With the release of the new Death Guard codex, Mortarion got a new profile and joins other characters like Ghazkull and the C'tan shards. Characters who are very hard to take down and in return have a respectable output.
Candidates for other armies could be:
Eldar: Avatar, Yncarne, Wraithknight
Tyranids: Swarmlord
Chaos: Named Greater Daemons, Abaddon, Magnus
Imperial Guard: Baneblade
Tau: Stormsurge
Assuming that at least some of them will get updated profiles with strong defensive characteristics paired with an equally strong offensive output, what is your opinion about it?
Is the game becoming better or worse? Do you like playing with or against these kind of units?
Things like the baneblade and stormsurge are fine. I think super heavies should stay in apocalypse, but that bridge is crossed. I just don't like the herohammer and focus on named characters, particularly because in addition to being a super heavy, they're advantaged over the generic super heavies because they don't cost CP to bring, while it costs 3 cp to bring a baneblade or stormsurge.
Model wise? Cool. Awesome. Go wild GW.
Play-wise? I've never had an issue with generic gigantic vehicles/monsters. But I've never liked focusing on special/named characters. I don't care if they fit on a 20mm base or a 100mm base. And yet I support them being statted up so that on occasion they can make an appearance. Unfortunately most people, once they have such a character model insist upon bringing it to play every chance they get. And every game becomes about dealing with _____. Wich gets a bit old outside a tourney environment.
Don't like the look of them (especially the diorama-heavy ones like the SK or the Sisters funeral procession or the He-man Bone Commander for AoS)
Gameplay-wise, they warp the game far too much. And this is getting worse as well, they're just not on the same scale as the rest of the game, with way too much going on both in terms of offense and defense.
Plus, too, GW spent 20-odd years telling me that their special characters were terrible and gamebreaking (though some were gamebreakingly _bad_) and no decent person would ever even consider fielding them outside of special games. They've done a really bad job changing the status quo they set up, despite saying its fine to field them now.
I like them in the games where their size is appropriate, in the same way I like or don't like any vehicles or anything bigger than a Terminator depending on the game size, but I also support more access to generic centrepiece heroes too.
Regarding the trend of "needs to be more resilient and have more offensive output", I lean closer towards "reduce the offensive capabilities of everything and reduce resilience accordingly".
I have nothing against them in other armies. In general I don't like the idea that core machanics or army efficiancy would be linked to a 100$+ single model kit. Specialy when it is a large model, which really needs to be painted to look passable on the table. A power armoured or termintor armoured HQ is easy to to do for a weekend game, something like mortarion or silent king is not. Plus if a nerf happens to a big model like this, it feels a lot worse, then losing a single meq model.
I like that they exist. Generally they've tended to not be the best option, which I quite like. I don't want to have to/be heavily incentivised into using a named model.
I never liked centerpiece superheroes and I won't play them. The biggest "centerpiece" models I'm willing to play with my armies are a Land Raider, a Stormwolf/Stormfang Gunship, 1-3 Battlewagons and a Mork/Gorkanaut.
Biggest HQs I field are Biker Boss/Deffkilla Wartrike and Bjorn the Fellhanded.
Visually I find most of the models incredibly disappointing. Silent King and his bizarre throne strike me as the worst, with Ghaz being the only one I sort of like.
Design wise it rubs me the wrong way. Each army is getting a "take this or you're at a disadvantage" unit. One of the things about 40k I always liked was that variance in armies; so you might see an entirely foot-slogging ork, and then on another table someone running a full mechanized list. I realize that GW's poor rules writing did inhibit this to a point, but that was an issue with their rules in general rather than an intentional codex design of "EVERYONE must take this ONE particular model!"
Fluff wise it's mind numbingly stupid. Mortarian, Ghaz, and the Silent King are the leaders of large factions in a setting which spans the entire fething galaxy. Having them show up at every battle is absolutely insane. These are the sort of dudes you'd only see once in awhile in an apocalypse level sized game, yet now Guileman takes the time to personally escort every combat patrol of scouts trying to earn their stripes.
Visually I find most of the models incredibly disappointing. Silent King and his bizarre throne strike me as the worst, with Ghaz being the only one I sort of like.
Design wise it rubs me the wrong way. Each army is getting a "take this or you're at a disadvantage" unit. One of the things about 40k I always liked was that variance in armies; so you might see an entirely foot-slogging ork, and then on another table someone running a full mechanized list. I realize that GW's poor rules writing did inhibit this to a point, but that was an issue with their rules in general rather than an intentional codex design of "EVERYONE must take this ONE particular model!"
Fluff wise it's mind numbingly stupid. Mortarian, Ghaz, and the Silent King are the leaders of large factions in a setting which spans the entire fething galaxy. Having them show up at every battle is absolutely insane. These are the sort of dudes you'd only see once in awhile in an apocalypse level sized game, yet now Guileman takes the time to personally escort every combat patrol of scouts trying to earn their stripes.
Now imagine a game between two players bringing the same factions with of course the same superhero in both lists, clashing against a version of each other. Ghaz vs Ghaz or Mortarion vs Mortarion, how would that be visually?
I have a particular loathing of mortiarian. I have no issue with him existing though. Rules need to be balanced so they aren't autoinclude just let you do something a little different.
Xenomancers wrote: I have a particular loathing of mortiarian. I have no issue with him existing though. Rules need to be balanced so they aren't autoinclude just let you do something a little different.
Well, Mortarion isn't an auto-include, and have never been.
I really like both Morty and Magnus, but LOATH Knights and Baneblade. They ONLY belong in Apocalypse. However, that would make Morty and Maggy restricted to Apocalypse as well, and that's a sacrifice I'm more than willing to make.
Bring the 30k versions of the primarchs to 40k!
Game wise, as the game IS, some big models warp the game around them. You can ignore Knights, but you can't really ignore the C'Tan, Maggy or Morty.You'll have to deal with them before you can start to play the game.
But if your opponent gets super easy to deal with ince their big dude gets removed, then it's not so bad.
I've played many games where I killed Maggy or a Knight or Baneblade turn one and the rest of their army just crumpled.
Models like mortarion, girlyman, magnus, imperial knights and their xenos counterparts dont belong in a 2k 40k game. Those represent small skirmishes. Primarchs, huge warmachines, etc. dont participate in those.
Xenomancers wrote: I have a particular loathing of mortiarian. I have no issue with him existing though. Rules need to be balanced so they aren't autoinclude just let you do something a little different.
Well, Mortarion isn't an auto-include, and have never been.
Those times are gone. So far no model could have four (!) warlord traits. Mortarion now can, and will be an auto include.
I feel like they've actually struck a good balance with the Necron ones. TSK requires you to build a list around him, rather than being an auto-include or good in every type of Necron list, and the C'tan are beatsticks but they also contribute precisely 0 to winning the mission and for a model that costs 350+ points that's a hard pill to swallow. Even for the one that does provide some utility, I'm not sure a redeploy is worth 350 points.
Mortarion is interesting because ruleswise I think he's exactly what he needs to be. Insanely tough, killy, an amazing force multiplier and a good debuffer too. The issue is more that he really does feel too cheap for all of that and that does seem like it lends him towards being an auto-include, especially as his abilities are universally good and provide utility so you don't exactly need to build a list around him.
But we'll have to see. People thought the Nightbringer was going to completely break the game and he's more or less been a wet fart in terms of actual impact.
I don't *hate* things like Mortarion/Magnus/Silent King etc existing - but if their rules tend towards auto-take/optimal then I think thats a serious problem. (I'm afraid I just don't find Knights cool - and this extends to Titans, I know, shame, shame etc - but there we are. Super Heavy Tanks are far cooler.)
In *Game terms* though I don't think its healthy for any model to be worth dramatically more than about 250-300 points. On paper GW could make degradation work - but we are 3 years on, seemingly they won't and I feel most players hate it anyway. So instead you end up in this situation where your 500~ point unit is either alive or dead, and this is a massive difference in a way that doesn't apply to other units who die in identifiable chunks.
I just think GW can stop this dichotomy of either being overpowered/a hard meta-warping gatekeeper, or a bit rubbish. Which I know Dakka likes to imply about just about everything - but due to the above issue I think its far harder to get things right.
I know I don´t like them in my 2.000 point games but I don´t hate that they exist. I do question the wisdom of making an army full of them a legal way to play the game (Knights), but luckily no one plays those over here.
I also preferred when a centerpiece model was either a) a smaller special character, your Typhus, Ahriman, Creed kinda deal or b) a big tank/walker ala Gorkonauts, Baneblades etc. Still don't like 400+ points models in my game but it somehow feels better when they are generic big things rather than Lore centerpieces one offs.
Ghaz is not really worth it oustside of Goff green tide builds, not since FW has dropped us orks a shiny new biker boss you get give an 4++ too (if you don’t take ghaz that is).
The others don’t seem too game breaking either, so that just leaves the new morty. Wait and see, I also feared nightbringer would be too strong and indeed was totally wrong (like Bosskelot 3 posts above said).
I am fine with these as long as GW makes them hard to fit into 2000 point lists, otherwise I hate them. Some named characters like the khan or Ahriman show up every freaking game, it gets old really quick, so it’s is even worse with the large ones. Magnus was the one I kept seeing on tables all the time, despite he never felt very good really (I have yet to lose against a Magnus list).
I agree with others here, Herohammer is bad and should be discouraged by most means possible in terms of list building
BTW good arguments here in this thread, no attacks, it’s a nice read ! let’s hope the thread stays clean like it is now
Nice looking, too expensive and don't like them in the game.
I hate herohammer experiences, and would rather see "named" characters built up through game experience than dropping someone else's superheros on the board.
I'd hate, for example, to see what sort of stats they'd give to Patton, as a general.
I don't love Knights and Super Heavies, but I am not totally against them either. I think it is okay, but sort of stretches the scale of the game a bit too much. Big Greater Daemons are fine, because they really aren't bigger than tanks on the other side of the table, and the same goes for big Tyranid beasties.
Not really a fan of special characters and daemon primarchs and so on outside of special games. I think it is a bit lame to have them showing up all the time and I think the game is more fun when you make up your own dudes.
