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

[Volt]

 

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?

 

The fact that you like the special character? Part of the point is to remove the "mandatory take" of characters and basically turn all SE's into "counts as" where you simply build a warlord to have the character's canon loadout and generate special rules similar to warlord traits. If people take Azrael or Typhus it's because they specifically want to play that model, not because it's the only thing that will survive in their local meta.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

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.

Agreed, the continued reluctance to accept Forgeworld models as a legitimate part of the game makes no sense given their rules. They’re very much in line with everything from GW and even maybe underpowered, particularly considering their arbitrarily high points cost.

 

This attitude is a hangover from previous editions and needs to change.

[MysticTemplar]

 

 

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?

 

The fact that you like the special character? Part of the point is to remove the "mandatory take" of characters and basically turn all SE's into "counts as" where you simply build a warlord to have the character's canon loadout and generate special rules similar to warlord traits. If people take Azrael or Typhus it's because they specifically want to play that model, not because it's the only thing that will survive in their local meta.

 

 

To be honest, it kind of sounds like you started from a position of "I don't like Characters with Names because it ruins my narrative", and then tried to find a game rules justification for banning them in the competition oriented game mode.

 

More to the point - nothing that you've described will at all change what is actually happening in terms of game play - that internal balance within Codices (and Factions, to some extent) has a tendency to dictate what people are willing to bring.  If there is a mathematically best build for Hive Tyrants (like wings + double twin-linked devourers in 7e), then that is what people will take, and if they're using official models, then they'll pretty much all look identical.

 

The major advantage of Characters with Names being the source of weird abilities, is that it's generally easy to look over at them and go "Oh, that's Azrael/Magnus/Mortarion/Shadowsun/Trajann Valoris/Saint Celestine/etc.  (S)he do <whatever>."  It's much more difficult to look over and go "Oh, that Captain model has the Aura of Dominion, and that Captain model has the Aura of Anger."  And if it can change every game, than you have the further problem of "What do you mean that Captain has the Aura of Domination?  What about the Aura of Dominion?"  Where if you do play against a load out frequently enough to remember it, then having the same model with a vastly different rule set is likely to cause memory issues.

 

Additionally, it's much easier to balance things that have hard rules that let them only be taken once.  Imagine if I could take multiple Swarmlords, for example - 60 Genestealers into the opposing army turn one sounds reasonable, right?

 

[SickSix]

I will say this. If I ran a narrative event, there would definitely be restrictions on named characters.

 

I would also run a no named character tournament just to see how much that changes army composition and play.

[Ishagu]

It would nerf already struggling armies into the dust. You don't need a tournament to come to that conclusion.

[taikishi]

You definitely wouldn't see pure Sisters lists, that's for sure. Their only HQ choice that isn't a special character is a canoness, the removal of special characters + Rule of 3 on an army with so limited choices in HQ, Fast Attack and Heavy Support severely limits what they can build.

[Wargamer]

It would nerf already struggling armies into the dust. You don't need a tournament to come to that conclusion.

But this is something that GW really should pay attention to - they use tournaments to balance armies as FAQs and Chapter Approved shows... but if armies are just plain absent from tournaments, that itself is feedback to work on. Namely, that the army is weak!

[Ishagu]

Take away special characters and there is no reason to play any Astartes chapter that isn't Raven Guard. I certainly wouldn't play anything else.

 

Blood Angels would still function but would also be greatly diminished.

 

Also you'd lose Catachans to Cadians, Mars Forgeworlds, etc etc

 

 

Unique characters are 100% part of an army make up and a consideration in it's overall power.

[Wargamer]

Take away special characters and there is no reason to play any Astartes chapter that isn't Raven Guard. I certainly wouldn't play anything else.

This is interesting, seeing as I play with the Iron Hands trait and, at least based on my local meta, I don't think I'd find Raven Guard all that useful.

[taikishi]

 

It would nerf already struggling armies into the dust. You don't need a tournament to come to that conclusion.

But this is something that GW really should pay attention to - they use tournaments to balance armies as FAQs and Chapter Approved shows... but if armies are just plain absent from tournaments, that itself is feedback to work on. Namely, that the army is weak!

 

 

Not entirely. I mean, how many people don't own Sisters of Battle because of the cost to build one and the fact you're not allowed third party models? Or maybe there's just no Ork players in the area? I mean, it is a decent indicator of how weak an army is but not the only reason army A didn't show up for a tournament.

[Azekai]

Take away special characters and there is no reason to play any Astartes chapter that isn't Raven Guard. I certainly wouldn't play anything else.

