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

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I don't think that banning special characters from matched play is a good ideal at all. 

 

1) Most of them are not that good. There are a few that are really good and most have been adjusted up, and if GW keeps that up it should take care of itself.

 

2) In addition because special characters have set wargear, they are easier to fix than generic characters. 

 

3) They've been pushed to new players, and they shouldn't be punished for buying them.

 

4) The main argument against them seems to be breaking immersion. But that goes both ways the other player narrative may be built around that character and that should be fine.

[Scammel]

Considering special characters are some of the coolest - and occasionally largest - models for a given faction and may indeed be the​ main attraction of the army for some people, I'll be incensed if someone told me I couldn't use my lovingly-painted Magnus because of GW's approach to special characters in the prior century.

[chapter master 454]

Main issue I have if we start trying to restrict Special Characters is we hurt other armies. I mean, Tau are practically falling about trying to fill HQ slots with worthwhile units (your options are Commander with 4 flavours but only one commander at all then there are cadre fireblades and Etherals, both only good for their aura which is once per unit).

 

Special Characters add to the game as some have really awesome looking models or enable certain tactics. Ofcourse the moment one of those tactics becomes the tier 1 it will instantly being targeted for being overpowered. Whether it is or not is not discussed fully or experimented but rather people would rather complain than change. (What is it? Who wants change, everyone raises their hands. Who wants TO change, no-one raises their hand).

 

If one is being brought a lot then maybe there are several factors for it. I mean, Gulliman, Mortarion and Magnus all look awesome. While I haven't faced them regularly, if you are facing them so regularly maybe consider shifting tactics. If you can count on your opponent to bring them then make your list fit what you need. Punish them for having predictable lists and force them to shift from it. The moment they cry foul you retort "Well bring something else other than the same list every week".

 

Special Characters are not an issue really. Only other way to have such unique units would be to have a "build your own Character" thing and we all know how those tend to turn out! (poorly, abused and in desperate need of the boltgun out back)

[Elzender]

Regarding the fact that some special characters are almost mandatory to play a certain army/subfaction, I think something like the rites of war from the Heresy legion army list would be a good alternative: giving you some bonuses to certain units or allowing special options, but also putting some restrictions to the army composition or to the availablity of certain units. This way, while you could still include a special character if you liked it, it would not be required to use the army the way you want. As some other fraters have said before, I think special characters should give extra flavour to an army, but not be a mandatory part for it to be recognizable/playable.

 

This kind of option in army composition, combined with the faction bonuses, stratagems, relics, warlord traits, etc. would increase even further the available options. Obviously, that would require a lot of testing and balancing, and I don't know if it would be even viable.

[Raven1]

No absolutely not. GW has very much changed thier ways on characters and its not because of 8th. In a tournament environment you are going to do what you think takes to win regardless if the datasheet us a unique character and in narrative play its our game our models and we can do what we want.

[Volt]

*coughs*

 

As I suggested before, why not simply get rid of special characters entirely, and implement a point-buy creation basis?

[Lysere]

*coughs*

 

As I suggested before, why not simply get rid of special characters entirely, and implement a point-buy creation basis?

 

The problem with this is the points cost will either be prohibitively expensive and thus meaningless outside of narrative games (where such things can be done regardless) or you will see one or two of the best combos in every list just like with special characters.

[Bulwyf]

I have no problems with special characters. I do not think they should be banned from match play.

 

My only issue with HQ choices is that I wish we had ways to take a generic HQ choice and give them more options to pick from. That way you don't by default look at one HQ for your army because it is always the best option to take. More options would be good for everyone.

[Wargamer]

*coughs*

 

As I suggested before, why not simply get rid of special characters entirely, and implement a point-buy creation basis?

I could get behind having customisable equivalents. The more I think on this, the more it feels like named characters shouldn't be included as actual units, but provided as examples of how you can make your own versions - present Cato Sicarius as the egotistical prick noble and heroic 2nd Captain that he is, list his wargear as a plasma pistol and a Master Crafted Power Sword or whathaveyou. Then, if you do want to field Cato Sicarius, he's just a normal Captain statwise with specific upgrades, not a unique unit entry in his own right.

