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

[ERJAK]

 

People who complain about Primarchs getting involved in "small scale battles" because it's not narrative are

 

A: Lacking imagination

B: Flat out wrong

 

First of all, there are literally dozens of examples where a Primarch and a small elite party will engage an enemy.

Secondly, the game you play could simply be a snapshot of a much larger battle happening around. It's not like wars are decided on small spaces and by 3/4 tanks.

 

Also, if my opponent wants to bring Guilliman in a 1k game I'd be very happy. It's a guaranteed loss for him - his army will be tiny and slow. Would probably table him in a few turns :-D

Well that's your opinion and your completely welcome to it even if I don't agree at all with you I just feel taking a LOW at such a low point size can be considered a jerk move especially with how easy faction like Imperial and chaos can easily cram an entire battalion into small point games with soup lists

I really loved the restrictions on the older editions of warhammer fantasy only 1 special character per army, and you could only use certain force org slots the bigger the points you play, a simple no LOWs under 1k would for matched would be very nice like how the rule of 3 comes into play how you can only include more multiples of the same dataslate the bigger pts size you go

 

I agree with captain Idaho, I have yet to encounter a single imperial army in my area that doesn't use Guilliman likewise with Morty and Magnus for their factions.

 

Can you tell the people in your area to come to tournaments near me? I love free wins against people 6 months behind the meta. 

[Beta galactosidase]

I never played a 3rd Edition tourney game at less than 2000 points, so your definition of standard is incorrect.

Yeah, Games Day often did 1500, 1750 and 1850 were also popular. I remember some talk on the internet of it being a US vs UK distinction, with the US doing 2000 more often, but that wasn’t really my experience since 1500 happened often here. There were also constant arguments even more latterly in fifth edition, for example people complained that Stelek was very outspoken about 2000 being better, and it was because people would tell him that 1500 was good and since that had stopped being the standard there were more problems.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Late 5th i remember Ard Boyz being...2250? 2500?

[Race Bannon]

Although not a rule per se, could we please not quote past 5 people?

 

Save the cheerleader, save the internet kinda thing ^_^

[Melete]

Banning special characters sounds like a great way to make the game more boring. I’m not a fan.

[TURBULENCE]

I'm a fan of being able to take whatever I please thank you very much. I mean I chose my Death Guard as my Army because I adore typhus. Not for his rules, but because to me he's one of the true villans of 40k. No shades of grey, just a self-serving jerk willing to sell out his whole Legion for a little more power.

 

So I always field him, usually as my warlord, because that's the Army I want to play.

 

I have one friend who's against using named characters, but he would never try and ban it from our group or begrudge one of us for taking one. That line of thinking seems like a bigger problem in this hobby.

 

When does trying to be competitive and balanced start to block the fact that this is a game, designed to entertain us and be fun

[Kinstryfe]

So, on the subject of Opponent's Permission... that's not really a thing anymore. I mean, yeah, the opponent has the choice of whether they play the game against you or not, and more power to them if they decide not to. But that's it. Most people in my experience only have issues playing AGAINST cheese. When they do it, it's not cheese. Now ignoring that very few special characters are so incredibly broken this edition that they sway a game singlehandedly (this isn't 3rd edition or WHFB after all), some armies become almost impossible or just bland without them, iirc. Can you even play Ynnari without their character? SoB army with 2 battalions are impossible. If they're not auto-win powerful, then they're just 0-1 choice units with a fancy name, and then by "Opponent's Permission" I should have the same rights to dictate your army to you. I got trounced last game by Death Company, so those are out of your army. And hey this week I don't like Primaris, so only old marines if you don't mind. And I didn't bring any Psychers, so don't you even think about it.

 

See how quickly this can become ridiculous? They're a purposefully included part of the game. Either get your entire local club to agree, or realize that they're a part of the game and are unlikely to go away at any point, because they just make the game less colorful without them.

[taikishi]

To be fair, I don't think most of the 3E characters weren't that great and WHFB never had that rule for in-print named characters that I can find -- though during fifth you could recreate a handful of out-of-print but model-still-made special characters with the options you had available. For whatever reason, even though you could build it, those SCs required opponent's permission.

