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

[DuskRaider]

Not really, but whatever.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

 

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.

 

 

I think this is one of the reasons why War Machine has generally better balance; precision of the rule set aside, the fact that the characters and units in the game have almost zero customization makes it a lot easier to equalize the factions.  That being said, I do appreciate the customizability of 40K's generic characters because while I will continue to speak in favor of special characters, I do enjoy building my own from time to time (and especially since my Iron Hands don't have one to take!).

[Lord_Caerolion]

The issue some people forget with the suggestion of replacing special characters with "build-a-character workshops" is that often, the special characters are absolutely meant to be unique. The only way they could replicate some characters is to make one-off abilities be able to be taken on all characters. This will only result in the best abilities being spammed, without the less effective elements of the original character. We'll no longer see Guilliman support-bombs, but a generic Captain armed with power-armour, bolt pistol and chainsword, given the same special rules, Captain "Guillimans-Younger-Brother", for a fraction of his price. Tau Commanders equipped with the "totally-not-Paradox-of-Duality". Flyrant knockoff-Swarmlords. "Magnus-the-Red-possessing-a-basic-Sorceror".

 

I have absolutely no faith in GW to not miss the game-breaking combinations that this could result in. Within minutes of release, it would change from being "look at all the cool new builds you can give your characters" into "this combination makes your character utterly broken, you'd be an idiot to take anything else".

[Plaguecaster]

I find special characters completely boring and bland taking away all fluff posibilites or army customisation it's why I despise war machine and would just drop 40k if it become the same how every army has to be led by some special character . I wil never use a single special character at all, though I see absolutely no reason why players shouldn't be allowed to take them though it could be nice if certain characters weren't made so damn powerful you barely see certain factions with out them (Guilliman etc)!

 

 

I think it’s telling that any time GW moved an edition away from herohammer, be it 40k or fantasy, the tactical design and feel got much healthier. I’m more partial to lots of “normal” dudes than demigods fighting my battles, but I doubt that’s ever going away again and I’m not really in favor of arbitrary bans on models; I’d bring out a new edition specifically supporting that.

 

FWIW I’m also one who is gun shy with FW; mostly because most of my experiences with the models are people wanting to take the most powerful and broken gun platforms they can.

FW is as official as it can get this edition being part of the actual rules in the official faq and chapter approved, and that is a pretty wrong view since there is far more broken and OP stuff in the normal Codex books if anything most FW units are pretty normal compared to the majority of stuff

[Lord_Caerolion]

It's more just a problem of when they become a crutch. Cawl is such a benefit to the Mechanicus that it's almost insane not to take him, and the lack of options available to other Forge Worlds feel like you're restricting yourself otherwise. Especially given he was introduced when special characters were valid options for Counts-As, just painting them in different colours, etc, that it's now a bit annoying that he's now Mars-only.

 

I still shudder when remembering the old "if you want to play Raven Guard you have to take Shrike etc". That was horrific.

[Panzer]

I agree that special characters should be additional flavour to an army, not the reason why it's playable. If Guilliman is the only reason why Ultramarines are considered playable in comparison, then Ultramarines should get buffed so they're playable on their own as well and Guilliman just being an added flavour to add to it if you feel like it. Same goes for any other army.

[Claws and Effect]

I'm not going to sift through this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been brought up or not.

 

This is the most egregious example of "I personally don't like this thing, so NO ONE should be allowed to have it." that I've seen it in a long time.

 

What difference does it make if I want my Raven Guard to be led by Kayvaan Shrike? The "Chapter Master wouldn't lead a small strike force" argument falls square on its face there, because that's exactly how the Raven Guard operate. He's not going to do paperwork until the whole Chapter comes together, because they seldom do. It is actually CANON for the Raven Guard Chapter Master to show up with a single Company (see the Damocles campaign).

 

You are free to use or not use special characters as you see fit, but you have zero right to try and impose your preferences on every 40k player in the world just because you don't like something.

[MysticTemplar]

It's more just a problem of when they become a crutch. Cawl is such a benefit to the Mechanicus that it's almost insane not to take him, and the lack of options available to other Forge Worlds feel like you're restricting yourself otherwise. Especially given he was introduced when special characters were valid options for Counts-As, just painting them in different colours, etc, that it's now a bit annoying that he's now Mars-only.

 

I still shudder when remembering the old "if you want to play Raven Guard you have to take Shrike etc". That was horrific.