 

Related to this, I think having more Master Crafted toys / artificer armour would be a good idea, especially for our Warlords. Not for everyone mind, but I'm sure you could find some combination of army traits and Stratagems that let you give our main heroes a few extra unique toys.

[Schlitzaf]

Really master crafted WT that BA has should be one of the generic WT.

[Mileposter]

... a Flying Custodes Coldstar on Jetbike of Slaanesh.

I'm sorry. I know this is a serious thread, and I will respond to it seriously in just a bit... But I'm overcome with the urge to build that as a model now.

[chapter master 454]

I agree HQs have gone away from being custom built pieces of awesome that they once were as you could really go to town on them but sadly I always felt it wasn't designed well. I would enjoy it if there were options for ranged as well in the same way for melee, having your captain take whatever weapon he wanted (including heavy stuff).

[Beta galactosidase]

I agree HQs have gone away from being custom built pieces of awesome that they once were as you could really go to town on them but sadly I always felt it wasn't designed well. I would enjoy it if there were options for ranged as well in the same way for melee, having your captain take whatever weapon he wanted (including heavy stuff).

Unfortunately, a captain with a lascannon or grav cannon is still just a lascannon, and doesn’t shoot better than any other platform, apart from the the hit percentage. Unlike close combat, the boosted stats don’t do anything over a tactical squad or a land speeder.

 

It having high leadership gave models precision shots and extra damage, or having high attacks gave better AP, then having having a fun shooting character would be possible.

[ERJAK]

 

 

*coughs*

 

As I suggested before, why not simply get rid of special characters entirely, and implement a point-buy creation basis?

I could get behind having customisable equivalents. The more I think on this, the more it feels like named characters shouldn't be included as actual units, but provided as examples of how you can make your own versions - present Cato Sicarius as the egotistical prick noble and heroic 2nd Captain that he is, list his wargear as a plasma pistol and a Master Crafted Power Sword or whathaveyou. Then, if you do want to field Cato Sicarius, he's just a normal Captain statwise with specific upgrades, not a unique unit entry in his own right.

 

Related to this, I think having more Master Crafted toys / artificer armour would be a good idea, especially for our Warlords. Not for everyone mind, but I'm sure you could find some combination of army traits and Stratagems that let you give our main heroes a few extra unique toys.

I've read through this several times and I still have no idea what the point of that first paragraph is. It doesn't DO anything. You're just taking Cato Sicarius but in a really roundabout way. It seems like a silly waste of time and development resources to do something that, at best, just makes balancing things more difficult for 0 gain.

 

It really seems like you're making changes for the sake of the narrative, and then trying to apply them to matched play, which is silly and goes against what matched play is supposed to be about. Special characters are only special in narrative play. Robot girlyman is only the heroic primarch of the ultramarines in narrative play. In matched play he's M8WS2+BS2+S6T6W9LD10Sv2+ 400pts. His only significance is his statline and special rules. If he's too strong for his cost that's one thing, but he's not some mystical magical thing that's too good for our tables or w/e.

 

Having more options for the generic HQs is a good idea, no argument there, part of the strength of generic HQs should be their customizability. I'd love to see war gear options that completely change what the characters roll on the battlefield is supposed to be. I'd like to see a Wargear option for a space marine captain that turns him into more of a logistical unit, give him things like 'pick an enemy unit, they don't get cover' or an 'orders' equivalent or maybe some kind of orbital assault type thing.

 

The way you talk about the generic HQs makes me nervous. You call them 'heroes'in a very narrative way when this thread is titled 'Matched Play'. In matched play a 'hero'unit is a unit that overperforms in its function in a way that helps to secure victory either in a specific game or often over the course of several games, not some doofernut with a sword that cost CP you brought because you need rerolls and to fill out your battalion, I don't care how cool you think the name you came up with for him is.

[Lysere]

Funny that you mention the character giving a unit ignores cover idea as the Deathwatch are getting that as a Warlord trait from what I saw. Warlord traits are great for customizing your characters, its just a shame that outside of Dark Eldar you can only have one in a 2k game. Other than that the only way to make a character stand out is the use of wargear and relics but a lot of characters lack wargear options due to their role or their model.

 

I'm kicking around ideas for a small campaign against a friend and warlord traits make a great way to add experience to characters without having to come up with entirely new rules.