 

Hero hammer was absolutely 4th edition WHFB and 2nd Edition 40K, though. Few things like a Chaos Lord with WS9, S8, 7 attacks, I7, and T6 who has a 3+ on 2d6/3++ and the ability to choose to make S7 attacks that wounded Psykers on a 2+ and forced living models to pass a leadership test when wounded or instantly be slain. Oh, and this model was 61 points cheaper than Abaddon (214 vs 275)

[D3L]

So, on the subject of Opponent's Permission... that's not really a thing anymore. I mean, yeah, the opponent has the choice of whether they play the game against you or not, and more power to them if they decide not to. But that's it. Most people in my experience only have issues playing AGAINST cheese. When they do it, it's not cheese. Now ignoring that very few special characters are so incredibly broken this edition that they sway a game singlehandedly (this isn't 3rd edition or WHFB after all), some armies become almost impossible or just bland without them, iirc. Can you even play Ynnari without their character? SoB army with 2 battalions are impossible. If they're not auto-win powerful, then they're just 0-1 choice units with a fancy name, and then by "Opponent's Permission" I should have the same rights to dictate your army to you. I got trounced last game by Death Company, so those are out of your army. And hey this week I don't like Primaris, so only old marines if you don't mind. And I didn't bring any Psychers, so don't you even think about it.

 

See how quickly this can become ridiculous? They're a purposefully included part of the game. Either get your entire local club to agree, or realize that they're a part of the game and are unlikely to go away at any point, because they just make the game less colorful without them.

hmm, but what's wrong with disagreeing to play?

 

You can't force someone to play against anything, whether it's a Death Company strong force, or a mary-sue character, you both as gamers have the right to refuse the social contract

 

From observations there is certainly a massive difference regionally and age wise against hero-hammer, this debate wont be going away

 

With that in mind, it's important to remember you can decline any game you like, if you don't like the clothes the gamer is wearing to if you don't like their list, that's entirely up to either of you

 

I would think it's common decency to agree or disagree whether you include 'special characters', just as I also think it's polite not to gloat, and to wear deodorant but I'm of a vintage where it was about fun and a chat, not about the win

 

bring your specials, just don't expect a game

[Azekai]

I think whatever we have been describing for the past 8 pages isn't really about special characters at all, but about people's expectations about what the game of 40k even is. Some people expect the game to be a standardized competitive experience, others want it to be a military setting where they can explore their own character's narrative, and some folks just want to run around with big marquee heroes and villains like Guilliman and Mortarion and blow some stuff up.

And that is ok, I guess... as long as whoever you are playing with meets you halfway.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

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.

 

Doesn't that suggest that they actually ARE balanced?

 

If your opponent is prepared for them they aren't that tough, right?

 

If I go to a tournament I expect to come up against such units and build my list accordingly.

I agree with you but I would say it’s only reasonable to expect people to be prepared when you reach a certain points level. In a 1k game, asking people to bring enough stuff to deal with something like Mortarion is possible but they’d have to build a lot of their list around it which I don’t think is a reasonable expectation.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I'm curious of why people think that you will see more variety without special characters? For example Death Guard losing Typhus doesn't make the lord of contagion better, it nerfs pox walkers but that doesn't make Plague marines better. It just makes them worse as a fraction, which would be fine if all fractions felt worse as a result of a SC ban, but a lot of them don't rely on special characters. I think banning special characters would have the opposite effect you'd see less armies and still see the same HQs from the ones left standing.

 

I can understand the LOW characters being an issue in smaller games, but that really applies to every LoW. An imperial knight is gonna pound a balanced 1000 point list, because its tougher to have enough fire power to threaten it. That isn't a problem caused by Guilliman, Magnus, or Mortarion. LoWs in general should be limited to games over a certain size (more than 1500). 

[Kinstryfe]

 

So, on the subject of Opponent's Permission... that's not really a thing anymore. I mean, yeah, the opponent has the choice of whether they play the game against you or not, and more power to them if they decide not to. But that's it. Most people in my experience only have issues playing AGAINST cheese. When they do it, it's not cheese. Now ignoring that very few special characters are so incredibly broken this edition that they sway a game singlehandedly (this isn't 3rd edition or WHFB after all), some armies become almost impossible or just bland without them, iirc. Can you even play Ynnari without their character? SoB army with 2 battalions are impossible. If they're not auto-win powerful, then they're just 0-1 choice units with a fancy name, and then by "Opponent's Permission" I should have the same rights to dictate your army to you. I got trounced last game by Death Company, so those are out of your army. And hey this week I don't like Primaris, so only old marines if you don't mind. And I didn't bring any Psychers, so don't you even think about it.

