DTs becoming so broken they had to be decimated(conscripts, asscan razorbacks).

 

They've put themselves into a position where they can never make a troop or dedicated transport a genuinely strong option ever for the rest of 8th.

[Wargamer]

If the introduction of the Rule of 3 and loss of Special Characters is gimping your force, that is not an argument in favour of Special Characters - it's evidence GW needs to put more effort into your faction. I don't supporting keeping a moldy plaster on a wound.

[taikishi]

I do remember a time when Special Characters were banned in tournaments, required your opponent's permission to bring, and sometimes they could only be brought in certain size games (and less in some cases, but usually or more).

 

That being said, I disagree because of how it disproportionately affects some armies or builds -- especially with Rule of 3. Specifically

 

Dark Eldar: 3 HQ choices, but only one if you want to build pure-Cult or Kabal

Harlequins: 2

AdMech: 2

AdMin/SoB: 1

Inquisition: 2

 

While Inquisition being so low really isn't a problem, it severely limits what the other armies on this list can do -- especially Sister.

[taikishi]

If the introduction of the Rule of 3 and loss of Special Characters is gimping your force, that is not an argument in favour of Special Characters - it's evidence GW needs to put more effort into your faction. I don't supporting keeping a moldy plaster on a wound.

 

Unfortunately, two of the armies I listed of the five with 3 HQ choices or less already have codexes and Harlequins is "on the way". I find it very unlikely any of these remaining armies save Sisters will get additional HQ choices out of this deal that aren't Special Characters and the Sisters Dex is at least a year off, probably closer to 18 months.

[apologist]

IMHO, the problem with special characters runs much deeper than the characters themselves- it's a problem with the shift in attitude of wargamers in general[...]

usually if someone was taking a character it was not because of some crazy loophole or them trumping every other HQ option- it was because they actually wanted to take them, either because their presence made sense in the context of the scenario or because they just liked the character. You didn't take Abaddon because of the particular bonus he has against certain armies, you took him because he was the goddamn Warmaster of Chaos.

 

Somewhere down the line, something changed and wargaming seemed to shift from a custom-made board in your garage with specially tailored rules in pursuit of recreating awesome battles to standardized boards [...] the outcome with regards to this discussion is that characters stopped being viewed as characters and started being viewed as tools [...]. 

 

Agree with a lot of this; Squigsmasher. I've highlighted the parts I think are particular pertinent. The model of wargaming as simulation or re-enactment (inherited from historicals) is important, as this put cooperation foremost over competition; there was (typically, at least) a shared interest in what happened: could so-and-so win the battle? What if we do the cavalry arrived? What is Hannibal had more elephants? This interest was shared, usually dispassionate – you'd often swap sides and play again afterwards, rather than directly competitive.

 

Because it was based on real events, there was an obvious shared story that all involved would be familiar with. That's not necessarily the case with 40k, precisely because the setting is so vast, and it's deliberately laid out as 'your choice'. 

 

 

I am sick of seeing Magnus and Mortarion (and to a lesser extent RG) show up to every minor skirmish involving a handful of units but that’s because those units are too good not to use.

 

I don’t think the answer is a ban on special characters, I mean, Grimaldus is good but he’s hardly a game changing addition to a BT army. And Sly Marbo is fun and decent but hardly a real problem.

 

They just need to reign in some of the more ridiculous characters and it’d be fine.

 

That said, I wouldn’t object to a game size limit before you could bring in any character costing more than 300 points or so. Realistically Primarchs should only be involved in serious battles

 

Yes, I think this is the symptom of what Squigsmasher outlined above. It's not a problem with the characters per se, but the disjunct between the 'expected story' and what happens on the board. 

 

 

Why don't you speak with your opponent before a game and agree about not using those units for the sake of variety?