Eh. I'm opposed to named characters on principle; they discourage preferring your own lore/characters to GW's, and discourage customization, and it's kind of silly/immersion-breaking lore-wise if the Primarch has to show up to every single fight their Legion is involved in because GW wanted to sell a $150 centerpiece model by giving it OP rules. I don't mind non-character centerpieces (superheavies, big tanks) in big games (a Baneblade at 1k is just silly, even if technically legal), but I'd much rather GW put time and energy into releasing updates for out-of-date models and expanding the range of stuff you can customize/build your own stuff with.
40k is more fun when it feels like your army is your own. When I can't really field my own commander due to the necessities of power and opportunity costs, i feel like I've lost a lot of what I like about 40k.
I like them, but I use them sparingly as befits their status. I don't blame them for existing or GW for making them, because when they aren't appropriate to the game being played it's up to me not to use them.
Competitive players and those who live in remote places and are forced to seek pick-up games don't have the luxury of not bring the best possible army to every game, so their loathing for these models is valid.
The Triumph of Saint Katherine is my favourite- I'm magnetizing the models to use them as cannonesses in the appropriate detachments; my Crusade campaign is the story of those six models working their way across the galaxy to meet and form the first ever Triumph.
But if I just dropped the Triumph on the table in a 2k game at a store with a random stranger, my perspective would probably be different. Fortunately, I have control over that.
Personally, I would have preferred it if these giant things had been kept out of the normal game. They warp the whole game around themselves and for me, 40k fundamentally is a skirmish game. And that's not where you would get superheavies outside very specific scenarios.
I also dislike special characters. I find that they drain creativity and in the lore, they have become far too big and important. On the tabletop, it just feels silly to me that such beings of legend (only one of them in the whole galaxy) show up all the time to square off against each other. It's too much like a superhero setting for me really.
I think centerpiece models are great for collection display. I think they can easily feel either OP or pointless depending on rules and point costs.
Like Mortarian used to be a pointless handicap, now he may be a touch OP for his point cost. Compare this to the Baneblade which for a bit felt pretty OP now is little more than a paper weight to burned down in 1 turn.
Done right they can feel ok but in typical GW fashion they suffer from the pendulum swinging from great to suck over and over.
My only problem with them in 40k is that thus far the only options pretty much any army has for big centerpiece character models is for named characters like the Silent King or the Daemon Primarchs. Age of Sigmar has "generic" big centerpiece models that are very cool like the various commander mounted on big monster models a lot of armies have. I'd like if more of these types of 40k models weren't tied to a specific named character.
In general I think anything bigger than a Land Raider and more than about 350 points probably shouldn't be in the regular game - save it for Apocalypse. But I also understand that ship has sailed a long time ago.
The centrepiece models are really hit and miss in terms of design and I hate GW's idea that every faction seemingly needs some massive diorama as its centrepiece. I'd have much preferred the Silent King as just him and his 2 Triarch buddies on foot, for example. It's also a problem if the model is an auto-include, or near auto-include as I think it reduces the specialness of the models and makes armies feel too similar.
From a rules perspective I think they're pretty bad. Either because they're not worth their points or they're just too good. Morty looks like he's going to be the latter. I thought GW were starting to learn with how they design TSK with his abilities degrading as he took wounds so he got less and less useful in a support and offensive role as you damaged him. Sadly they've abandoned that thinking with Mortarion. I have no problem with Marty being the toughest thing in the game - it makes perfect sense. However, what I hate is how ridiculous his support and offensive abilities are. It makes interacting with him an exercise in frustration. If he was slow or could potentially be tarpitted in combat at least you'd feel like you had options when playing against him but he can fly and has multiple attack modes so just deletes most units with ease. It's terrible design, exacerbated by how the shallow 40k rules reduce most interactions in the game to "can I kill it?"
AngryAngel80 wrote: I think they can easily feel either OP or pointless depending on rules and point costs.
It cannot be otherwise. Those models are purchased once in a lifetime for a player and GW's ultimate goal is to sell models. So as soon as they think that most of the player base that could have bought the model has already done so then it's the perfect time to nerf the primarch into oblivion.
None of the named superheroes will remain OP for long, an entire edition at most. And that's also the fate of other huge non character centerpiece models like Wraitknights or Imperial Knights.
I hate them, it feels even more like the game is shrinking and we are losing the combined arms feel of the game. To large skirmish factions without support to really be on a battlefield.
Kind of anoying when other games feel like they doing what 40k supposedly does best better :(
I agree with the general sentiment, I have no qualms with them existing. I just dislike them impinging on games too small to bare them.
I also think in general that a lot of models are terrible gaming pieces. They're huge, with very dynamic poses in spread wings or whatever. So they take up an entire figure case unto themselves. Additionally they have very large intricate details like swirling lightning or whatever which is just begging to be broken.
I've been thinking about it and I'm actually happier with things like a Baneblade or a Knight.
You can imagine a squad of US GIs with bazookas, a couple of M1919s, a handful of Rifle Grenade M1 Garands and a couple of Shermans carefully moving through the countryside because they know at least one Tiger is in the area when suddenly a Maus! But in space.
An unsupported tank, even in tabletop games is not a super challenge, even a super heavy super tank, and can make a good game. But having a demi-god walking the same battlefield? Ehhhhh. Even with the "in universe" explanation it feels a little off.
I used to run Captain Cortez in about a third of the games I played in 3rd. He wasn't an auto choice, but he was a nice flavorful character that didn't break the game. I also needed permission before I could drop him.
He also had the benefit of not being the size of a stompa.
Modern 40K characters have NONE of that going for them.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Out of interest, and without looking to make a point, how often do peeps come up against them in a game?
Not too often. The people I play with usually like to use them once or twice but if the model starts to warp the game around it they'll usually drop it in favour of something a bit more "normal". Once the game starts to become all about the big centrepiece model it just becomes less interesting, IMO.
Karol wrote: I have nothing against them in other armies. In general I don't like the idea that core machanics or army efficiancy would be linked to a 100$+ single model kit. Specialy when it is a large model, which really needs to be painted to look passable on the table. A power armoured or termintor armoured HQ is easy to to do for a weekend game, something like mortarion or silent king is not. Plus if a nerf happens to a big model like this, it feels a lot worse, then losing a single meq model.
out of the big models that are out right now, pretty much on ghaz can be considered "necessary" to a certain strategy. Silent king, Ctans and Morty are all just good models, not models that unlock a playstyle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kayback wrote: I dislike most of them. Why? Because they'd work in an Apocalypse scale game but what's pretty much a skirmish game or a small unit engagement? Nah.
Sure the 2000 points may be the "key engagement" of a 100 000 point battle but it just seems out of place.
Also I think most of the centerpieces are ugly.
Even ctans should be relegated to apoc? Im curious as to why since they arent particularly large/powerful models (except for nightbringer)
The big centerpiece models are fun and I wouldn't mind seeing them more often. Most of the time people here don't run the big stuff because they find them intimidating to paint. People get scared of ruining a big, expensive model with a bad paint job.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Out of interest, and without looking to make a point, how often do peeps come up against them in a game?
I played somewhere between 50-100 games since 8th and only ever had one encounter with a daemon primarch, Magnus. He spent one turn walking into a pair of butcher cannon arrays before getting dogpiled on and finished off by some cultists.
Other big named characters hmm... I saw the Swarmlord pretty often but he's not really the same level of centerpiece. I've run Yncarne occasionally and I used to run Eldrad and pre-plastic kit Abaddon all the time. I've played against triple Knights lists using a Scorpion superheavy grav-tank. Once I shot down an Orion dropship. I dunno, I find the big models exciting, if only because I rarely encounter them.
I'd hate, for example, to see what sort of stats they'd give to Patton, as a general.
Creed ....
Out of interest, and without looking to make a point, how often do peeps come up against them in a game?
In my experience it depends. A pretty good chunk of players in the local meta have at least one such model ( have Mortarion and Guilliman), but outside of tournaments, you rarely see the super heavies around here. Bobby G did feature strongly in a lot of games at the start of 8th, but less so since then. Outside of a tournamentI think I've seen Morty maybe a dozen times since his release (two of those were me bringing him to games where it was agreed beforehand he would make an appearance), and Magnus slightly more. That's not bad though given how long the've been out.
As to the question of, "Do I like them"? I think so? I don't like the design of the "diorama" models like the Shrine, and I feel like whoever designed the Silent King just didn't feel like working that day, but in general I don't mind them. Especially not when you consider the fact that things have gotten killy enough that for a while you did't see Magnus or Morty because the could be shot of the table too fast. I would say that's still a thing, so I'm not sure they're all "too powerful". Ghaz for example, could probably stand to be a little more powerful. I think I've played against him twice, and was underwhelmed both times.
Even ctans should be relegated to apoc? Im curious as to why since they arent particularly large/powerful models (except for nightbringer)
Possibly. I haven't seen a Necron codex since...they were introduced? How do they stack up?
I'm against most "big names" being fielded for the reasons given earlier. A super heavy war machine is understandable as a suprise encounter. A Demi-god?not so much. Was Magnus just out for a daily stroll and he bumped into Guiliman who was leading some neophytes on their first combat patrol?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Out of interest, and without looking to make a point, how often do peeps come up against them in a game?
Watching other people's games at the FLGS, I'd say about 1 in 3 for something like Magnus, Mortation or Guilliman.
I'm an outlier as I refuse to play games against other folks in which there are named characters for WHFB/40K due to past bad experiences. (Outside of WHFB/40K, I am simply leery of games with named characters; I've played a few Legion and many an X-Wing game with few issues for named characters).
I'm an outlier as I refuse to play games against other folks in which there are named characters for WHFB/40K due to past bad experiences.
I'm curious as to what these bad experiences were. I don't think any current named character is overbearing (with morty being on standby since i just cannot judge something that isnt even out officially yet)
I'm an outlier as I refuse to play games against other folks in which there are named characters for WHFB/40K due to past bad experiences.
I'm curious as to what these bad experiences were. I don't think any current named character is overbearing (with morty being on standby since i just cannot judge something that isnt even out officially yet)
Directly, 2E games of 40K against a force-field protected Ghaz (and unkillable) and WHFB (couldn't tell you the edition) invincible heroes. The latter left such an unsavory taste in my mouth, I sold off my WHFB elf army and quit the game. At least through 7E 40K, there's been a slew of 40K character cheese I've observed that reminded me of what I hated about those experiences that I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. I do not like games of Herohammer, and GW's games are poster children for this sort of play.