See how quickly this can become ridiculous? They're a purposefully included part of the game. Either get your entire local club to agree, or realize that they're a part of the game and are unlikely to go away at any point, because they just make the game less colorful without them.

 

hmm, but what's wrong with disagreeing to play?

You can't force someone to play against anything, whether it's a Death Company strong force, or a mary-sue character, you both as gamers have the right to refuse the social contract

From observations there is certainly a massive difference regionally and age wise against hero-hammer, this debate wont be going away

With that in mind, it's important to remember you can decline any game you like, if you don't like the clothes the gamer is wearing to if you don't like their list, that's entirely up to either of you

I would think it's common decency to agree or disagree whether you include 'special characters', just as I also think it's polite not to gloat, and to wear deodorant but I'm of a vintage where it was about fun and a chat, not about the win

bring your specials, just don't expect a game

You can absolutely turn down any game, for any reason. But it's also important to remember that this isn't necessarily about that, it's about dictating to your potential opponent and game-mate how the game will be played. And well, unless your pool of opponents have the same opinions about this as you do, then you need to be prepared to either compromise or have a very nice collection of display miniatures, because at least around here you wouldn't get many games in.

[Claws and Effect]

I'm curious of why people think that you will see more variety without special characters? For example Death Guard losing Typhus doesn't make the lord of contagion better, it nerfs pox walkers but that doesn't make Plague marines better. It just makes them worse as a fraction, which would be fine if all fractions felt worse as a result of a SC ban, but a lot of them don't rely on special characters. I think banning special characters would have the opposite effect you'd see less armies and still see the same HQs from the ones left standing.

 

I can understand the LOW characters being an issue in smaller games, but that really applies to every LoW. An imperial knight is gonna pound a balanced 1000 point list, because its tougher to have enough fire power to threaten it. That isn't a problem caused by Guilliman, Magnus, or Mortarion. LoWs in general should be limited to games over a certain size (more than 1500).

It's already been mentioned, but you can't play Ynnari at ALL without a special character, because you must have one of the Ynnari characters as your Warlord for the list to even BE Ynnari.

 

If someone shows up to a tournament with Ynnari and you say "no special characters" you literally just invalidated that person's entire army.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

I'm curious of why people think that you will see more variety without special characters? For example Death Guard losing Typhus doesn't make the lord of contagion better, it nerfs pox walkers but that doesn't make Plague marines better. It just makes them worse as a fraction, which would be fine if all fractions felt worse as a result of a SC ban, but a lot of them don't rely on special characters. I think banning special characters would have the opposite effect you'd see less armies and still see the same HQs from the ones left standing.

 

I can understand the LOW characters being an issue in smaller games, but that really applies to every LoW. An imperial knight is gonna pound a balanced 1000 point list, because its tougher to have enough fire power to threaten it. That isn't a problem caused by Guilliman, Magnus, or Mortarion. LoWs in general should be limited to games over a certain size (more than 1500).

It's already been mentioned, but you can't play Ynnari at ALL without a special character, because you must have one of the Ynnari characters as your Warlord for the list to even BE Ynnari.

 

If someone shows up to a tournament with Ynnari and you say "no special characters" you literally just invalidated that person's entire army.

 

 

I think you may have quoted me by mistake. One of the arguments for banning special characters is that there would be more variety, and I feel the opposite would happen. Your example supports my argument, and its part of why I don't think special characters should be banned. 

[Plaguecaster]

I highly doubt you could tell your opponent they can't use stuff at a tournament it's more be the tournament organisers who only have that power usually stating in their rules pack no Special characters or more likely as quite a few still do, the stupid no FW rule

[justicarius6]

I do hark back to the old days when there weren't any named characters but the cat's out of the bag for them now so I'm fine to have them along.

 

What I would say though is that perhaps if some armies had base characters that could compare to the named ones we wouldn't be seeing them quite as often. There's a reason why tyrranids use flyrants, why commanders were seen more than Farsight and Shadowsun and why Daemon Princes are all over the place etc.

[Ishagu]

I highly doubt you could tell your opponent they can't use stuff at a tournament it's more be the tournament organisers who only have that power usually stating in their rules pack no Special characters or more likely as quite a few still do, the stupid no FW rule

 

And if they limited units like unique characters their tournament would bomb pretty hard.