[Kite Senet]

I don't know why any of this would be relevant to Matched Play. As far as Matched Play is concerned, the Special Character rules are just a way to enforce a bare minimum of gameplay variety, which is strictly positive in my book. Whether or not those special characters themselves are balanced escapes the scope of the discussion, into the realm of balancing those models' rules.

 

But as a Narrative player, I like Ahrimans and I dislike Magnuses. It's one thing to have an epic instance of an archetype (Ahriman as an epic Sorcerer/Exalted Sorcerer), and another to have a character which transcends every other archetype. Fluff nerds like myself can replace Ahriman with their own personalized warlord Exalted Sorcerers (like my Exalted Sorcerer Senet) for only an acceptable disadvantage, but if you want to even touch Lord of War slots in the Thousand Sons codex, it must be the one and only Magnus the Red. There is no way to create your own Mediocritus the Blue to play as a Lord of War Daemon Prince in a Thousand Sons army. And this restriction is, in a way, frustrating; though I understand Magnus himself would also be made much less magnificent for the existence of the moderately mighty Mediocritus.

 

...also, Magnus was a bit of a jerk, frankly. #AhrimanDidNothingWrong (Well, in the moral sense--clearly he messed up the Rubric.)

[Volt]

 

 

*coughs*

 

As I suggested before, why not simply get rid of special characters entirely, and implement a point-buy creation basis?

I could get behind having customisable equivalents. The more I think on this, the more it feels like named characters shouldn't be included as actual units, but provided as examples of how you can make your own versions - present Cato Sicarius as the egotistical prick noble and heroic 2nd Captain that he is, list his wargear as a plasma pistol and a Master Crafted Power Sword or whathaveyou. Then, if you do want to field Cato Sicarius, he's just a normal Captain statwise with specific upgrades, not a unique unit entry in his own right.

 

Related to this, I think having more Master Crafted toys / artificer armour would be a good idea, especially for our Warlords. Not for everyone mind, but I'm sure you could find some combination of army traits and Stratagems that let you give our main heroes a few extra unique toys.

I've read through this several times and I still have no idea what the point of that first paragraph is. It doesn't DO anything. You're just taking Cato Sicarius but in a really roundabout way. It seems like a silly waste of time and development resources to do something that, at best, just makes balancing things more difficult for 0 gain.

 

It really seems like you're making changes for the sake of the narrative, and then trying to apply them to matched play, which is silly and goes against what matched play is supposed to be about. Special characters are only special in narrative play. Robot girlyman is only the heroic primarch of the ultramarines in narrative play. In matched play he's M8WS2+BS2+S6T6W9LD10Sv2+ 400pts. His only significance is his statline and special rules. If he's too strong for his cost that's one thing, but he's not some mystical magical thing that's too good for our tables or w/e.

 

Having more options for the generic HQs is a good idea, no argument there, part of the strength of generic HQs should be their customizability. I'd love to see war gear options that completely change what the characters roll on the battlefield is supposed to be. I'd like to see a Wargear option for a space marine captain that turns him into more of a logistical unit, give him things like 'pick an enemy unit, they don't get cover' or an 'orders' equivalent or maybe some kind of orbital assault type thing.

 

The way you talk about the generic HQs makes me nervous. You call them 'heroes'in a very narrative way when this thread is titled 'Matched Play'. In matched play a 'hero'unit is a unit that overperforms in its function in a way that helps to secure victory either in a specific game or often over the course of several games, not some doofernut with a sword that cost CP you brought because you need rerolls and to fill out your battalion, I don't care how cool you think the name you came up with for him is.

 

It's not in a roundabout way. It's about efficiency by reducing pages and pages of character profiles down to a Build-A-Bear format that should only take up three pages at most while affording maximum customization to the players and removing the obsession with taking named characters above generics purely for the advantage. IE, you have an Angels of Absolution army, but because generic Company Masters suck, you have "totally not Azrael" leading another Chapter. 

[Kinstryfe]

I don't know why any of this would be relevant to Matched Play. As far as Matched Play is concerned, the Special Character rules are just a way to enforce a bare minimum of gameplay variety, which is strictly positive in my book. Whether or not those special characters themselves are balanced escapes the scope of the discussion, into the realm of balancing those models' rules.

