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

[Bishoujo]

 

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.

 

 

Unfortunately, it's not even that good.  1 unnamed and 1 named is all we get if playing pure Sisters of Battle.  Jacobus is Adeptus Ministorum and we've never gotten 8th edition rules for Veridyan so we've got to run her as an unmamed Canoness to use that model.

 

I agree with your release date assessment.  I definitely expect our new Codex and model line to be in the second half of 2019 at best.  I'm still excited though!

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

[Claws and Effect]

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

It would be a lot more fair if every faction had something comparable. Thus far we have Rob, Magnus, Morty, Cawl, Celestine, and one could include the Swarmlord.

 

Guard has giant tanks that fill the same role, which is thematic for them.

 

No one else has anything in the same category.

[Ishagu]

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

Sales, hype and hobby growth disagree with that.

[Wargamer]

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

This is my feeling as well, and it's a mistake that I think can be put at the feet of the Baneblade. 40K is a small-scale skirmish game, and throwing stuff like Primarchs, Knights and Super-Heavies into 40K is akin to putting Imperial Stormtroopers into Rome Total War - it creates spectacle, but it destroys balance.

[SickSix]

It's your opinion, You are wrong.

That was tongue in cheek right? I just want to make sure you intended the irony.

[Panzer]

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

 

 

*yawn*

 

 

 

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

 

This is my feeling as well, and it's a mistake that I think can be put at the feet of the Baneblade. 40K is a small-scale skirmish game, and throwing stuff like Primarchs, Knights and Super-Heavies into 40K is akin to putting Imperial Stormtroopers into Rome Total War - it creates spectacle, but it destroys balance.

No, 40k is not a small-scale skirmish game. Necromunda is. Kill Team is. Malifaux is. 40k is not. Maybe it started out on a smaller scale than today but that time is long gone.

[Wargamer]

Necromunda and Kill-team are squad-level skirmish. 40K is not by any stretch of the imagination a large-scale conflict game. Most forces are fielding platoon / company sized forces, and that is what makes it a skirmish game - you're not fielding an army, you're just a tiny piece of an army. If you want full scale warfare, you need Epic.

[Panzer]

Well lets agree to disagree then. I don't seem to agree with most of your opinions lately anyway.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

It would be a lot more fair if every faction had something comparable. Thus far we have Rob, Magnus, Morty, Cawl, Celestine, and one could include the Swarmlord.

 

Guard has giant tanks that fill the same role, which is thematic for them.

 

No one else has anything in the same category.

I agree but I think RG, Morty and Magnus are in a league of their own, I wouldn’t put Cawl and the rest anywhere near them (not that they’re not good) as they just don’t measure up the same.

 

As for guard tanks, they’re pretty formidable but they’re not as universally problematic as the Primarchs. The tanks are a huge problem for whatever they focus their fire on but the Primarchs are a problem for the whole enemy army. Plus the tanks are are a lot easier to kill.

 

Each race could benefit from something to match the Primarchs but then it might just lead to every army always taking the same thing to match the enemy big unit. I honestly don’t know what the solution is.

[Wargamer]

 

Each race could benefit from something to match the Primarchs but then it might just lead to every army always taking the same thing to match the enemy big unit. I honestly don’t know what the solution is.

 

I think GW hoped to make a game where anything could balance anything. One of my favourite examples of balanced big guys came from Epic: Armageddon. I tested an 850 point Warlord Titan against 850 points of Leman Russ battletanks (1 vanq and 11 russ, I believe) and the mathhammer suggested the winner is whoever fires first. Testing on the tabletop more or less agreed that these two units were evenly matched.

 

This is a good sign to me because there's no clear "better" unit between the two. Each has its own advantages, but if you're just looking for something to blast the enemy clean off the table, a Warlord or an entire tank company are both equally valid choices.

 

So I don't think the answer is that everyone needs a big scary thing to compete with the other team's big scary thing, because that descends into Fantasy's wizard problem - the side who didn't bring the wizard loses. Ideally, there should be "boring but practical" alternatives to the mandatory super-unit.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

Each race could benefit from something to match the Primarchs but then it might just lead to every army always taking the same thing to match the enemy big unit. I honestly don’t know what the solution is.

 

I think GW hoped to make a game where anything could balance anything. One of my favourite examples of balanced big guys came from Epic: Armageddon. I tested an 850 point Warlord Titan against 850 points of Leman Russ battletanks (1 vanq and 11 russ, I believe) and the mathhammer suggested the winner is whoever fires first. Testing on the tabletop more or less agreed that these two units were evenly matched.

 

This is a good sign to me because there's no clear "better" unit between the two. Each has its own advantages, but if you're just looking for something to blast the enemy clean off the table, a Warlord or an entire tank company are both equally valid choices.