 

You aren't wrong, but I think this says more about the state of Space Marines as an army than it does about special characters.

 

[Wargamer]

 

 

It would nerf already struggling armies into the dust. You don't need a tournament to come to that conclusion.

But this is something that GW really should pay attention to - they use tournaments to balance armies as FAQs and Chapter Approved shows... but if armies are just plain absent from tournaments, that itself is feedback to work on. Namely, that the army is weak!

 

 

Not entirely. I mean, how many people don't own Sisters of Battle because of the cost to build one and the fact you're not allowed third party models? Or maybe there's just no Ork players in the area? I mean, it is a decent indicator of how weak an army is but not the only reason army A didn't show up for a tournament.

 

My experience of tournament players is that if there is a broken combo that will let them cheese the big event, high cost won't stop them. If Sisters had a build that made Flyrant Spam look balanced, we would be seeing them.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Take away special characters and there is no reason to play any Astartes chapter that isn't Raven Guard.

Aw man, just when you start speaking sense you go and have to spout drivel like this. A valid reason to play, say, Iron Hands is "I like the Iron Hands." Want to hear a valid reason to play Imperial Fists? "I like the Imperial Fists." I can go on, if you like...

[Wargamer]

 

Take away special characters and there is no reason to play any Astartes chapter that isn't Raven Guard.

Aw man, just when you start speaking sense you go and have to spout drivel like this. A valid reason to play, say, Iron Hands is "I like the Iron Hands." Want to hear a valid reason to play Imperial Fists? "I like the Imperial Fists." I can go on, if you like...

 

My reason for playing Iron Hands is that I'm an intractable bastard when I want to be, and so IH let me give the same trait to my Supernovas. There's a reason I yell "Stubbornness!" when I make my bionics rolls.

[Ishagu]

 

Take away special characters and there is no reason to play any Astartes chapter that isn't Raven Guard.

Aw man, just when you start speaking sense you go and have to spout drivel like this. A valid reason to play, say, Iron Hands is "I like the Iron Hands." Want to hear a valid reason to play Imperial Fists? "I like the Imperial Fists." I can go on, if you like...

My comment is when looking at the game from a competitive standpoint. In friendly games anything goes.

[Ishagu]

Anyways, I think it would be nice if we stop telling people how to enjoy the hobby. I'll make sure to double down on named characters to keep distinguishing my chapter of choice from the rest, and because I love the background and lore.

 

That's enough with this cyclical conversation. Part of me actually finds it somewhat offensive that people consider this outlook as a potentially better state for the game.

[Kinstryfe]

I think a Build-a-Warlord Workshop would work to replace Named Characters, but only if it was sufficiently reigned in. Think something like the Space Marine Captain.

 

Current rules (reroll 1s, etc) remain in effect like normal.

The Captain may take a Company Trait (or maybe base it on the company master titles. Master of Marches, Master of the Fleet, etc.) at appropriate price, as well as a Chapter Trait. So give them 2 variable aspects, plus the usual wargear and relics.

Chapter Master : Upgrade to Chapter Master Rerolls and stuff.

Veteran : Terminator Squads, sternguard, vanguard become troops.

Tactical : Each turn, one Tactical Squad may reroll 1s to hit.

Assault : Captain and 1 unit nearby may reroll charge distances.

Devastator : Something suitably shooty, etc

 

Provide limited bonuses at a cost, and give them something fluffy for their Chapter, and remove the need to have named characters at all. The same can be done for any other army. Give AM Lord Commanders as a 0-1 choice, Tyranids can have Legendary Biomorphs, etc. As long as they keep it to things that aren't any stronger than current named characters it could work. Obviously some options will be better than others but, well, that's how the game goes anyhow right now with all sorts of things

[taikishi]

I'd consider it a better state for the game if the game was balanced around the characters not being present to begin with, or the characters were balanced for specific break points like they were in 3rd Edition. However, it's not and we lack the plethora of customization options of 2E to make our own characters so I agree with Isahgu for once -- the conversation is getting very cyclical in nature.

[Wargamer]

I think a Build-a-Warlord Workshop would work to replace Named Characters, but only if it was sufficiently reigned in. Think something like the Space Marine Captain.

 

Veteran : Terminator Squads, sternguard, vanguard become troops.

This is backwards thinking, and this is not how 8th works. Veteran would more likely be "+1 CP" or just a plain buff to certain Veteran units.