 

But as a Narrative player, I like Ahrimans and I dislike Magnuses. It's one thing to have an epic instance of an archetype (Ahriman as an epic Sorcerer/Exalted Sorcerer), and another to have a character which transcends every other archetype. Fluff nerds like myself can replace Ahriman with their own personalized warlord Exalted Sorcerers (like my Exalted Sorcerer Senet) for only an acceptable disadvantage, but if you want to even touch Lord of War slots in the Thousand Sons codex, it must be the one and only Magnus the Red. There is no way to create your own Mediocritus the Blue to play as a Lord of War Daemon Prince in a Thousand Sons army. And this restriction is, in a way, frustrating; though I understand Magnus himself would also be made much less magnificent for the existence of the moderately mighty Mediocritus.

 

...also, Magnus was a bit of a jerk, frankly. #AhrimanDidNothingWrong (Well, in the moral sense--clearly he messed up the Rubric.)

I mean, you can totally make a great big counts-as Magnus. As long as it's the right size and shape for gameplay purposes, feel free to convert up an awesome Mediocritus the Blue. Special characters are archetypes, for the most part. Run your own Ultras successors Chapter Master as Marneus, or your chief librarian as Tigurius, or your bloated plague monstrosity as Mortarion. The data sheets are just a set of rules. Use them how you see fit.

[DuskRaider]

Any time someone talks of banning something their credibility flies out the window in my eyes. If you want to make an optional house rule with your buddies, go for it. But that's as far as it should go.

[Azekai]

I don't see why we can't just use counts-as. Take a character's rules and rename it and then model that character however you like. Viola.

I like Iron Hand Straken's rules, so I proxy him with my own heavily converted Col. Phibes. Bam. Problem solved. I get to use my imagination as well as the rules and miniature I like without going 'darn I hate being forced to use the illegitimate love child of John Rambo and the terminator, woe is me.' 

[D3L]

opponents permission like 2E and 3E suits me just fine, keeps everyone playing happy!

[Ishagu]

opponents permission like 2E and 3E suits me just fine, keeps everyone playing happy!

This is absolutely the worst way to play the game and hurts the effort of hobbyists. No unit should be banned, and now even Forgeworld has been reigned in and is causing no grief - possibly under-powered in all truth after all the whinging.

[Panzer]

I see people mentioning rules to build your own special character equivalents ... that sure works for simple stats and more or less generic weapon but as soon as we enter the realm of unique special rules and wargear the idea just isn't practical anymore.

We would probably end up with broken stuff like a WS7+, S1 W<10 character with a bunch of buff auras like Typhus Poxwalker aura etc just to get the aura for as few points as possible .... or leaving out those special rules we'd end up with slightly stronger generic characters without any special flavour to it.

And this doesn't even touch the question of what kind of model and base size those custom special characters are supposed to use.

 

I do love the idea of having heavily customizable generic characters a lot. I just don't think it's a replacement for flavourful special characters. You can't get intk the realm of Magnus&Co with your generic characters? Well d'uh that's why they are unique datasheets and cost a whole lot more points. If anything I think special characters are not special enough yet and need more love from GW.

[Halandaar]

I see people mentioning rules to build your own special character equivalents ... that sure works for simple stats and more or less generic weapon but as soon as we enter the realm of unique special rules and wargear the idea just isn't practical anymore.

We would probably end up with broken stuff like a WS7+, S1 W<10 character with a bunch of buff auras like Typhus Poxwalker aura etc just to get the aura for as few points as possible .... or leaving out those special rules we'd end up with slightly stronger generic characters without any special flavour to it.

 

Agreed; it's not necessarily the stats or wargear that would break such characters, but how specific rules and abilities interact with them. Certain special rules are going to be much more valuable to characters with greater survivability, or those with more attacks, or those with high AP weapons, and there's no way you could effectively balance those rules (on a points-cost basis) for all the variables that "build-your-own" characters would entail.

 

And if the answer is "well don't give them fancy special rules like special characters have", then what's the point of them over the generic characters we have now?

[Ishagu]

A comprehensive build a HQ system would lead to far more abuse and grief than any of the exiting unique characters.