I don't care for them, really. They occupy too much table space.
The intense focus on named characters, and including multiple characters in a force so small it is unlikely they would all be there is a problem for gameplay as well.
I like some fo the models, sure- Void Dragon, Magnus. But they really belong in very large games on larger tables.
I'm an outlier as I refuse to play games against other folks in which there are named characters for WHFB/40K due to past bad experiences.
I'm curious as to what these bad experiences were. I don't think any current named character is overbearing (with morty being on standby since i just cannot judge something that isnt even out officially yet)
Directly, 2E games of 40K against a force-field protected Ghaz (and unkillable) and WHFB (couldn't tell you the edition) invincible heroes. The latter left such an unsavory taste in my mouth, I sold off my WHFB elf army and quit the game. At least through 7E 40K, there's been a slew of 40K character cheese I've observed that reminded me of what I hated about those experiences that I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. I do not like games of Herohammer, and GW's games are poster children for this sort of play.
So basically you dislike invincible bubbles? this hasnt been a thing since i started playing in 8th. You should try and be open minded with 9th since characters are much more "fair" nowadays.
GW is in the business of selling people plastic. Big centerpiece named character models sell really well. That's why they make them. It doesn't matter that people who actually play the game tend to dislike them and they tend to create boring and/or bad outcomes on the table, because that isn't what GW is actually about. The rules just have to be tolerable enough to be credible, they don't have to be great.
You're going to see more and more of these big centerpiece models, not less. They sell, and that's what matters.
I'm an outlier as I refuse to play games against other folks in which there are named characters for WHFB/40K due to past bad experiences.
I'm curious as to what these bad experiences were. I don't think any current named character is overbearing (with morty being on standby since i just cannot judge something that isnt even out officially yet)
Directly, 2E games of 40K against a force-field protected Ghaz (and unkillable) and WHFB (couldn't tell you the edition) invincible heroes. The latter left such an unsavory taste in my mouth, I sold off my WHFB elf army and quit the game. At least through 7E 40K, there's been a slew of 40K character cheese I've observed that reminded me of what I hated about those experiences that I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. I do not like games of Herohammer, and GW's games are poster children for this sort of play.
So basically you dislike invincible bubbles? this hasnt been a thing since i started playing in 8th. You should try and be open minded with 9th since characters are much more "fair" nowadays.
Simply, nope on allowing named characters for 40K. I will NEVER trust GW in this regard.
<Edit> A bit more on this. When I play wargames, I'm playing for an experience of a combined force that's about the army as a whole. Each piece has it's use and isn't a dominant feature of the force. Dropping named characters like a primarch or somesuch makes it about the characters on the field and the rest becomes cannon fodder. That's not an experience I want.
Simply, nope on allowing named characters for 40K. I will NEVER trust GW in this regard.
i mean you can yourself look at the existing characters and see for yourself that literally none are overbearing. In fact, its the generic character that are stronger. I really cannot understand yoru way of thinking but eh, you do you.
For me it isn't the power, it's the stupidity of how often they crop up, and how they constantly die.
We have these characters that have lived for 10,000 years like Ahriman...who is an auto-take in any TS army and who dies in half his games. How many times do you think Ahriman has died on the tabletop? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?
yukishiro1 wrote: For me it isn't the power, it's the stupidity of how often they crop up, and how they constantly die.
We have these characters that have lived for 10,000 years like Ahriman...who is an auto-take in any TS army and who dies in half his games. How many times do you think Ahriman has died on the tabletop? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?
its no weirder in my eyes than my Tech Priest Dominus that i named dying in every game. Not all fights are "canon"
Simply, nope on allowing named characters for 40K. I will NEVER trust GW in this regard.
i mean you can yourself look at the existing characters and see for yourself that literally none are overbearing. In fact, its the generic character that are stronger. I really cannot understand yoru way of thinking but eh, you do you.
Brother Captin Stern is litteraly a brother captin with extra rules, and costs less then a regular brother captin. Voldus is a space marine chapter master and GK librarian slaped in to one model, this time not cheaper then a Librarian, but not that much cheaper then a GM to make him over costed. Same was true for Draigo in 8th. They were always better then stock option.
It's not that it's impossible to rationalize, it's the Saturday Morning Cartoon element that gets me. "Oh, Heman err I mean Bobby G is fighting Skeletor err I mean Mortarion again. That's new and different!"
There's always been an element of 40k being much smaller than its setting would actually imply, but it's greatly exaggerated when you have auto-take special characters. I mean like how freaking busy is Daedalosus? The guy must never have any time to actually do any archaeology, he's too busy getting blown to smithereens in literally every single ad-mech game.
I think big single models like Mortarian or Knights or whatnot break some of the basic notions that Warhammer was predicated on, the squad unit, and as a big, disabled lump of points in a single-model package make for boring games. The degrading profile solution is clever but doesn't solve the problem of the unit not changing as it is damaged (footprint, morale, weapons, etc), and limits how they can be played. You can chip away at their wounds and that's about it.
Weirdly, now that the degrading profile thing had been a thing I look back on the vehicle damage tables and armour facings and think they were onto something. Again, not perfect, but allowing the vehicle to be immobilized (when infantry could be forced to fall back or be pinned), or have weapons chipped off, and progressing those effects was the right idea. Of course, now that morale and pinning is completely irrelevant...
Back in Epic Space Marine (2nd edition) Titans were made up of parts. A Warlord Titan was 900pts (for reference, three squads of Tactical Marines and their Rhinos was 250-300pts) and after hitting it with an attack you had to choose a location (legs, weapons, carapace, head, reactor) that was laid out on a nice 3x3 grid. You could damage or destroy weapons and shields, you could slow or immobilize the Titan with damage to legs, head, or reactor.
So while it was the case that the game had things like the Imperator Titan eventually bolted on in Epic Titan Legions, it handled the big stuff pretty well (which isn't to say perfectly) because it operated like a collection of small stuff in a vertical space.
It's less a complaint about 'balance' and moreso a complaint that they make games boring by tying all that content up in a less interesting package.
Generic characters can get some amazing relics for free. Which is potentially why they seem lacklustre off the datasheet.
TBH I don't like it, I've seen a generic Space Marine Captain beating the gak out of Abbaddon, it made me want to hurl lol.
But that's a separate issue.
Brother Captin Stern is litteraly a brother captin with extra rules, and costs less then a regular brother captin.
As he should, because most of his extra rules and the fact that he has to take the worst weapon make him actively much worse than a generic brother-captain. His unique smite is arguably better against Daemons, but actively much worse against literally anything else because it is capped at one damage (it doesn't benefit from tides of escalation) and has worse range.
The Strands of Fate is a trap ability. You can reroll a hit or wound roll for Stern but like, who cares? His combat is mediocre, his shooting consists of nothing but a storm bolter or a grenade throw, and you can use it to reroll a saving throw but Stern shouldn't be exposed to enemy shooting or combat much because he should be tucked in the core of your army providing his double smite range aura. If something can force Stern to take a saving throw you're either getting sniped or in the process of being tabled.
And of course as said, he has to take a nemesis force sword and as such is strictly worse at combat than the generic brother-captain who comes standard with a force halberd and can get a daemon hammer.
All he has going for him is his extra cast. It's a shame that all he can use it for, his smite, is strictly inferior to the smite of everything else in the army in almost every situation.
Draigo and Voldus are good and often strictly better than taking generic versions but Stern is not. If you need to save points (eight of them to be precise) but want a brother-captain aura is pretty much his only selling point.
Directly, 2E games of 40K against a force-field protected Ghaz (and unkillable) and WHFB (couldn't tell you the edition) invincible heroes. The latter left such an unsavory taste in my mouth, I sold off my WHFB elf army and quit the game. At least through 7E 40K, there's been a slew of 40K character cheese I've observed that reminded me of what I hated about those experiences that I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. I do not like games of Herohammer, and GW's games are poster children for this sort of play.
I remember the days of named character bans, but out of curiosity have you played 8th/9th at all? It's a totally different beast.
I've not seen Mortarion and Magnus that often because - brutally - most people just don't seem to play chaos round here. Its sort of why I never really know what Chaos is "doing" in the meta.
But when Wraith Knights were the most broken thing, you saw them on every other table (sometimes on both sides.) When Castellan were the hotness for a year or so they too appeared on every table. (Or at least a regular Knight if someone had bought one of them in 7th.)
9th is less soup friendly, so some of the same issues may not travel across. But "buy big thing, glue big thing, play big thing and win more games" is an attractive and relatively easily met proposition.
Necron players for example are not that common compared to Space Marines - but I do think there is the growing realisation that if you are serious you are running the Silent King - learn him, love him, the end. Probably with a C'Tan too - even if the Nightbringer got a slight nerf.
I remember coming to 40K from Lotr, opened my first CSM Codex and was like: Why are there only 6 named guys in there, only one for the Legion I'm interested in? Where's the profile for the guy in that short story on page 47? It took me a while to realize that 40K is not tied to its background in a very strong way like Lotr and you are expected to create your own Heroes and missions. I have no problem with characters from the background actually appearing as models with their own rules. Especially as a Chaos player, who wouldn't want to see their Primarch in model form, even just for the shelf to sit on?
Directly, 2E games of 40K against a force-field protected Ghaz (and unkillable) and WHFB (couldn't tell you the edition) invincible heroes. The latter left such an unsavory taste in my mouth, I sold off my WHFB elf army and quit the game. At least through 7E 40K, there's been a slew of 40K character cheese I've observed that reminded me of what I hated about those experiences that I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. I do not like games of Herohammer, and GW's games are poster children for this sort of play.
I remember the days of named character bans, but out of curiosity have you played 8th/9th at all? It's a totally different beast.
I've played 8th, but not 9th. I've also watched others or watched battle reports of 8E, and it hasn't changed my opinion of not wanting to play with named characters.
I've destroyed Mortarion (pre-new-DG codex) at least four times. When does my regiment in their lore get the medal for besting a Daemon Primarch?