 

Two things - the first is that this is independent on whether or not the 'crutch' is a Character with a Name.  After all, Tau had Commanders, Custodes have Biker Captains, and Tyranids have their Flyrants.  I suspect the list is longer than this, but it's just the ones I'm familiar with.

 

The second is that it's important to remember that a 'crutch' is not itself generally a problem - it's the things around them, usually.  If you have to bring Custodian Jetbike Captains over all other HQ choices to be competitive, if the Custodian Jetbike Captains aren't themselves overpowering their opposition (their external balance is fine), then it's a sign that their internal balance is the problem, and the rest of their faction needs to be looked at.

[SickSix]

I'm not going to sift through this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been brought up or not.

 

This is the most egregious example of "I personally don't like this thing, so NO ONE should be allowed to have it." that I've seen it in a long time.

 

What difference does it make if I want my Raven Guard to be led by Kayvaan Shrike? The "Chapter Master wouldn't lead a small strike force" argument falls square on its face there, because that's exactly how the Raven Guard operate. He's not going to do paperwork until the whole Chapter comes together, because they seldom do. It is actually CANON for the Raven Guard Chapter Master to show up with a single Company (see the Damocles campaign).

 

You are free to use or not use special characters as you see fit, but you have zero right to try and impose your preferences on every 40k player in the world just because you don't like something.

Claws, the problem is that running Raven Guard without Shrike is viewed as a waste of time. The problem is not the named characters but their rules interactions. If armies are written in a way that means not using named characters leaves you fighting with one arm behind your back, thats a problem.

 

They shouldn't be viewed as compulsory by the majority of the community.

[taikishi]

I would argue Sisters without Celestine would be fighting with both arms behind your back, mainly because she guarantees one Act of Faith per turn since (in theory) you should fail your 2+ roll at least once in a 5-6 turn game and Imagifiers (which are now also hit by Rule of 3) only give you an AoF on a 4+. Of course there's a limitation that the unit that uses it has to be within 6" of her unit, which generally means it's getting used on herself or a unit of Seraphim. There's also an issue with the fact that Acts of Faith don't scale as the cost of an army increases whereas at least 6E/7E AoF, if unreliable due to passing a Ld test, scaled with each unit you took even if they were locked into one specific AoF.

[Bishoujo]

I see some people mentioning Celestine, but my <Adepta Sororitas> army only has 2 HQ choices () and I take them both just to have a little variety.

[Ishagu]

 

I'm not going to sift through this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been brought up or not.

 

This is the most egregious example of "I personally don't like this thing, so NO ONE should be allowed to have it." that I've seen it in a long time.

 

What difference does it make if I want my Raven Guard to be led by Kayvaan Shrike? The "Chapter Master wouldn't lead a small strike force" argument falls square on its face there, because that's exactly how the Raven Guard operate. He's not going to do paperwork until the whole Chapter comes together, because they seldom do. It is actually CANON for the Raven Guard Chapter Master to show up with a single Company (see the Damocles campaign).

 

You are free to use or not use special characters as you see fit, but you have zero right to try and impose your preferences on every 40k player in the world just because you don't like something.

Claws, the problem is that running Raven Guard without Shrike is viewed as a waste of time. The problem is not the named characters but their rules interactions. If armies are written in a way that means not using named characters leaves you fighting with one arm behind your back, thats a problem.

 

They shouldn't be viewed as compulsory by the majority of the community.

Your premise is that having a key character or unit to build an army around isn't good.

 

It's your opinion, You are wrong.

[Warhead01]

I see some people mentioning Celestine, but my <Adepta Sororitas> army only has 2 HQ choices () and I take them both just to have a little variety.

Good news! sounds like your army gets possibly the first new codex next year!  Fingers crossed you get a few new HQ's as well! 

[Panzer]

 

I see some people mentioning Celestine, but my <Adepta Sororitas> army only has 2 HQ choices () and I take them both just to have a little variety.

Good news! sounds like your army gets possibly the first new codex next year!  Fingers crossed you get a few new HQ's as well! 

 

 

Eh, they just said 2019. It could easily be late 2019 as well. In fact I bet it's due autumn 2019. ^^

[Warhead01]

 

 

I see some people mentioning Celestine, but my <Adepta Sororitas> army only has 2 HQ choices () and I take them both just to have a little variety.

Good news! sounds like your army gets possibly the first new codex next year!  Fingers crossed you get a few new HQ's as well! 