 

I think that's a very sensible idea; wargaming is at root a social hobby. As I say above, the historical-style approach Squigsmasher outlined had this as implicit – but I think that's died out a bit, being replaced with a more actively competitive scene. It's understandable due to two reasons:

• More pick-up gaming, where you don't know the other player, often with limited time.
• An open world

The result is that it's simply easier to bypass the discussion of what you both want to experience; with the result that characters appear in places where one party thinks it's inappropriate, spoiling their enjoyment, or both parties haven't considered it; regarding it more as a sport or competitive game than a shared role-play of events that occurred in a 'fantasy history'.

 

+++

 

Basically, I think there isn't a simple answer like 'ban special characters'; because the 'problem' hasn't quite been pinned down. It's not an issue with special characters, but with the lack of engagement with the character of those special characters.

[Bryan Blaire]

If the introduction of the Rule of 3 and loss of Special Characters is gimping your force, that is not an argument in favour of Special Characters - it's evidence GW needs to put more effort into your faction. I don't supporting keeping a moldy plaster on a wound.

There’s no such thing as a “Special Character” any more. It’s just a “unique per army” named unit. It would be like having a named Land Raider data sheet.

 

You’re arguing about something that doesn’t even have a gaming definition any more.

 

As far as the “moldy plaster” - if you don’t support it, are you going to personally do something about it? If someone else has an infected surgical implant, you may not support it’s continued residence in the body, but if there’s no specialist working to remove moldy implants, are you going to go in and perform surgery yourself and deal with the legal consequences to your livelihood? Or are you going to stop being silly and seek actual remedy?

 

Because you won’t find a remedy for “Unique” Datasheets or the lack of non-unique options for factions on the B&C, only GW has that power, and they’ve already made the efforts they are going to make for currently produced Codexes.

[Panzer]

"All you see is special character X" isn't really an argument for me. If it's not special character X it'll be generic character Y with loadout Z you see everywhere. There's always a best option for competetive player.

[apologist]

Actually; to build on my earlier post, it's worth looking at the non-special characters. While I really enjoy writing backstories and coming up with names and histories for the models I make; I'd feel a bit silly trying to explain them to someone I've just met at to play a pick-up game with – or at least, I wouldn't be offended if they said; "So she's an Inquisitor with a laspistol, right?" afterwards. It's entirely understandable for players to simplify complex homegrown characters into a summary of their basic rules.

 

It's not the same as historicals, where we both know who Admiral Nelson is, or Julius Caesar, or Stonewall Jackson etc.; and in any case, they're not so different from a regular 'commander' figure in terms of rules – often simply a name attached to the historical figure who was commanding the battle we're re-enacting. Contrast this with 40k, where a character might command magical powers or be a twenty-foot tall bio-beast. Nothing familiar there beyond the basic statline and unit summary.

 

In these cases, special characters have a great place as an archetype. A player might not know Kosharro Khan's history, but seeing a cool model who exemplifies the White Scars is a great way to enhance the enjoyment for both players; because he can be summarised easily as an exemplar of the army's play style.

 

In our gaming group, we play with 'normal' characters and rarely with special ones; but then we've had ten years of discussion and gaming together, in which our commanders have naturally developed interesting histories that are virtually impossible to summarise in an short, engaging way.

[Panzer]

People love the models they've spent money and time on, and want to use them.

 

That's another important point. People want to use their awesome models and if all people want to play is matched play because it's more balanced by design then a ban of those characters in matched play would mean they couldn't ever play with those awesome models of theirs.

[Wargamer]

 

People love the models they've spent money and time on, and want to use them.

 

That's another important point. People want to use their awesome models and if all people want to play is matched play because it's more balanced by design then a ban of those characters in matched play would mean they couldn't ever play with those awesome models of theirs.

 

I think this is another attitude that has done more harm than good over the years. I bought a Baneblade knowing I'd rarely use it - it was something cool to bring out once or twice a year for big events.

 

Fast forward a few years, and people were casually arranging Apocalypse battles not as special events, but just so they had an excuse to curb-stomp their opponents with an invincible Warhound Titan model.