I mean it sounds like children on the playground. "The heroic Trynzendian 7th destroyed Mortarion in their last battle!" "Oh, yea? Well my Your'Dudes Sept Tau have killed him EIGHT TIMES!" "Oh yea? Well my Hive Fleet Mydudes has killed him ELEVEN!"
Like really? Mortarion is a "regular unit" now whose destruction is even possible by unupgraded generic goons? Angron and his bloodthirster bodyguard took out I think a hundred Grey Knight terminators.
I hate to see what he looks like on the tabletop if that's possible - or, rather, I hate to see what he looks like on the tabletop because he'll probably die to like, 5 paladins or a fair few Russes.
I've destroyed Mortarion (pre-new-DG codex) at least four times. When does my regiment in their lore get the medal for besting a Daemon Primarch?
literally any time you want.... its your regiment, you're in full control of their fluff. Just add a medal to the model that killed it.
It gets a bit less special when every 2nd unit in the army has that medal by the end of the year.
I mean, i can say the same thing about your Russ that is in every list you build (idk if you actually bring russes, just making a point) getting repaired between every engagement. "Ive destroyed that Russ 10 times already! how is he back again"
I've destroyed Mortarion (pre-new-DG codex) at least four times. When does my regiment in their lore get the medal for besting a Daemon Primarch?
literally any time you want.... its your regiment, you're in full control of their fluff. Just add a medal to the model that killed it.
It gets a bit less special when every 2nd unit in the army has that medal by the end of the year.
I mean, i can say the same thing about your Russ that is in every list you build (idk if you actually bring russes, just making a point) getting repaired between every engagement. "Ive destroyed that Russ 10 times already! how is he back again"
It's entirely plausible to get new Russes every engagement.
In fact, in older editions I had "wrecked" vehicles survive but "exploded" vehicles did not - though since I never painted their names on, I didn't have to repaint anything. The names were on the army list though, and I did indeed change them when one Exploded.
EDIT: I even found one of my old 5th edition army lists from Armored Battlegroup recently on a crumpled up piece of paper. The list is printed from a computer, but the tank names are written in pencil, presumably because they changed so often
"That Mortarion got totally trashed by those eradicators! Oh well, order up a new one at the factory. Going to have to put those ten Ahrimans on hold for a while." - Dark Mechanicus Bob
yukishiro1 wrote: "That Mortarion got totally trashed by those eradicators! Oh well, order up a new one at the factory. Overtime for everybody!" - Dark Mechanicus Bob
Yeah to say they're "the same as Leman Russes" is kinda silly tbf. Leman Russes are literally the example of a heavy asset that's wasted in huge numbers for marginal gains. To say "You could say the same about your Russes that you can about Mortarion" is literally the point I am trying to make (because that's such a silly, counterintuitive thing to say).
It's like saying that "You may've blown up Rommel, but I blew up three T-34s!"
yukishiro1 wrote: "That Mortarion got totally trashed by those eradicators! Oh well, order up a new one at the factory. Overtime for everybody!" - Dark Mechanicus Bob
Yeah to say they're "the same as Leman Russes" is kinda silly tbf. Leman Russes are literally the example of a heavy asset that's wasted in huge numbers for marginal gains. To say "You could say the same about your Russes that you can about Mortarion" is literally the point I am trying to make (because that's such a silly, counterintuitive thing to say).
It's like saying that "You may've blown up Rommel, but I blew up three T-34s!"
I think it's more accurate to compare Mortarian to Montgomery, who never passed up an opportunity to conduct a frontal assault*.
BrianDavion wrote: given that morty is a deamon prince and thus killing him "doesn't really kill him" not sure it's the best comparison TBH
This is just a cop-out though, really. (Also anyone who knows his True Name can kill him, which is... well, certainly more than zero people in the Imperium. If I take one Ordo Malleus Inquisitor and mortarion dies against him, can I just ban mortarion from all future games at my store? Of course not.)
"He's a daemon prince, so the fact that he dies weekly at your FLGS (sometimes multiple times weekly if you have multiple DG players) is just fluffy?"
Yeah, right. There are as many Mortarian reincarnations as there are Leman Russes in the Imperium, apparently... (they just can't be around at the same time despite the warp being timey-wimey nonsense).
yukishiro1 wrote: "That Mortarion got totally trashed by those eradicators! Oh well, order up a new one at the factory. Overtime for everybody!" - Dark Mechanicus Bob
Yeah to say they're "the same as Leman Russes" is kinda silly tbf. Leman Russes are literally the example of a heavy asset that's wasted in huge numbers for marginal gains. To say "You could say the same about your Russes that you can about Mortarion" is literally the point I am trying to make (because that's such a silly, counterintuitive thing to say).
It's like saying that "You may've blown up Rommel, but I blew up three T-34s!"
I guess we have different view on our armies. My armies are always the same guys, even when they die, when i play them in the next game its still the same army. My dunecrawler isnt a new one being made in my mind, its litterally the same as the one i was playing before.
Yeah I think that is what it comes down to, a different view on the game and a different sense of immersion. For some, special characters increase immersion or are neutral. For others, they break immersion outside of special games.
I guess we have different view on our armies. My armies are always the same guys, even when they die, when i play them in the next game its still the same army. My dunecrawler isnt a new one being made in my mind, its litterally the same as the one i was playing before.
All of my vehicles are named. Most of my Sergeants are named. All of my Veterans are named. Some even have medals and kill marks.
Having run quite a few Necromunda campaigns I've had enough of my crew dying and needing replacing.
But I've killed Mortarion more times than Vulkan died.
yukishiro1 wrote: "That Mortarion got totally trashed by those eradicators! Oh well, order up a new one at the factory. Overtime for everybody!" - Dark Mechanicus Bob
Yeah to say they're "the same as Leman Russes" is kinda silly tbf. Leman Russes are literally the example of a heavy asset that's wasted in huge numbers for marginal gains. To say "You could say the same about your Russes that you can about Mortarion" is literally the point I am trying to make (because that's such a silly, counterintuitive thing to say).
It's like saying that "You may've blown up Rommel, but I blew up three T-34s!"
I guess we have different view on our armies. My armies are always the same guys, even when they die, when i play them in the next game its still the same army. My dunecrawler isnt a new one being made in my mind, its litterally the same as the one i was playing before.
Yeah, that doesn't make logical sense to me. At the risk of veering off topic, this is why I dislike 9th's Crusade; progression is not the same thing as narrative.
If my Fire Prism explodes and everyone inside of it dies, how the hell does it have a "battle scar" next round? It should just be outright gone... and I've even done this in our Crusade once, paying the RP to delete a fireprism from the list and then re-adding a new fire prism, because the old one exploded in a game. I actively hurt myself to follow the narrative inside GW's narrative system...
yukishiro1 wrote: "That Mortarion got totally trashed by those eradicators! Oh well, order up a new one at the factory. Overtime for everybody!" - Dark Mechanicus Bob
Yeah to say they're "the same as Leman Russes" is kinda silly tbf. Leman Russes are literally the example of a heavy asset that's wasted in huge numbers for marginal gains. To say "You could say the same about your Russes that you can about Mortarion" is literally the point I am trying to make (because that's such a silly, counterintuitive thing to say).
It's like saying that "You may've blown up Rommel, but I blew up three T-34s!"
I guess we have different view on our armies. My armies are always the same guys, even when they die, when i play them in the next game its still the same army. My dunecrawler isnt a new one being made in my mind, its litterally the same as the one i was playing before.
Yeah, that doesn't make logical sense to me. At the risk of veering off topic, this is why I dislike 9th's Crusade; progression is not the same thing as narrative.
If my Fire Prism explodes and everyone inside of it dies, how the hell does it have a "battle scar" next round? It should just be outright gone... and I've even done this in our Crusade once, paying the RP to delete a fireprism from the list and then re-adding a new fire prism, because the old one exploded in a game. I actively hurt myself to follow the narrative inside GW's narrative system...
Most people aren't you and would be entirely unhappy with not being able to play with models they own. This is why death is a rarity in almost every campaign system.
stratigo wrote: Most people aren't you and would be entirely unhappy with not being able to play with models they own. This is why death is a rarity in almost every campaign system.
I used the same Fire Prism model, it's not like I ran out and bought a new one. I did rename it though and reset its experience.
Where did I say "the unit died = you cannot ever use that model again"?
Most people aren't you and would be entirely unhappy with not being able to play with models they own. This is why death is a rarity in almost every campaign system.
Funny story... I got invited to this garage group when I was like 18. The guy who was hosting was an ex-NFL player who was loaded, he had this big shed that was his gaming cave. I put my orks on the table for a game against one of the guys and the host pulled out a hammer and an acetylene torch, plopped them down on the table, and said "Just so you now, we play for keeps here. If it gets destroyed, it gets destroyed." I balked, obviously, as there was no way I could afford to re-buy things on my retail salary. They cracked up because I fell for it at the start.
He did have a casting setup in his shed, though, and when one of his Rhinos or whatever got blown up he'd have a cast of them ready, go out and put a firecracker in it, then use the pieces as cover.
Hecaton wrote: [
He did have a casting setup in his shed, though, and when one of his[i] Rhinos or whatever got blown up he'd have a cast of them ready, go out and put a firecracker in it, then use the pieces as cover. [u]
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I remember coming to 40K from Lotr, opened my first CSM Codex and was like: Why are there only 6 named guys in there, only one for the Legion I'm interested in? Where's the profile for the guy in that short story on page 47? It took me a while to realize that 40K is not tied to its background in a very strong way like Lotr and you are expected to create your own Heroes and missions. I have no problem with characters from the background actually appearing as models with their own rules. Especially as a Chaos player, who wouldn't want to see their Primarch in model form, even just for the shelf to sit on?
Yeah this is a funny point because in LOTR, something with an INCREDIBLY well-defined canon, you have people regularly running things like Aragorn King Elessar vs Witch King of Angmar and nobody bats an eye, or Saruman taking to the battlefield personally to fight Elrond.
Well sure, but that's kind-of the point of the setting. Nobody (well, almost nobody) plays LOTR to experience The Adventures of Bob the Orc. Whereas 40k has historically been a bit less focused on named character fanfic and more focused on creating your own characters.
yukishiro1 wrote: Well sure, but that's kind-of the point of the setting. Nobody (well, almost nobody) plays LOTR to experience The Adventures of Bob the Orc. Whereas 40k has historically been a bit less focused on named character fanfic and more focused on creating your own characters.