[taikishi]

Maybe. I mean the only way to find out is to actually have a few tournaments where they're not permitted. In fact, I'm curious how a tournament that said no Special Characters, no Lords of War and no Flyer battlefield role units (so jump packs and skimmers are okay, a Storm Raven or Xiphon isn't) would look and do as an experiement

 

My personal wager is that you would see fewer factions represented, partially because you can't field Ynnari without SCs, Dark Eldar likely wouldn't bring more than one detachment of all-Kabal/all-Cult/all-Coven units with the additional penalty of Rule of Three, you probably would see less Sisters armies because of the addition of Rule of Three. However, fewer factions doesn't automatically mean fewer players/attendees. I mean, 3E Games Day tournaments and Grand Tournaments seemed to do just fine when you consider Special Characters were banned because they all required opponent's permission by default.

 

As for "less variety within an army" because of no SCs, I don't think banning SCs will result in less variety. I don't think it'll result in more, either, though. I mean there's not a lot of difference between bringing FotM special character and FotM generic character, it's still FotM.

[MysticTemplar]

Maybe. I mean the only way to find out is to actually have a few tournaments where they're not permitted. In fact, I'm curious how a tournament that said no Special Characters, no Lords of War and no Flyer battlefield role units (so jump packs and skimmers are okay, a Storm Raven or Xiphon isn't) would look and do as an experiement

 

My personal wager is that you would see fewer factions represented, partially because you can't field Ynnari without SCs, Dark Eldar likely wouldn't bring more than one detachment of all-Kabal/all-Cult/all-Coven units with the additional penalty of Rule of Three, you probably would see less Sisters armies because of the addition of Rule of Three. However, fewer factions doesn't automatically mean fewer players/attendees. I mean, 3E Games Day tournaments and Grand Tournaments seemed to do just fine when you consider Special Characters were banned because they all required opponent's permission by default.

 

As for "less variety within an army" because of no SCs, I don't think banning SCs will result in less variety. I don't think it'll result in more, either, though. I mean there's not a lot of difference between bringing FotM special character and FotM generic character, it's still FotM.

Ultimately, what it really boils down to is that Characters with Names are units like any other. Per the Custodian beta rule stuff, they aren't even unique in being restricted to one per army. But with regards to the 3rd Edition comparison, I feel like there (perhaps unfortunately) isn't really a valid comparison to be made - after all, the environment has significantly changed in the intervening years.

 

As a result, singling out things with names is ultimately arbitrary - why is Commander Farsight unbalanced enough to warrant the ban hammer, but Coldstar Commanders are not? Wouldn't it make more sense to improve units that are currently awful instead of making heavy handed bans that doesn't leave those unloved units any better off than they were before? (Alas, poor Crisis Suits. Really wish they'd gotten better rather than Commanders getting restricted.)

 

I can't speak to the Third Edition comparison, though I suspect that it's not a valid comparison - I'd be really interested into what the average player number for major events in 3rd vs. 8th are - and I suspect that the latter number is probably significantly higher by default, given that, as far as I know, the hobby has grown.

 

So it may very well be that while it did 'well' during 3rd, a return to that sort of turnout would be considered to be nigh-apocalyptic today.

 

That said, if anyone *does* have turnout numbers for 3rd edition, I'd be deeply interested to see them.

[taikishi]

If you look at my previous comments, I'm in agreement with not banning because of some of the reasons I listed above for how it disproportionately affects some factions and the fact the game isn't designed with the thought of them being banned in mind. I was merely playing Devil's advocate with the post you quoted.

 

Turn out numbers for 3E are going to be hard to find because that's the wild west of the Internet and a lot of these things were probably never reported outside of maybe winners of the Baltimore and UK GTs at GWHQ and probably only in White Dwarf. Also, this was still during the time when GM still actively encouraged converting models from other companies to represent things in your army. I mean, this was when they brought out VDR that included an example of turning a deodorant tube into a hover tank for Space Marines!!!

[D3L]

That said, if anyone *does* have turnout numbers for 3rd edition, I'd be deeply interested to see them.

Nothing apart from anecdotal is gunna answer that, but in my day... 3e, there were far more people in store, the 90s were rad.

[Race Bannon]

Totally.

 

Fer sure.

 

:P

[facmanpob]

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.

What I find most amusing about this whole thread is that the OP is actually building/planning an army including Celestine right at this very moment.

 

Don't believe me? See this post from 2nd May... http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/346844-the-role-of-seraphim/?p=5070950

[Wargamer]

Yes, because Sisters without Celestine are unplayable. This is not how the game should be. I don't want to be playing with a massive handicap for not including her in my list, but that's how the faction works.