[Kinstryfe]

 

I think a Build-a-Warlord Workshop would work to replace Named Characters, but only if it was sufficiently reigned in. Think something like the Space Marine Captain.

Veteran : Terminator Squads, sternguard, vanguard become troops.

 

This is backwards thinking, and this is not how 8th works. Veteran would more likely be "+1 CP" or just a plain buff to certain Veteran units.

I came up with a bunch of random examples in about three minutes. They weren't all going to be winners. However, given the very likely to be implemented Rule of 3, as well as the +4cp difference between taking a 1HQ3E vanguard and a 2HQ3T battalion, there would be some value there.

 

This WASN'T how 8th worked, until the Rule of 3 nonsense started getting adopted everywhere.

[SickSix]

Ishagu, every point you make as to why special characters are needed in most armies is every reason I think they are broken.

 

Special characters to me should be like they were in the old days, slight perks and maybe just wargear unique to them, and cool unique models.

 

I get that would mean re-writing whole amries to not be based off of running these characters but that would make for a much better game in my opinion.

 

Special characters should NOT be necessary to make an army effective. They should just be flair.

 

Ship has sailed, yada yada.

[Volt]

It would nerf already struggling armies into the dust. You don't need a tournament to come to that conclusion.

Good. Said armies need a re-write because in order for there to be a good name, there should not be any "bad" picks or "good" picks, but different strategies of equal usefulness. Anything relying on X unit to be playable needs to be completely reworked from the ground up.

[DuskRaider]

I think a Build-a-Warlord Workshop would work to replace Named Characters, but only if it was sufficiently reigned in. Think something like the Space Marine Captain.

 

Current rules (reroll 1s, etc) remain in effect like normal.

The Captain may take a Company Trait (or maybe base it on the company master titles. Master of Marches, Master of the Fleet, etc.) at appropriate price, as well as a Chapter Trait. So give them 2 variable aspects, plus the usual wargear and relics.

Chapter Master : Upgrade to Chapter Master Rerolls and stuff.

Veteran : Terminator Squads, sternguard, vanguard become troops.

Tactical : Each turn, one Tactical Squad may reroll 1s to hit.

Assault : Captain and 1 unit nearby may reroll charge distances.

Devastator : Something suitably shooty, etc

 

Provide limited bonuses at a cost, and give them something fluffy for their Chapter, and remove the need to have named characters at all. The same can be done for any other army. Give AM Lord Commanders as a 0-1 choice, Tyranids can have Legendary Biomorphs, etc. As long as they keep it to things that aren't any stronger than current named characters it could work. Obviously some options will be better than others but, well, that's how the game goes anyhow right now with all sorts of things

This should have been in each codices from the get-go ala 3rd & 4th Edition but GW has changed their rules design philosophy for better or worse. I'd love to be able to create my own Lord of Contagion and make him actually useful. This is where you can house rule things, especially if you're doing a narrative campaign.

 

I do agree that if you're running a narrative campaign set in a specific timeline than perhaps Special Characters (or those who don't pertain to the plot) would be frowned upon, but for normal games and matched play you're not restricting anyone and finding people that will play with you, I guarantee that.

[DuskRaider]

FW units are overpriced and underpowered. The old griping and crying no longer applies.

[MysticTemplar]

 

It would nerf already struggling armies into the dust. You don't need a tournament to come to that conclusion.

Good. Said armies need a re-write because in order for there to be a good name, there should not be any "bad" picks or "good" picks, but different strategies of equal usefulness. Anything relying on X unit to be playable needs to be completely reworked from the ground up.

 

The thing that confuses me the most about this is that the argument that you're making is 'Internal Faction Balance is integral for a good game', and your conclusion is 'And therefore we should ban Characters with Names'. I... don't see how this follows? It is true that in a game with the complexity of 40k, it's basically impossible to make everything a compelling and unique choice, but the nature of having so many moving parts makes this inevitable, especially when you start bringing customization into it.

 

And the thing is... I'd sooner remove customization entirely from units than remove Characters with Names. Because the thing is... war games have a lot of moving parts, and when you add in unit customization, it vastly increases the complexity you have to balance, because now you have to balance Tactical Marines with Lascannon against Tactical Marines with Meltagun, and it's generally true that from a competitive stand point, a lot of the load outs might as well not exist as a consequence.

 

Characters with Names generally sidestep this problem by only having one load out. When your choices are CAPTAIN FARBAUDI, HERO OF THE WASTES and WARLORD HELBINDI, ANGRY DUDE as competing choices, it's much simpler to try to make them both compelling choices during army construction.