In terms of “why does X appear in such a small scaled game”, I’m in two minds.
The first is that I do agree to an extent. Especially big boys like Ghaz and the Silent King. They’re leaders of their entire race, so seeing them on the field does feel a bit weird.
But on the other? Stuff like Guilliman, Abaddon and other explicitly martial characters? Why wouldn’t they take the field often? Same with C’Tan shards. They’re not legendarily rare, and now amount to little beyond very very angry, but powerful weapons to be directed as the Phaeron decides.
Now that’s not to be taken as a STFU to those bored of facing them, or who eschew named characters in their own list. I’ve neither business nor interest in telling you what to think or what opinion to hold (I get paid for that at work. So I’m not doing it for free).
But it is a rationale of sorts that yes, these folk can and do take to the field. Sure some feel a bit too important for 40k’s scale, even at 3,000 points. There you just need to assume the battle you’re enacting is a particularly important slice of a far larger Violence Pie.
But the characters of lesser note, especially Space and Chaos Marines one. Battle is their literal job. Of course they’d been seen on the field with shocking regularity.
With all you narrative guys here, I bet you don't even play it like I do, because I'm really a narrative player. Whenever a model I own gets killed, I smash it with a hammer and toss it away. My dude is dead and can therefore never be fielded again. If a tank gets exploded, I load it up with some black powder and blow it up. It blew up in the game, so it should be blown up! Get on my level, plebs!
Kall3m0n wrote: With all you narrative guys here, I bet you don't even play it like I do, because I'm really a narrative player. Whenever a model I own gets killed, I smash it with a hammer and toss it away. My dude is dead and can therefore never be fielded again. If a tank gets exploded, I load it up with some black powder and blow it up. It blew up in the game, so it should be blown up! Get on my level, plebs!
yukishiro1 wrote: "That Mortarion got totally trashed by those eradicators! Oh well, order up a new one at the factory. Overtime for everybody!" - Dark Mechanicus Bob
Yeah to say they're "the same as Leman Russes" is kinda silly tbf. Leman Russes are literally the example of a heavy asset that's wasted in huge numbers for marginal gains. To say "You could say the same about your Russes that you can about Mortarion" is literally the point I am trying to make (because that's such a silly, counterintuitive thing to say).
It's like saying that "You may've blown up Rommel, but I blew up three T-34s!"
I guess we have different view on our armies. My armies are always the same guys, even when they die, when i play them in the next game its still the same army. My dunecrawler isnt a new one being made in my mind, its litterally the same as the one i was playing before.
Yeah, that doesn't make logical sense to me. At the risk of veering off topic, this is why I dislike 9th's Crusade; progression is not the same thing as narrative.
If my Fire Prism explodes and everyone inside of it dies, how the hell does it have a "battle scar" next round? It should just be outright gone... and I've even done this in our Crusade once, paying the RP to delete a fireprism from the list and then re-adding a new fire prism, because the old one exploded in a game. I actively hurt myself to follow the narrative inside GW's narrative system...
I think the reason my have to do with the fact that GW was going for a campaign system that has a better than average chance of making it to Week 3. You know, that point in most stronger get stronger, weaker get weaker half the players drop out because they aren't playing games but bringing punching bags for the players that found initial susccess. Another way of looking at it is why are these game being played at equal points? I am guessing to make a game of it and not an activity. Maybe your campaigns have been different. Mine have almost always ended the same way: First few games played and the campaign is basically decided. The only ones that really want to continue are either the ones winning or the ones that can't get in games anywhere else.
Why did you catch Morty in the part of the battle where it is so under-strength? Is he there to try to hold the line himself? If that's the case maybe, he wasn't killed at all. He just saw the fortune of battle turn against in this part of the field and turned to other areas where his power would be better used. Maybe that second fight you have with Morty is another part of the line only minutes later where again Morty thinks he wants to turn the tide. I think a guard player could literally fight Mortarian in dozens of games before that player could claim they defeated in even a single battle. There are several ways the story can go beyond, "I removed the model. That's means it has been utterly destroyed." Especially with special characters. Most of which use the thing between their ears just a bit more than the average Khorne Berserker. They likely know what a loss cause is and 40k propaganda aside understand retreating maybe the best course of action.
I think we can also consider something like Genestealer Cults. Just by being in open combat means a lot with them. Maybe they were discovered. Maybe they view the opposing player's army as a threat to their plans. Maybe the Hivefleet is very, very close. In almost all cases that particular cult is done. Even if they lose and are forced underground, it is going to be possibly centuries before the Patriarch (new or old) gathers the strength to try another pitched battle. Now I like coming up with little fluff stories for my armies. But even I don't want to have to come up with a new Cult each and every time I play. So the GSC I field is generally the same one. Unless I make them more of an NPC type to better match my opponent's faction such as basically being mutants and count-as beastmen in the Eye of Terror on a planet under the control of the Thousand Sons attempting to rebel/seize power.
***
To answer the OP, I like them. My Black Legion has Abbadon and Haarkeen. I haven't fielded Abbadon, but I did field Haarken who I wanted to wait about 80 days before finally fielding Abbadon. Even my GSC, I don't believe I have fielded the Patriarch. Which by all intents and purposes is of named character importance to Genestealer Cults. Kinda a dinky center piece but it works for kinda a small potatoes faction. I want to keep them special. So I don't make use of them all the time.
But I can't control what my opponent brings. And I don't really want to. If they like those big, scary centerpeice models and want to field them, I'll play the game the best way I know how to deal with them. One in my gaming group absolutely loves his FW Nidzilla list. He loads up with the biggest Tyranid models that probably exist. Like the Carnifex is one of the smaller things he brings. In 8th, it was a horrible, horrible list. I don't suspect it will be much better in 9th. But man does he enjoy playing it. Even myself, a guilty pleasure in all 28-32mm games I play is if they include flyers, I want them in my army. I know they don't fit scale or scope of the game, and they don't work very well any that I have played. I like them all the same. So when the annual, 'don't include super heavies and flyers in 40k' comes around I am super quiet.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: ...I think the reason my have to do with the fact that GW was going for a campaign system that has a better than average chance of making it to Week 3...
They're also trying to write a campaign system for a game where 70-90% of the models on the table are dead by the end of every game. If you try to implement permadeath in a 9e campaign nobody would make it to game 2, let alone week 3.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: ...I think the reason my have to do with the fact that GW was going for a campaign system that has a better than average chance of making it to Week 3...
They're also trying to write a campaign system for a game where 70-90% of the models on the table are dead by the end of every game. If you try to implement permadeath in a 9e campaign nobody would make it to game 2, let alone week 3.
Personally I'm not a big fan of giant centerpiece named characters on the field. On occasion? Sure thing! But seeing the same named character fighting it out, especially when it is a faction leader, makes me immediately thing "wow this war is going badly for them that A) they need to intervene personally or B) the enemy has made it all the way to their base of operations easily".
Then again, I'm of the mind that most faction leaders (barring say Ghaz, who is an Ork who likes crumping things) have better things to do than intervene in small scale battles across the galaxy. Things like coordinating their troops, figuring out the logistics of the war and the overall strategies being employed. Going with people's World War 2 references, it would be less like seeing Patton, Montgomery and Rommel on the front lines, and more like seeing Eisenhower, Churchill, and Roosevelt leading the charge on D-Day while Stalin personally took to the field at Kursk.
I'm also not overly fond of named characters in general, and find it annoying that they tend to get special rules that cannot be obtained elsewhere. It would be far more interesting if generic characters had a variety of options to take and that named characters just happened to be specific builds of said generic.
I feel like Mortarion is more than just a center-piece at 150$ but he is over powered on purpose to get people to buy a whole death-guard army if they want to play something competitive other then space marines
I despise the show piece units that are generally a unique character or thing and yet they show up in every battle somehow. Perhaps it's the way I view the hobby but for me the hobby is about my armies fighting battles and those battles take place in my own little piece of head canon. With the models representing my army, my army isn't going to have a Gaz, Gulliman, Shadowsun, etc because they aren't a part of my army. Even if I use a named character's rules, I try to always make the model unique so that it doesn't feel like my army has a character that doesn't belong. The big stompy units that aren't unique but sorta fit that center piece role are not as bad but generally I avoid the giant units unless it makes sense to have it (a Stompa make sense for an Ork army, a Taunar or Stormsurge feels counter intuitive to Tau military doctrine).
It's also to be said that I generally dislike unique character's and prefer to use generic character units that I have kit bashed together from basic kits to make them one of a kind. Its just much more appealing to see a character model that I kitbashed/cobbled together instead of the same thing that everyone else has.
When it comes to rules, I absolute despise these gods among men type units waddling around the battle field that is essentially a giant target for the limitless amount of overwhelming destructive weapons that can evaporate tanks, let alone some uppity git in power armor. I just prefer the meat and potatoes of infantry being the bulk of a force with vehicles being the supporting elements and characters are there to boost the combat effectiveness of the infantry and/or bring an above average close combat unit (exception being that it's ok for a unit like a Warboss being a dump truck without brakes because a Warboss in the fluff is more than just a rank but a whole different physical form for an Ork compared to a Nob or Boy)
stratigo wrote: Most people aren't you and would be entirely unhappy with not being able to play with models they own. This is why death is a rarity in almost every campaign system.
I used the same Fire Prism model, it's not like I ran out and bought a new one. I did rename it though and reset its experience.
Where did I say "the unit died = you cannot ever use that model again"?
Removing a model/unit from the game means its a causality and no longer contributing to the fight, not necessarily dead. In fact, really old editions of 40K had an "after-action" table you would roll on to see what was the actual fate of the model, ranging from just grazed (and back in the next game) through crippled (and possibly getting some neat bionics) to really dead.
There's also plenty of war stories (esp. WW2 tank crews) who'd have their vehicles shot out from under them but the crew would be reassigned - sometimes in the same battle (I seem to recall a sherman tank commander who had 4 such tanks shot out from under him in the same battle. Course, had I been the crew of the 3rd or such vehicle I'd have kicked him out because he was doing obviously something wrong losing those tanks whereas we'd had the sense to keep ours intact so far).