 

If people really, really want to field Primarchs and Knight Houses and stuff like that, then they can surely put in a little extra effort and pre-arrange the game with someone who wants to face them, not just drop them on the head of people looking for a pick-up game.

[Kinstryfe]

If GW want to give us options for what a lot of the named characters do, then I'd be all for it. But right now if my Ultramarines army wants a Chapter Master or Chief Librarian, they only have the one option. Same with lots of armies and lots of unit types. If they made a generic option for a lot of these units so you could make a comparable character, I'd be all for the named characters just being "use X to represent Y". Until then though they're too integral to too many lists, by design, to just remove outright.

[Bryan Blaire]

I think there is a deeper problem than just not seeing the models. People either can’t figure out how to beat said models, or want to analyze/lift for their own games strategies other than those necessary to beat said models, etc.

 

It’s rarely as simple as “I just don’t like them” - there’s a reason behind it. Getting to that honest reason to find out if there’s an actual obtainable solution is key, otherwise it’s just disguised whining about preference.

 

Case in point:

...curb-stomp their opponents...

 

If people really, really want to field Primarchs and Knight Houses and stuff like that, then they can surely put in a little extra effort and pre-arrange the game with someone who wants to face them, not just drop them on the head of people looking for a pick-up game.

As easy as it is for those people to arrange games with a “little extra effort”, couldn’t you use a “little extra effort” to arrange games so that you don’t face things that curb-stomp you or involve Primarchs or Knight Households? That’s a very broad two-way street, and you are on it too. Everyone else isn’t necessarily the jerk because they do something you don’t like.

 

Proposals aren't solutions if they merely remove something, leaving a gap, without providing anything to fill that gap in return. It’s just a self-important request to conform to someone else’s limited ideal.

[Halandaar]

"All you see is special character X" isn't really an argument for me. If it's not special character X it'll be generic character Y with loadout Z you see everywhere. There's always a best option for competetive player.

 

Absolutely right; as we saw with specific builds like Chapter Master Smashfether and the Dakka Flyrant in previous editions. Players of a certain type will always gravitate towards whatever the perceived strongest option is, whether it's a named character or a generic character with a specific combination of gear and abilities.

[Schlitzaf]

Let me stress this again, special characters are not innately a problem. I’d rather have 3-4 viable and usable special characters than the return to the generic SS/RelicBlade Capt of 5th Ed. In the case of modern specials (with Vanilla Marines), we aren’t just seeing the same captain with different colors repeated. We are seeing Vulcans, Lysander, Pedro’s and more. Because despite what is normally lackluster equipment over the more generic captains. They have abilities and otherwise. For Named Masters, that is their super or full rerolls being baked in plus 1 ability that is generally an Aura within 6”.

 

However in this edition we see something else. That helps generics. Special/Named have locked Warlord Traits. My chapter master; Helbrect, biggest downside is locked into a very weak warlord trait. But if I make my own Marshall.

 

I have 5 viable warlord traits (I ignore reroll charge one as BT). And of those 5. I have two in particular I love; Angel of Death and Rites of War. Angel of Death is my personal favorite through I use Rites of War more often (if Helm worked with Angel I’d use Angel).

 

These Warlord Traits lacking the breadth of 7th Ed, can be chosen in construction. And makes a more unique and dynamic character. And secondly; Relics being free. Crusader’s Helm And Teeth are what I use. I’ve seen almost every relic given a good argument for and against. About only relic I’ve seen treated as actively lackluster is Burning Blade (in Vanilla Marines).

 

Now there are issues with that Teeth is best melee weapon in C:SM. But that is a different issue. Point is between relics, you have a good selection of generics, and your chapter one, then warlord traits. You can create what a more unique character than we ever could in the past.

 

The issue for me isn’t specials “OP”. It’s when a single ‘special’ reaches the level of what I call Relic&Shield Cpt. And currently beside argueably Gulliman and Celestine, Imperium wise. We haven’t yet reached a special that is like that. (Yvraine for Aeldari and Daemon Primarchs for Chaos I suppose.)