 

So I don't think the answer is that everyone needs a big scary thing to compete with the other team's big scary thing, because that descends into Fantasy's wizard problem - the side who didn't bring the wizard loses. Ideally, there should be "boring but practical" alternatives to the mandatory super-unit.

I agree that’s what I’d like to see. The problem at the moment is that that system is out of alignment. 450 of knights is no match for 450 points of almost anything whereas the equivalent points for a Primarch really struggle to match them. That’s the main problem for me, nothing matches the Primarchs for the same price, whether it’s single units or lots of little units.

 

To be clear, I’m not talking about in isolation, I’m talking about their impact on the whole battle as well as in individual match ups.

[DuskRaider]

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

And my mistake looks GREAT on the tabletop.

[taikishi]

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

 

Actually, my belief is mistake was Lords of War and flyers, which are also disproportionate seeing as how some factions like Sisters can't include any flyers without taking an Air Wing detachment from another faction or any Lords of War save those from other Imperium factions while other armies have loads of both. Primarchs are just the icing on the cake.

 

Personally, I'd like to see them all removed from 40K and the game go back to a smaller scale skirmish game like it was in 2nd edition, but that likely won't happen for another 3-5 editions, minimum, if ever again.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

 

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

Sales, hype and hobby growth disagree with that.

 

Yes, the argumentum ad populum. Which also tells us that Justin Bieber is a musical genius on par with the great masters.

 

The mere fact that people lap it up doesn't mean it's good. Remember the old days when everyone was a smoker?

[Azekai]

Also the idea that the Primarch miniatures are cool aesthetically has feth all to do with game balance. Sure they are neat, but lots of superheavies seem really lame to play with. You put all your eggs in one basket, and if you spring Magnus or a knight Baron on an unprepared opponent, you are going to destroy them. On the other hand, if your enemy suspects some high toughness behemoth and is ready with enough lascannons, your big shiny thing dies turn one or two. 

On the tabletop, lords of war look awesome... but within the context of the game, I submit that they are nothing more than heavy-handed noobkillers. 

[Plaguecaster]

I just hate there is no restrictions on LOWs so you can take them at any pts size game, you know how fun it is when you play a 1k game or less and your opponent decide to bring Magnus or Guilliman

[deathspectersgt7]

I would say no , But then again I have never used them . All the ones Gw have do not appeal to me to paint up and put on the table.

[Ishagu]

 

It's your opinion, You are wrong.

That was tongue in cheek right? I just want to make sure you intended the irony.

Lol I was hoping for a reaction that never came...

[MysticTemplar]

 

 

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

Sales, hype and hobby growth disagree with that.

 

Yes, the argumentum ad populum. Which also tells us that Justin Bieber is a musical genius on par with the great masters.

 

The mere fact that people lap it up doesn't mean it's good. Remember the old days when everyone was a smoker?

 

While the comment about popularity not necessarily being the best barometer of quality is true, I'm not sure what you're angling at here?

 

You say that Primarchs were a mistake, but from what angle? From Games Workshop's point of view, they seem to have to worked out fairly well, or I don't think they'd keep creating them. From a game balance point of view, they don't seem any more inherently problematic than a number of smaller things - sure, Guiliman is powerful, but there does seem to be empirical proof that it is possible to do well with Ultramarines (not just Codex: Space Marines, but Ultramarines specifically) without bringing him, so he doesn't seem to actually be mandatory, so it isn't necessarily forcing army composition.

 

But regardless, I still don't see how the idea of "opponent's permission" makes any sense in the more competitively aimed game type.

[MARK0SIAN]

I just hate there is no restrictions on LOWs so you can take them at any pts size game, you know how fun it is when you play a 1k game or less and your opponent decide to bring Magnus or Guilliman

Absolutely there should be a limit. Not just from a balance/gameplay perspective but also a narrative one. Is it really likely that Magnus, Morty or Bobby G are personally getting involved in every minor skirmish involving their respective war bands/factions? They should be saved for more important, bigger battles.

[MysticTemplar]

 

I just hate there is no restrictions on LOWs so you can take them at any pts size game, you know how fun it is when you play a 1k game or less and your opponent decide to bring Magnus or Guilliman

Absolutely there should be a limit. Not just from a balance/gameplay perspective but also a narrative one. Is it really likely that Magnus, Morty or Bobby G are personally getting involved in every minor skirmish involving their respective war bands/factions? They should be saved for more important, bigger battles.

 

Narrative reasons don't make sense in the context of Matched Play, though. There's an entire game mode for that, after all.

[SickSix]

Everyone does realize you have the ultimate power every time you bring your models to a game right? The power to say... no.

