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

[Ishagu]

Hypocrisy :-o

[Wargamer]

Not at all. One of the reasons I wanted them banned is so GW would be pressured by the tournament scene to fix the shoddy characters. An army like Sisters, built around Acts of Faith, should have ALL HQ choices boosting that ability, not just one character.

[spafe]

Not gonna lie, I've only read up to page 4 before typing this reply, so apologies if it's been discounted since then, but what would be wrong with a min limit on points. The rules and power of said characters are one thing, everyone has a view on which are fair and which are over/underpowered, but for me the issue I take is immersion, in a 1000-1250 point game, I dont want to see a primarch, it's too small a game, likewise I dont want to see a chapter master (generic even), in a game of 500 points. Is there anything wrong with saying magnus won't show up unless its a conflict of 2k up, but ahriman will turn up at 1250 up, and so on? that way smaller specilasts, (the ultra tank commander if he;s still a thing) can be in 750 or whatever, but the primarch of the entire ultramarines and successors wants to see conflicts that are meaningful before wading in.

 

Or is that a silly idea?

[Scammel]

Given how many novels and other fluff excerpts refer to high-profile characters fighting in skirmishes, travelling alone, heading up strike forces or otherwise leading a smaller group in a larger battle, the 'X character wouldn't turn up to an engagement this small' argument doesn't hold water for me. A 1500pt game does not reflect the entire theatre on a given planet, and 40k personalities don't get to peruse their options for gentlemanly combat.

[spafe]

I see what you mean Scammel, but to me those occurances should be in narrative play, wheras matched play the power of some special characters can potentially throw small games too out of whack that it can ruin the fun of the game by breaking that immersion within matched play (generally two armies duking it out rather than a special infiltration team by x super leader)

[Ishagu]

Not gonna lie, I've only read up to page 4 before typing this reply, so apologies if it's been discounted since then, but what would be wrong with a min limit on points. The rules and power of said characters are one thing, everyone has a view on which are fair and which are over/underpowered, but for me the issue I take is immersion, in a 1000-1250 point game, I dont want to see a primarch, it's too small a game, likewise I dont want to see a chapter master (generic even), in a game of 500 points. Is there anything wrong with saying magnus won't show up unless its a conflict of 2k up, but ahriman will turn up at 1250 up, and so on? that way smaller specilasts, (the ultra tank commander if he;s still a thing) can be in 750 or whatever, but the primarch of the entire ultramarines and successors wants to see conflicts that are meaningful before wading in.

 

Or is that a silly idea?

Lack of imagination there, brother. A small game could simply represent a snapshot or a section of a larger battle happening all around that isn't under the players control.

[spafe]

Yeah that's a good point. would also explain the seemingly random nature of the objectives in maelstrom games. I guess I can get on board with that as an arguement to explain their presence... still not sure if I like the primarch level characters in my 40k games, but then I dont really like knights either (I miss the days of a dread being a 'big' walker). Guess I jsut dislike the scale growth rather than special characters as such. 

 

hmm... as you were then I guess :)

[Wargamer]

This is why I specified Matched Play. If you want to make a scenario built around Rowboat personally beating up an enemy army on his own, feel free to do so - just don't make that the list for pickup games.

[Ishagu]

In matched play the unique named characters are just gaming pieces like any other. In 40k you can only take a single Telemon Dreadnought per Custodes army. A unique model. Should that be banned?

[Panzer]

In matched play the unique named characters are just gaming pieces like any other. In 40k you can only take a single Telemon Dreadnought per Custodes army. A unique model. Should that be banned?

 

^ this

In Matched Play it doesn't matter whether the unit has a fancy name or not. If it's balanced it's okay to be there. If it's broken, it gets adjusted by different means like any other unit.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

In matched play the unique named characters are just gaming pieces like any other. In 40k you can only take a single Telemon Dreadnought per Custodes army. A unique model. Should that be banned?