Now, if it was a vehicle that exploded - that's a little more difficult to explain, but with 40K's waffling time scale for turns, the crew may have bailed and gotten clear before the boom. It's just a matter then of waiting for a new vehicle...
And not just older versions of 40k; in Necromunda, (both editions) also rolls for casualties to see what happened to them after they were removed from play; Blackstone did it, Kill Team does it.
Being removed from the battlefield has never meant dead, unless you roll poorly in the post battle sequence.
Is it bad to imagine that you face Mortarion 3 times in a tournament that it is because losing all his wounds doesn't necessarily kill him and he runs to tend his wounds for the next fight? That your fight it all part of some grand campaign by Death Guard on a particular planet?
The setting is pretty vast and flexible. It doesn't take a ton to imagine these scenarios.
stratigo wrote: Most people aren't you and would be entirely unhappy with not being able to play with models they own. This is why death is a rarity in almost every campaign system.
I used the same Fire Prism model, it's not like I ran out and bought a new one. I did rename it though and reset its experience.
Where did I say "the unit died = you cannot ever use that model again"?
Removing a model/unit from the game means its a causality and no longer contributing to the fight, not necessarily dead. In fact, really old editions of 40K had an "after-action" table you would roll on to see what was the actual fate of the model, ranging from just grazed (and back in the next game) through crippled (and possibly getting some neat bionics) to really dead.
There's also plenty of war stories (esp. WW2 tank crews) who'd have their vehicles shot out from under them but the crew would be reassigned - sometimes in the same battle (I seem to recall a sherman tank commander who had 4 such tanks shot out from under him in the same battle. Course, had I been the crew of the 3rd or such vehicle I'd have kicked him out because he was doing obviously something wrong losing those tanks whereas we'd had the sense to keep ours intact so far).
Now, if it was a vehicle that exploded - that's a little more difficult to explain, but with 40K's waffling time scale for turns, the crew may have bailed and gotten clear before the boom. It's just a matter then of waiting for a new vehicle...
Yeah, I mean it's not like I expect Tank Aces to be demoted. The crew getting away is fine, getting a replacement vehicle is fine - even if it's the same model. No problem.
But Mortarion? Maybe the first fifteen times I kill him he's "just wounded". But what about the eighteenth time I've killed time that edition? Maybe it's the 50th time he's died overall (if the DG player plays weekly). Is he dead yet?
Is there any narrative risk in this game at all to encourage you not to throw your guys (especially the REALLY IMPORTANT ONES) under the bus for giggles?
As far as after-action tables, those are awesome. Most of the other systems I play (including 30k ) have an after-action damage table for hurt units. Even Crusade has that, though there's no real risk of death.
Honestly Mortarion is the worse example you can use to support your opinion since demons are known to just retreat back to the immaterium when the "die".
Take almost any other character as an example and then i can agree that it makes no sense. Ragnar, Daedalosus, Junith, Eldrad, Lelith etc.
Only the chaos characters should have that "immortality" since they can litterally just retreat back to the warp at the last second
VladimirHerzog wrote: Honestly Mortarion is the worse example you can use to support your opinion since demons are known to just retreat back to the immaterium when the "die".
Take almost any other character as an example and then i can agree that it makes no sense. Ragnar, Daedalosus, Junith, Eldrad, Lelith etc.
Only the chaos characters should have that "immortality" since they can litterally just retreat back to the warp at the last second
I mean those other characters can "retreat" via teleportarium/webway/arcane science/miraculous intervention. You can always fabricate a narrative reason for a character survived - I mean, heck, Star Wars literally used the villain cloned himself a bazillion times archetype previously reserved for fan fiction in a blockbuster movie.
But that's stakeless writing. There's nothing compelling about the defeat of Angron at Armageddon for the loss of 100 Grey Knight Terminators if he just shows up a week later to conquer the planet anyways - or to be driven off by those exact same 100 Grey Knights who all teleportarium'd out at the very moment of death the first time.
Though it would be hilarious to try to actually write a sci-fi universe where death was outright impossible by the laws of reality, that's not how I imagine 40k. I mean we're literally talking about banishing a Daemon Primarch to the Warp by feat of arms as a trivial thing, because he'll just be back and you can just do it again that time too. That's why I don't like these characters in the game. It trivializes them. It makes the background into a joke.
If we're trying to apply realism to the Crusade/Necromunda system of 'you got tabled but 5/6 of your army isn't really dead', I have to point out that the force that has to vacate the battlefield at the end of the engagement typically is not recovering many casualties from the field. Survivors are either taken as POWs by the victors or executed, depending on the conflict.
The Crusade system of two armies fighting each other again and again with roughly the same forces each time is, realistically speaking, nonsense. It's a game. Just roll with it.
But if someone wants to make a Total War style system where you actually are marching armies across a theater and losing them wholesale in combat, I'm all for that and would love to help playtest. It's just not the experience GW was targeting.
I love putting guys like Skarbrand and Skulltaker in my armies, but generally, I play my own guys. Everyone is talking about how good Mortarion is, and while it's great that his rules match his fluff, I think I'll be running my own custom Chaos lord as my warlord.
I despise the show piece units that are generally a unique character or thing and yet they show up in every battle somehow.
This bit feels like internet hyperbole though. We've had multiple people use the "they show up in every battle" line, but at the very least, my own real world experience doesn't bear that out. You've literally seen Mortarion, The Silent King, and Magnus in literally every battle where they're able to be taken? Really?
I haven't even seen them in a majority of games. I've had my own Mortarion since he was released. He's seen the table twice. Like I mentioned earlier, it's been comparatively rare to actually see one. Even in the competitive scene, it was rare to see these pieces "every time". Just curious where that comes from I guess.
Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue. Superheavies used to be Apocalypse only, now they're every game. Used to be a limit on what you can take, now you can take whatever obscene nonsense you like. So now we've got to this point where 40k is a bad joke. The game is a MTG ripf-off, the lore becomes more and more like the Marvel universe and the models are overdesigned and overpriced junk.
In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.
In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.
What have they really become though? Like I said before, a lot of this feels pretty hyperbolic. You mention them being "standard issue", but even in tournaments, I've seen way more games against DG/Tsons, etc WITHOUT Magnus/Morty than I did WITH.
So ... what are we really upset at here? Because most people who have followed the competitive scene will tell you it was way too easy to 1-turn kill those guys (there's a reason GW has had to introduce the "can only take x wounds per phase rule" and not everyone even gets that), and in my own anecdotal experience, they are pretty rare in pickup games too. Plus, when you did see Morty, it was usually in a weird mixed army with a few detachments. You aren't likely to see that anymore since DG armies have to be 100% DG in order for a lot of things to work. You want to ally in some CSM to get Warptime? Ok. But you now give up everything that makes the rest of your army good.
So, again - what are we upset at? Is it the potential to see them too much? Is it the idea that some want there to be more restrictions? Is it fear of facing them in pick up games? What is it, because I just don't buy the "I face them every game" excuse.
If someone dislikes them simply because they dislike them, that's fair game. Don't care for the look, don't like concept, wish named characters would remain in the fluff - that's all fair game. I just don't buy a lot of the other reasons I'm seeing here I guess.
Banzaimash wrote: Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue. Superheavies used to be Apocalypse only, now they're every game. Used to be a limit on what you can take, now you can take whatever obscene nonsense you like. So now we've got to this point where 40k is a bad joke. The game is a MTG ripf-off, the lore becomes more and more like the Marvel universe and the models are overdesigned and overpriced junk.
In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.
damn, maybe you should take a break, thats a lot of vitriol towards a miniatures game.
Banzaimash wrote: Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue. Superheavies used to be Apocalypse only, now they're every game. Used to be a limit on what you can take, now you can take whatever obscene nonsense you like. So now we've got to this point where 40k is a bad joke. The game is a MTG ripf-off, the lore becomes more and more like the Marvel universe and the models are overdesigned and overpriced junk.
In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.
damn, maybe you should take a break, thats a lot of vitriol towards a miniatures game.
It's an expensive and time-consuming hobby, so I would be lying if I said it wasn't valued part of my life, and that I am deeply disappointed with how it's turning out. This is just my genuine feeling. At least I'm not trying to trivialise others' concerns and imply they have no life. If some are happy rolling over without a squeek that's fine, if they actually like how things are going that's fine, but it's just not me, so while there's a 40k discussion going on, I'll discuss what I feel about 40k. Peace.
Banzaimash wrote: Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue. Superheavies used to be Apocalypse only, now they're every game. Used to be a limit on what you can take, now you can take whatever obscene nonsense you like. So now we've got to this point where 40k is a bad joke. The game is a MTG ripf-off, the lore becomes more and more like the Marvel universe and the models are overdesigned and overpriced junk.
In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.
damn, maybe you should take a break, thats a lot of vitriol towards a miniatures game.
It's an expensive and time-consuming hobby, so I would be lying if I said it wasn't valued part of my life, and that I am deeply disappointed with how it's turning out. This is just my genuine feeling. At least I'm not trying to trivialise others' concerns and imply they have no life. If some are happy rolling over without a squeek that's fine, if they actually like how things are going that's fine, but it's just not me, so while there's a 40k discussion going on, I'll discuss what I feel about 40k. Peace.
Yeah sure, discussion is fine, just don't start slinging gak at other players for liking something you might not like. Its all subjective. Just because i like Maggy/Morty/etc doesnt mean im "greedy" and "less imaginative" and "focused on eating what GW is cooking".
Your whole original comment attacks the players instead of GW.
Banzaimash wrote: Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue. Superheavies used to be Apocalypse only, now they're every game. Used to be a limit on what you can take, now you can take whatever obscene nonsense you like. So now we've got to this point where 40k is a bad joke. The game is a MTG ripf-off, the lore becomes more and more like the Marvel universe and the models are overdesigned and overpriced junk.
In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.
damn, maybe you should take a break, thats a lot of vitriol towards a miniatures game.
It's an expensive and time-consuming hobby, so I would be lying if I said it wasn't valued part of my life, and that I am deeply disappointed with how it's turning out. This is just my genuine feeling. At least I'm not trying to trivialise others' concerns and imply they have no life. If some are happy rolling over without a squeek that's fine, if they actually like how things are going that's fine, but it's just not me, so while there's a 40k discussion going on, I'll discuss what I feel about 40k. Peace.