 

I am lucky that at least recently I haven't really been exposed to power gamers in a casual environment. But I have been in the past and leanred my lesson.

 

I think more oraganizers should restrict things in their events but I am not saying GW should outright ban things in their rules. It's up to the community to set the tone they want.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

 

 

 

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

Sales, hype and hobby growth disagree with that.

 

Yes, the argumentum ad populum. Which also tells us that Justin Bieber is a musical genius on par with the great masters.

 

The mere fact that people lap it up doesn't mean it's good. Remember the old days when everyone was a smoker?

 

While the comment about popularity not necessarily being the best barometer of quality is true, I'm not sure what you're angling at here?

 

You say that Primarchs were a mistake, but from what angle? From Games Workshop's point of view, they seem to have to worked out fairly well, or I don't think they'd keep creating them. From a game balance point of view, they don't seem any more inherently problematic than a number of smaller things - sure, Guiliman is powerful, but there does seem to be empirical proof that it is possible to do well with Ultramarines (not just Codex: Space Marines, but Ultramarines specifically) without bringing him, so he doesn't seem to actually be mandatory, so it isn't necessarily forcing army composition.

 

But regardless, I still don't see how the idea of "opponent's permission" makes any sense in the more competitively aimed game type.

 

Game balance is one. The feel of the game is the second. This is a game of armies fighting it out, not who has the bigger stick (which the whole Lords of War really got going). We have people getting into the game because they see these massive and powerful models, and we end up with people trying their best to get a one into the smallest game they can. When you can't show up to a game without having to wonder if you'll have to content with a Primarch, it starts sucking the fun out of it. Then there is the lore, wherein the return of the Primarch are supposed to be the beginning of the end.

 

In short, I think GW including Primarchs in 40k was a mistake, and big one too, on several levels.

[MysticTemplar]

 

 

 

 

Primarchs were a mistake. And removing the old restrictions were the start of that mistake.

Sales, hype and hobby growth disagree with that.

 

Yes, the argumentum ad populum. Which also tells us that Justin Bieber is a musical genius on par with the great masters.

 

The mere fact that people lap it up doesn't mean it's good. Remember the old days when everyone was a smoker?

 

While the comment about popularity not necessarily being the best barometer of quality is true, I'm not sure what you're angling at here?

 

You say that Primarchs were a mistake, but from what angle? From Games Workshop's point of view, they seem to have to worked out fairly well, or I don't think they'd keep creating them. From a game balance point of view, they don't seem any more inherently problematic than a number of smaller things - sure, Guiliman is powerful, but there does seem to be empirical proof that it is possible to do well with Ultramarines (not just Codex: Space Marines, but Ultramarines specifically) without bringing him, so he doesn't seem to actually be mandatory, so it isn't necessarily forcing army composition.

 

But regardless, I still don't see how the idea of "opponent's permission" makes any sense in the more competitively aimed game type.

 

Game balance is one. The feel of the game is the second. This is a game of armies fighting it out, not who has the bigger stick (which the whole Lords of War really got going). We have people getting into the game because they see these massive and powerful models, and we end up with people trying their best to get a one into the smallest game they can. When you can't show up to a game without having to wonder if you'll have to content with a Primarch, it starts sucking the fun out of it. Then there is the lore, wherein the return of the Primarch are supposed to be the beginning of the end.

 

In short, I think GW including Primarchs in 40k was a mistake, and big one too, on several levels.

 

Personally, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with Primarchs from a game balance perspective. As mentioned previously - evidence exists that Primarch (or other similar Primarch-scale models) are not required to succeed competitively. In some ways, I think that some of the issues with 'and then I jammed a Primarch into my 500 point list' could be fixed with Warmachine-style scenarios. Granted, the ranges on weapons are too long for a direct port to work, but one of the key ideas is that different types of units are used for scoring different things. Warmachine does it on a Units/Solos/Warjack divide, but there's no reason that 40k couldn't do it on a Troops/Fast Attack/etc divide.

 

As far as the feel of the game goes? That's a subjective thing, I find. But even ignoring Characters with Names, I've generally found that there's a tendency for leadership to get directly involved in combat that I would think would be blisteringly idiotic for futuristic warfare. So it's really more a continuation of the 'Herohammer' that's always been there, I think.

 

To be honest, I don't think the quality of the lore has gotten any worse since the Gathering Storm hit, compared to where it was previously, and I think it's really nice not to have to constantly hear about how doomed everyone is. I understand it was the feel they were going for, but it's hard to care when everyone is DOOMED all the time, y'know?

 

(As an aside, thank you for explaining past 'it's a mistake' - I'm happy to engage with you, but flat statements don't really leave anything to discuss.)