^ this

In Matched Play it doesn't matter whether the unit has a fancy name or not. If it's balanced it's okay to be there. If it's broken, it gets adjusted by different means like any other unit.

But one of those means to balance could be a restriction on the point level before you field that character. Some of the more powerful characters are balanced at some points levels but are not balanced at others.

 

If you took a 500 point game, one side could run Just Mortarion. Now I don’t know what some armies could even begin to field at 500 points to stand any chance of taking him on, at least without building their list purely to kill Mortarion in case he turns up.

 

It’s not possible to fairly represent really powerful models on the table at every points level. Tournaments preclude some units above a certain power level, because it wouldn’t be fair. Asking for a limit before you can take certain units seems a very reasonable solution to me.

[Panzer]

 

 

In matched play the unique named characters are just gaming pieces like any other. In 40k you can only take a single Telemon Dreadnought per Custodes army. A unique model. Should that be banned?

^ this

In Matched Play it doesn't matter whether the unit has a fancy name or not. If it's balanced it's okay to be there. If it's broken, it gets adjusted by different means like any other unit.

But one of those means to balance could be a restriction on the point level before you field that character. Some of the more powerful characters are balanced at some points levels but are not balanced at others.

 

If you took a 500 point game, one side could run Just Mortarion. Now I don’t know what some armies could even begin to field at 500 points to stand any chance of taking him on, at least without building their list purely to kill Mortarion in case he turns up.

 

It’s not possible to fairly represent really powerful models on the table at every points level. Tournaments preclude some units above a certain power level, because it wouldn’t be fair. Asking for a limit before you can take certain units seems a very reasonable solution to me.

 

 

Yeah I didn't deny that. Just that "a Primarch shouldn't fight in such small skirmishes" is not a valid reason in Matched Play to do something like that. That's narrative reasoning and belongs to Narrative Play. However "Mortarion is not balanced below 1.5k matches" would be a very valid reason to restrict him like that for Matched Play. ;)

[Claws and Effect]

This is why I specified Matched Play. If you want to make a scenario built around Rowboat personally beating up an enemy army on his own, feel free to do so - just don't make that the list for pickup games.

Okay, let's say you get your way and special characters are banned from Matched Play entirely.

 

How do you explain to Ynnari players that your preferences just got their ENTIRE FACTION banned from Matched Play? Because in order to be Ynnari and not just a mishmash of Eldar one of the 3 Ynnari special characters MUST be the Warlord.

[spafe]

Do they not have generic farseers, the fighty aspect guy, franken doctor torturer guys etc. They have usual characters dont they? that seems like a very disingenuous statement.

[Claws and Effect]

Do they not have generic farseers, the fighty aspect guy, franken doctor torturer guys etc. They have usual characters dont they? that seems like a very disingenuous statement.

I edited to explain.

 

In order to play as Ynnari, one of the 3 Ynnari special characters MUST be the Warlord.

[spafe]

ah, I see. That makes a lot of sense. Is that true after the faq thing that said yanri couldnt be a key word? (sorry, not familiar with them at all).

 

My preference of adding minimum points levels to unlock characters (variable depending on power of said character) still would be there though. from narrative ishagu made a compelling point (but for me its still a narrative battle reason), and from pure matched gamine piece aspect, they are too unbalanced at low points levels.

[Claws and Effect]

ah, I see. That makes a lot of sense. Is that true after the faq thing that said yanri couldnt be a key word? (sorry, not familiar with them at all)

I believe the way it works is making an Ynnari character the Warlord is what grants the keyword to the various Eldar units you choose.

 

It makes sense, because I can't imagine that a unit of Dark Eldar Incubi would be willing to take orders from a Craftworld Farseer.

[Ishagu]

Let's all agree that trying to impose restrictions on the way people enjoy the hobby is selfish and short sighted.

 

If your local metas are getting boring or dominated by the same units then it's up to you as players to discuss lists with friends prior to games and to add variety. I think this is an exaggeration anyways as I generally don't tend to face the same list even when playing at my local hobby store. I guess if your local scene is tiny and people only own a few models it would be different but then you must recognise that it's not reflective of the game in general, thus your complaint is moot.