 

 

Eh, they just said 2019. It could easily be late 2019 as well. In fact I bet it's due autumn 2019. ^^

 

doesn't really matter to me either way.

I'd almost say the long it take the more stuff should be in it. Maybe even more special characters to cry consider banning on the internet. lol 

 

I hadn't realized that SoB only had 2 HQ choices that weren't named. A little odd.

[Captain Idaho]

 

 

I'm not going to sift through this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been brought up or not.

This is the most egregious example of "I personally don't like this thing, so NO ONE should be allowed to have it." that I've seen it in a long time.

What difference does it make if I want my Raven Guard to be led by Kayvaan Shrike? The "Chapter Master wouldn't lead a small strike force" argument falls square on its face there, because that's exactly how the Raven Guard operate. He's not going to do paperwork until the whole Chapter comes together, because they seldom do. It is actually CANON for the Raven Guard Chapter Master to show up with a single Company (see the Damocles campaign).

You are free to use or not use special characters as you see fit, but you have zero right to try and impose your preferences on every 40k player in the world just because you don't like something.

Claws, the problem is that running Raven Guard without Shrike is viewed as a waste of time. The problem is not the named characters but their rules interactions. If armies are written in a way that means not using named characters leaves you fighting with one arm behind your back, thats a problem.

They shouldn't be viewed as compulsory by the majority of the community.

Your premise is that having a key character or unit to build an army around isn't good.

It's your opinion, You are wrong.

Actually, my friend, I disagree strongly.

 

Building an army around a single character, the same character every time, is boring as sin, kills variety and one dimensional games design.

 

Indeed, if you can take any of about 4 or 5 characters and still get similar playstyles or effectiveness then you'll have more fun. Plus GW would make more money.

 

***

 

I miss customisation. GW used to encourage Kit-bashing and now we see the same old Gravis Captain in every Space Marines army for example.

 

Relics helps a little but ultimately I'd like to see a way to build more personalised characters. We have Warlord Traits for character which are great though the balance is somewhat poor since everyone always takes the same traits.

[Bishoujo]

 

I hadn't realized that SoB only had 2 HQ choices that weren't named. A little odd.

 

 

If playing pure Sisters of Battle, we've got Canoness and we've got Saint Celestine.

 

It's not so bad though.  We're still decent for an Index army and we'll get our time to shine with new toys sometime next year.  We've waited so long at this point - what's another 9-18 months?  

[Wargamer]

I agree, Idaho. I realised a good analogy to this is Starcraft 2's campaigns. WIth the Terran and Protoss, you need to learn to use different units to achieve your goal - the game encourages you to learn how to synergise your units to maximise their efficiency. Building nothing but Marines or Stalkers might work on Easy, but anything higher and you'll have to learn some more skills to get the job done.

The exception to this is the Zerg campaign, where "use Kerrigan" appears to be the answer to everything. Tough enemies? Use Kerrigan's massive damage abilities. High damage enemies? Use Kerrigan's massive health pool and self-heal abilities to absorb the damage. Massed enemies? Kerrigan has AoE. Massed tough, high-damage enemies? Well, if you must bring an army, remember that Kerrigan can make everything faster, tougher and better.

Terran and Protoss are about building an army where different specialists work together in perfect, destructive harmony. Zerg is about one unit carrying the whole campaign (except for the one mission she's not available because plot).

[Panzer]

 

 

 

I'm not going to sift through this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been brought up or not.

This is the most egregious example of "I personally don't like this thing, so NO ONE should be allowed to have it." that I've seen it in a long time.

What difference does it make if I want my Raven Guard to be led by Kayvaan Shrike? The "Chapter Master wouldn't lead a small strike force" argument falls square on its face there, because that's exactly how the Raven Guard operate. He's not going to do paperwork until the whole Chapter comes together, because they seldom do. It is actually CANON for the Raven Guard Chapter Master to show up with a single Company (see the Damocles campaign).

You are free to use or not use special characters as you see fit, but you have zero right to try and impose your preferences on every 40k player in the world just because you don't like something.

Claws, the problem is that running Raven Guard without Shrike is viewed as a waste of time. The problem is not the named characters but their rules interactions. If armies are written in a way that means not using named characters leaves you fighting with one arm behind your back, thats a problem.

They shouldn't be viewed as compulsory by the majority of the community.

Your premise is that having a key character or unit to build an army around isn't good.

It's your opinion, You are wrong.

Actually, my friend, I disagree strongly.