I'm still curious to hear, more specifically, what it is you don't like. During most of 8th edition, I was in a job where I had to do tons of travel all over the U.S. Stopped in on many a game night. Saw Mortarion/Morty, etc etc precious few times. When you look at tourney data, it's kind of similar. You see them being taken frequently (I should add that I've never seen either taken frequently in pick-up or casual games), and then not at all. Ghaz ... Fhaz is actually dissapointing. The C'tan shards? Not only did their fluff get changed so that they aren't "unique single characters" anymore, but they were also pretty bad for a long time. Nightbringer is finally good, but he needs to be given he's going to be darn near 1/4 the cost of your army.
So many people are going on like that's all you see now and I just don't get it, so what is it specifically? If you don't like the inclusion at all, fair enough. If you prefer a focus on non-named characters so that players can "tell their own stories", I get that too, but your posts make it seem like it's just all Supreme Command characters all the time, and I'm just not seeing that.
They definitely make 40K game system worse over all by having them as playable options.
How though? Specifically?
Because I don't really think I agree, but I'm open to being wrong here. They certainly can pose potential issues, but they really haven't unbalanced the game more than things like Screamer star in 7th, or similar "problem" units that are not named characters.
And I like the fact that they are available as options. I loved painting Mortarion for example. Mine has only seen two games in all the time I've had him, but they were fun games (for everyone involved) I would add.
Again - if a person just doesn't like them fair enough. But these "They definitely xyz" type statements don't make sense to me. What am I missing?
Honestly? Probably what people were expecting when they started playing.
When I got in in WH40K was relatively small firefights that were slightly larger than a skirmish. That's evolved over the years into mini-appocalypse games. Nothing wrong with evolution, I'm happy to play along but one key element missing from earlier editions was Primarchs and the Chaos Primarchs. They were literally missing. WH40K wasn't necessarily a large name unit game, it was squads of relatively interchangeable troops slugging it out.
Now I don't think any of the "Primarchs" are horribly imbalanced in terms of game play I do find them out of kilter with the thematics of the game.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Your whole original comment attacks the players instead of GW.
But the players immediately shelling out for whatever the next flashing thing is SHOULD be attacked as it is what facilitated the current climate of 3 year total rollover that we're experiencing now. Anyone who isn't buying along when this sort of thing happens is getting outvoted by the people who are, and their opinion shouldn't be silenced just because there is a plurality of players who DO immediately shell out for the next flashing thing.
The reason you didn't see them very much was because they weren't very good before.
But Girlyman was turning up in most Smurf lists I saw.
Most people are attracted to the best options, even if they don't go all out on super cheese lists.
Girlyman had a huge advantage compared to models like Mortarion. He's easier to assemble and paint, while cheaper in points and money.
He's actually pretty easy to field and even people who dislike massive models can accept using him because he's basically sized as a dread, not a knight or a titan. Same with Ghazghkull.
I don't see Girlyman as any different though. He's a Primarch all the same.
Reasons for him being more common are just that. They don't excuse the fact that he's a tough centrepiece model who's a unique character.
From a fluff perspective one could argue that Girlyman leading a small platoon in a minor skirmish makes significantly less sense than a Daemon Primarch going out to have some fun on a whim.
Banzaimash wrote: Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue.
Oh the irony. You know why a special character was limited by game size? Because GW said so. And you followed their terms.
Just Tony wrote: But the players immediately shelling out for whatever the next flashing thing is SHOULD be attacked as it is what facilitated the current climate of 3 year total rollover that we're experiencing now. Anyone who isn't buying along when this sort of thing happens is getting outvoted by the people who are, and their opinion shouldn't be silenced just because there is a plurality of players who DO immediately shell out for the next flashing thing.
Past three years have seen Primaris, Chaos Marines, Sisters and Necrons substantially or completely redone / updated. Admech got a new wave of releases and Sisters seem to get another one as well.
You are welcome that my purchases in the past months made it possible for players of those factions to enjoy new plastic.
Banzaimash wrote: Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue. Superheavies used to be Apocalypse only, now they're every game. Used to be a limit on what you can take, now you can take whatever obscene nonsense you like. So now we've got to this point where 40k is a bad joke. The game is a MTG ripf-off, the lore becomes more and more like the Marvel universe and the models are overdesigned and overpriced junk.
In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.
damn, maybe you should take a break, thats a lot of vitriol towards a miniatures game.
It's an expensive and time-consuming hobby, so I would be lying if I said it wasn't valued part of my life, and that I am deeply disappointed with how it's turning out. This is just my genuine feeling. At least I'm not trying to trivialise others' concerns and imply they have no life. If some are happy rolling over without a squeek that's fine, if they actually like how things are going that's fine, but it's just not me, so while there's a 40k discussion going on, I'll discuss what I feel about 40k. Peace.
Yeah sure, discussion is fine, just don't start slinging gak at other players for liking something you might not like. Its all subjective. Just because i like Maggy/Morty/etc doesnt mean im "greedy" and "less imaginative" and "focused on eating what GW is cooking".
Your whole original comment attacks the players instead of GW.
The players are the ones who enable GWs behaviour. When their actions conflict with my interests of course I will attack their actions, who wouldn't? I don't hate the sinner, bit I sure do hate the sin.
Banzaimash wrote: Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue.
Oh the irony. You know why a special character was limited by game size? Because GW said so. And you followed their terms.
Just Tony wrote: But the players immediately shelling out for whatever the next flashing thing is SHOULD be attacked as it is what facilitated the current climate of 3 year total rollover that we're experiencing now. Anyone who isn't buying along when this sort of thing happens is getting outvoted by the people who are, and their opinion shouldn't be silenced just because there is a plurality of players who DO immediately shell out for the next flashing thing.
Past three years have seen Primaris, Chaos Marines, Sisters and Necrons substantially or completely redone / updated. Admech got a new wave of releases and Sisters seem to get another one as well.
You are welcome that my purchases in the past months made it possible for players of those factions to enjoy new plastic.
We all eat what GW serves, but when they switch from good food to dirty slop then it's time to stop rather than go on like a (pay) pig in it's trough. Restrictions that made the game good have given way to excess all at the behest of an often decadent and gluttonous playerbase.
As for the idea that people like you buying trash models enable actual good releases, your martyrdom is not necessary: if you didn't buy bad models, GW wouldnt make bad models, and then we would just have good ones. If anything, every baby'carrier or overwrought goofy character you buy is one less release of something worthwhile. Crazy to think I know...
Honestly? Probably what people were expecting when they started playing.
When I got in in WH40K was relatively small firefights that were slightly larger than a skirmish. That's evolved over the years into mini-appocalypse games. Nothing wrong with evolution, I'm happy to play along but one key element missing from earlier editions was Primarchs and the Chaos Primarchs. They were literally missing. WH40K wasn't necessarily a large name unit game, it was squads of relatively interchangeable troops slugging it out.
Now I don't think any of the "Primarchs" are horribly imbalanced in terms of game play I do find them out of kilter with the thematics of the game.
Right - see - I started with Rogue Trader. So I played back then. I still like the inclusion of the big models and Ghaz, etc. Your reasons for not liking them are also perfectly valid.
It's the "They objectively make everything worse" type comments I'm just not getting here.
I was a kid when I started, and a lot of the stuff we're getting now, is all stuff that teenage me, at one time or another said "Wouldn't it be cool if we could use X in a game!?" So like I said, I like a lot of this stuff. But I also get it if someone has different tastes and these things are simply not to their liking. The nice thing is, you don't have to use them. They aren't mandatory and unless you're going to a tourney, there's no reason you'll ever have to face one if you don't want to.
As far as whether or not they have a negative effect on competitive play - not any more than any of the other half million legtimately OP things that have happened over the years involving really basic models, so I don't get the complaint here either (unless, again, it's just personal preference which is obviously fair game). Still waiting on the explanation for how they objectively make the game worse ...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s almost as if that’s......just your opinion on the matter, but one you seem to feel is somehow more correcter than anyone else’s on the matter?
You and yours don’t want to use Named Stuff? That’s completely cool. That’s your hobby. Genuinely more power to you.
But don’t pretend like it’s any sort of benchmark for others to observe and follow. Because it’s simply not.
It's all opinion, but a widely held opinion becomes the norm. So if you have an opinion you put it out there, show your colours and then we can see what opinion is widely held or not. I will never apologise for acting in my own interest instead of standing by permissively while a good thing that I enjoy is polluted, and I definitely don't believe I am the only one. There's a big difference between taste, and standards.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s almost as if that’s......just your opinion on the matter, but one you seem to feel is somehow more correcter than anyone else’s on the matter?
You and yours don’t want to use Named Stuff? That’s completely cool. That’s your hobby. Genuinely more power to you.
But don’t pretend like it’s any sort of benchmark for others to observe and follow. Because it’s simply not.
It's all opinion, but a widely held opinion becomes the norm. So if you have an opinion you put it out there, show your colours and then we can see what opinion is widely held or not. I will never apologise for acting in my own interest instead of standing by permissively while a good thing that I enjoy is polluted, and I definitely don't believe I am the only one. There's a big difference between taste, and standards.
My standards are that any game that lacks a big centerpiece is garbage. /sarcasm
What makes your standards more important than others?
There's a big difference between taste, and standards.
While true ... I'm not entirely sure you fully grasp the difference? They're both generally up to the individual to set, unless the individual has joined a group with express, documented, specific standards. So, for example, it seems like you do not like Mortarion. That's fine. That's your personal preference. But what "standards" does Mortarion violate?
My guess is, you can't provide an answer that isn't some version of "My own personal standards" which, as Grotsnik mentioned, is really just your opinion ...
No one person sets the standards, it's done by whatever the majority opinion is, which is why I'm stating my opinion. I can't help you if you can't grasp this basic idea.
No one person sets the standards, it's done by whatever the majority opinion is, which is why I'm stating my opinion. I can't help you if you can't grasp this basic idea.
If you agree that everything you've posted really is just an opinion, then I guess I'm curious what you perceive the difference between "taste" and "standards" to be?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s almost as if that’s......just your opinion on the matter, but one you seem to feel is somehow more correcter than anyone else’s on the matter?