 

Asking for banning of units is anti hobby, anti choice and not in the spirit of the game.

[Wargamer]

Well I don't agree with that. In fact, I think banning Knights and Flyers would be a good thing for the hobby.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Well I don't agree with that. In fact, I think banning Knights and Flyers would be a good thing for the hobby.

 

I can understand a limitation on LoW, I don't think they should be in games 1500 points or lower. At a 1000 points it can be real rough for some fractions to make an all comers list that can handle it. Plus I'd really like to see a 1500 point, one codex tournament without LoW (because not all of them have one). 

 

Flyers though I don't get, there are obviously some broken under costed ones but that is true for every slot. In general they aren't that good, and GW has hit the biggest offenders with the nerf hammer on a consistent basis. The most problematic ones left are the Eldar ones, and I think that has more to do with stacking -1 to hit modifiers (which should work like fnp so not at all).

 

At this point it looks like you have a clear vision of how you feel 40k should be played, and it seems like your suggesting things that you don't like should be banned. I'm sure everyone has a few things they don't like about this edition (vehicle squadrons bug me), but that isn't a good reason to ban them. 

[Mileposter]

Well I don't agree with that. In fact, I think banning Knights and Flyers would be a good thing for the hobby.

I know there's a 'like' button, but I want to 'dislike' this.

 

"I want to take away your toys" is never something I would claim is 'good' for a hobby.

[Wargamer]

Yes it is, because these things define how the game is played, and for that matter how it is balanced. I think the numerous complaints about how Marines feel too weak has stemmed from the fact GW assumes everyone has a mass of T8 10+ wound units with which to do the bulk of the heavy lifting, so anyone relying on actual Infantry are left high and dry.

[MysticTemplar]

It feels particularly weird to want to ban fliers in an 8th Edition context where Fliers can actually be reasonably dealt with. Particularly with the changes to the Flier battlefield role from Chapter Approved. What's egregious about them as a whole at this point?

[Torbenos]

Personally I just find them a bit boring, I prefer it when people I play with make their own characters with names, personalities and perhaps a little backstory. Hell they can use the rules for a Named Character if they feel they fit. Anotther Chapter Master that is expert at stealth could very well use Shrike in my book. Mind this is nothing I enforce or want to, just my preference. But I play mostly to toy with fun narratives.

[CaptainMarsh]

I don't think actual results from competitive tournaments supports the supposition that Lords of War or Unique Named Characters are major balance issues. Also add that the fact that every local meta can tell a different story. In my area, people don't bring lots of LoW or unique named characters because they've tended to get stomped into the dirt. This wouldn't be a point towards saying they aren't a problem on its own, but simply is an example of how local metas aren't the best way to judge global balance.

I also don't like the concept of saying, "Here, you've spent a lot of money on a model that was absolutely fine and legal, but now it is illegal to play unless you're in strict circumstances for no real good balance or narrative reason," which is a good way of making people unlikely to buy or play new models or things in a general sense since you won't have a good idea on what will and will not change. 

There is also no guarantee or positive prospect that reducing/banning named characters would lead to a superior character creation suite or more options for armies that lack them currently. Telling Sisters/Ministorum players no Celestine or Jacobs (not that I much care for him...) means you're saying they can't have more than three HQ slots to work with. Might that change when the Codex hits? Absolutely, I really hope so. But there is no guarantee of it. 

Also, Flyers are not a problem in any sense. Narrative issues one has with unique named characters in battles aren't much of a concern. The lore is replete with chapter masters, primarchs, etc. leading small teams, and the battles we fight should almost always be considered part of a larger engagement. And in Matched Play that is even if one cares about the narrative. In Matched Play, Unique Named Characters are models with unique rules and the concern is how they are balanced against others. I have yet to read a compelling argument that ends with them getting banned from Matched Play.