 

Building an army around a single character, the same character every time, is boring as sin, kills variety and one dimensional games design.

 

Indeed, if you can take any of about 4 or 5 characters and still get similar playstyles or effectiveness then you'll have more fun. Plus GW would make more money.

 

***

 

I miss customisation. GW used to encourage Kit-bashing and now we see the same old Gravis Captain in every Space Marines army for example.

 

Relics helps a little but ultimately I'd like to see a way to build more personalised characters. We have Warlord Traits for character which are great though the balance is somewhat poor since everyone always takes the same traits.

 

 

Yeah lack of customization on Primaris units especially is a big point that gets voiced often to GW. I can't imagine it'll stay like that. Even on non-primaris characters there's much that could be improved customization-wise.

Just a tiny example would be an upgrade like the chapter-master one for all equivalent ranks and just limit it as once per army on a keyboard basis. Chief Librarian and whatnot (for non-Marine armies as well). That way successor and custom Chapters could have their own big dudes without having to use do a special character counts as for example.

 

However that's a whole different topic than whether special characters should get banned from matched play or not so I won't go too much into detail here.

[Claws and Effect]

 

I'm not going to sift through this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been brought up or not.

 

This is the most egregious example of "I personally don't like this thing, so NO ONE should be allowed to have it." that I've seen it in a long time.

 

What difference does it make if I want my Raven Guard to be led by Kayvaan Shrike? The "Chapter Master wouldn't lead a small strike force" argument falls square on its face there, because that's exactly how the Raven Guard operate. He's not going to do paperwork until the whole Chapter comes together, because they seldom do. It is actually CANON for the Raven Guard Chapter Master to show up with a single Company (see the Damocles campaign).

 

You are free to use or not use special characters as you see fit, but you have zero right to try and impose your preferences on every 40k player in the world just because you don't like something.

Claws, the problem is that running Raven Guard without Shrike is viewed as a waste of time.

Have to disagree.

 

You don't need Shrike for Raven Guard to work. He doesn't make or break an army at all. In fact he can actually be a hindrance, as he is either a buff bubble that contributes no firepower to the fight or he gives up Slay the Warlord almost immediately.

 

But that is totally beside the point. How does a few people not liking something justify taking it away from people on the other side of the world who they will never play against or even meet?

 

You are free to disallow anything you want in your private games at home or the local game store. But saying Bob in California can't use something because Tom in Scotland doesn't like isn't cool.

[Captain Idaho]

One could say you're free to allow anything you want...

[taikishi]

 

 

 

I see some people mentioning Celestine, but my <Adepta Sororitas> army only has 2 HQ choices () and I take them both just to have a little variety.

Good news! sounds like your army gets possibly the first new codex next year!  Fingers crossed you get a few new HQ's as well! 

 

 

Eh, they just said 2019. It could easily be late 2019 as well. In fact I bet it's due autumn 2019. ^^

 

doesn't really matter to me either way.

I'd almost say the long it take the more stuff should be in it. Maybe even more special characters to cry consider banning on the internet. lol 

 

I hadn't realized that SoB only had 2 HQ choices that weren't named. A little odd.

 

 

Sadly, it's not 2 unnamed HQ choices...

 

It's one unnamed, two named.

 

And beta rules in December means three, and likely six months of testing. Then, from my own experiences in the industry, it's another three months to get the final product to print and then from print to stores so you're looking at September at the earliest.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think the lack of customization on generic characters is a problem as well, and it is one that leads to special characters being used. That said fix the relics, fix the warlord traits, and let people kit bash while pricing those upgrades fairly. Otherwise you'll still end up with everyone taking the same generic HQ choices because some are flat out better.

 

Banning special characters just limits options it doesn't suddenly make a codex have more than a couple of good warlord traits, or relics. The best way to fix this is too look at a lot of the HQs and figure out how to make them better, then you'll see more variety.  

[Ishagu]

In a competitive sense you can't complain.

 

In a narrative sense what's best shouldn't matter.

 

Play as you want, don't lecture hobbyists.

[Callan]

I bought Guilliman because the model is awesome and looks like he'll be a lot of fun to paint, once I'm confident enough in my skills to try it. I'll want to display that thing proudly. I also bought Celestine at the same time, for similar reasons.

 

Bobby G is also one of the few ways of making a non-BA Space Marine list effective enough to be fun, if these forums are going to be believed.

 

If someone told me that they decided not to allow Guilliman because they have decided he's not appropriate, I'd pass on the game.