You and yours don’t want to use Named Stuff? That’s completely cool. That’s your hobby. Genuinely more power to you.
But don’t pretend like it’s any sort of benchmark for others to observe and follow. Because it’s simply not.
It's all opinion, but a widely held opinion becomes the norm. So if you have an opinion you put it out there, show your colours and then we can see what opinion is widely held or not. I will never apologise for acting in my own interest instead of standing by permissively while a good thing that I enjoy is polluted, and I definitely don't believe I am the only one. There's a big difference between taste, and standards.
Is it widely held though? What’s your metric for widely? Where are you obtaining your data from? Are you canvassing opinion? Have you considered confirmation bias?
And please, dial back the hyperbole and rhetoric.
40K is not “polluted” by the existence of army options. Nor is it polluted by anyone using something you don’t want to use.
You are not a, let alone the, Gatekeeper and High Arbitrator of 40K. Nobody is - not even GW.
Use them, don’t use them. You do you, and I’ll do me. Our choices do not affect each other’s relative enjoyment of the game, nor the games we play within the hobby. Please don’t pretend otherwise.
I think people should worry about their own armies and not those of others quite so much. I get that my choice of army might not appeal to another, but I fail to see how someone buying, painting and playing a Void Dragon, Ghaz or Mortarian somehow pollutes the game (I have none of those, but whatever). If they are not popular they will fade away. If they are popular, they will stay.
If other people's army choices bother someone so much, they can always play solo and have as much fun as they want!
Having said that, if my opponent in the pre-game discussion asks for a special condition like "No named characters or no units with a PL above 12" I will play along. I'll make compromises for the sake of variety. I've certainly never made demands of my opponent to alter their list. I'd rather lose a game than an opponent.
I think people should worry about their own armies and not those of others quite so much. I get that my choice of army might not appeal to another, but I fail to see how someone buying, painting and playing a Void Dragon, Ghaz or Mortarian somehow pollutes the game (I have none of those, but whatever). If they are not popular they will fade away. If they are popular, they will stay.
If other people's army choices bother someone so much, they can always play solo and have as much fun as they want!
Having said that, if my opponent in the pre-game discussion asks for a special condition like "No named characters or no units with a PL above 12" I will play along. I'll make compromises for the sake of variety. I've certainly never made demands of my opponent to alter their list. I'd rather lose a game than an opponent.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s almost as if that’s......just your opinion on the matter, but one you seem to feel is somehow more correcter than anyone else’s on the matter?
You and yours don’t want to use Named Stuff? That’s completely cool. That’s your hobby. Genuinely more power to you.
But don’t pretend like it’s any sort of benchmark for others to observe and follow. Because it’s simply not.
It's all opinion, but a widely held opinion becomes the norm. So if you have an opinion you put it out there, show your colours and then we can see what opinion is widely held or not. I will never apologise for acting in my own interest instead of standing by permissively while a good thing that I enjoy is polluted, and I definitely don't believe I am the only one. There's a big difference between taste, and standards.
Is it widely held though? What’s your metric for widely? Where are you obtaining your data from? Are you canvassing opinion? Have you considered confirmation bias?
And please, dial back the hyperbole and rhetoric.
40K is not “polluted” by the existence of army options. Nor is it polluted by anyone using something you don’t want to use.
You are not a, let alone the, Gatekeeper and High Arbitrator of 40K. Nobody is - not even GW.
Use them, don’t use them. You do you, and I’ll do me. Our choices do not affect each other’s relative enjoyment of the game, nor the games we play within the hobby. Please don’t pretend otherwise.
The thing is your choices DO effect the enjoyment of other's games, this is a collaborative hobby. Same reason you don't field a grey tide (I would hope). As for High Arbitrator, as much as I'd love such a lofty title, it's not a matter of one opinion, but of the majority. How we measure that is unclear, especially when people like you stand ready to pounce on anyone who says anything other than 'new model good, new fluff good, GW good - please more more'. And it's not hyperbole to call GW's latest offerings pollution of the eyes, if that is exactly what it is.
The tyranid biovore (even the latest version, which is old but not old enough to excuse the thing...) is honestly a horrible model, it does hurt anyone’s eyes to look at the thing, even just a photo actually.
There is no matter of opinion there
I personally miss 3rd edition SC rules in some way, in the sense they required the opponents specific permission to use. You ended up just playing and building a narrative story with your regular commanders, my UM with powerfist force commander took down a wraith lord with another players emperors champion (not an easy feat in third edition, it was absolutely a hail mary, after it and a seer council ran amok amongst our forces) at a crucial moment whilst battling for an underground bunker underneath armageddon during the third war that arguably lead to victory on the main table as we could break out into the enemy lines on that table.
That just would not have been as fun if it was marneus doing it instead.
Anyway, big centre-piece models should be for capped at games of 2001pts plus, you don't need to see them in regular games.
A question aimed at people who dislike the prevalence of unique characters showing up:
Let's say I want to use the rules from a special character regularely, but I proxy the model with my own kitbashed conversion and give it a custom name on top.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: ...I fail to see how someone buying, painting and playing a Void Dragon, Ghaz or Mortarian somehow pollutes the game (I have none of those, but whatever). If they are not popular they will fade away. If they are popular, they will stay...
For me the problem isn't about other people buying, painting, and playing the big centerpiece named character, the problem is that GW is using named characters as an excuse to take things away from generic characters.
a_typical_hero wrote: A question aimed at people who dislike the prevalence of unique characters showing up:
Let's say I want to use the rules from a special character regularely, but I proxy the model with my own kitbashed conversion and give it a custom name on top.
How do you feel about that?
I actually don't mind this, and in some ways prefer it. However, my point above stands first, I actually would prefer more restrictions to use SC's in general.
On the flip side of that, I fully support and love crusade rules where there is a legitimate narrative way to specialise your own characters through gameplay (obviously doesn't work for matched play but hey ho... All aspects can't be in all versions of the game).
Centerpiece is entriely dependent on game size and table size. I can easily argue a Predator to be a centerpiece in any game below 1000 points, and anyone that's run a Land Raider at any game size but then says they don't like centerpieces are already hypocrites.
Banzaimash wrote: No one person sets the standards, it's done by whatever the majority opinion is, which is why I'm stating my opinion. I can't help you if you can't grasp this basic idea.
If the majority opinion accepts the presence of these models - which I would wager they do, though I don't think any surveys have been conducted to prove it either way - then the standard would appear to be that they are acceptable. Being in line with the standards would be seen as being in good taste, generally.
Therefore standing against the presence of said models would imply poor taste on the part of the person presenting such a position - in this case that would be you.
It would also behoove you to take a less confrontational approach to your posting, sir and/or ma'am.
For me the problem isn't about other people buying, painting, and playing the big centerpiece named character, the problem is that GW is using named characters as an excuse to take things away from generic characters.
I can see where you are coming from with that. What examples are you thinking of?
For me the problem isn't about other people buying, painting, and playing the big centerpiece named character, the problem is that GW is using named characters as an excuse to take things away from generic characters.
I can see where you are coming from with that. What examples are you thinking of?
Coteaz is the most obvious (literally everything he does was something Inquisitorial Retinues did in the 3e book that got taken away in the 5e book).
I don't think it's gotten as bad as it could yet, but I'm scared that they'll end up using named characters to warp 40k Codexes into the Sigmar army books, where the whole thing is built around a small pool of named characters whose support is necessary to make the army function. The first SM book in 8e 40k was very much broken by that design theory (everything was priced around having Guilliman's aura on all the time, which made it a narrow one-dimensional book that only functioned in gunline castles where everyone was packed around a Captain/Lieutenant in one building). The more they give named characters stuff generic characters can't imitate the more they push the game towards becoming Warmachine where there are no generic HQs and whether your army works is entirely dependent on how well everything interacts with your named character of choice.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I personally miss 3rd edition SC rules in some way, in the sense they required the opponents specific permission to use. You ended up just playing and building a narrative story with your regular commanders, my UM with powerfist force commander took down a wraith lord with another players emperors champion (not an easy feat in third edition, it was absolutely a hail mary, after it and a seer council ran amok amongst our forces) at a crucial moment whilst battling for an underground bunker underneath armageddon during the third war that arguably lead to victory on the main table as we could break out into the enemy lines on that table.
That just would not have been as fun if it was marneus doing it instead.
Anyway, big centre-piece models should be for capped at games of 2001pts plus, you don't need to see them in regular games.
I can understand keeping LOWS and SCs out of smaller games below 2000 points, as they can skew low point games, but what problems do you see them causing at 2000 points? If it's simply not liking playing with/against them, then you can simply refuse to play with/against them instead of making a hard cap.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I personally miss 3rd edition SC rules in some way, in the sense they required the opponents specific permission to use. You ended up just playing and building a narrative story with your regular commanders, my UM with powerfist force commander took down a wraith lord with another players emperors champion (not an easy feat in third edition, it was absolutely a hail mary, after it and a seer council ran amok amongst our forces) at a crucial moment whilst battling for an underground bunker underneath armageddon during the third war that arguably lead to victory on the main table as we could break out into the enemy lines on that table.
That just would not have been as fun if it was marneus doing it instead.
Anyway, big centre-piece models should be for capped at games of 2001pts plus, you don't need to see them in regular games.
I can understand keeping LOWS and SCs out of smaller games below 2000 points, as they can skew low point games, but what problems do you see them causing at 2000 points? If it's simply not liking playing with/against them, then you can simply refuse to play with/against them instead of making a hard cap.
2001+ was an arbitrary number, and rather than SC's in general, it was more the LOW characters etc.
I wouldn't have a fit if was 1999+ pt games but personally, I don't like to see huge unique characters in smallish games from a spectacle pov (all my own opinion that others would disagree with). I think if Ghaz is on the field, he should be leading 2500 or 3000 points etc to make him look like he is leading a huge force, same with the silent king and others etc. As I said, my opinion, not saying I am right.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I personally miss 3rd edition SC rules in some way, in the sense they required the opponents specific permission to use. You ended up just playing and building a narrative story with your regular commanders, my UM with powerfist force commander took down a wraith lord with another players emperors champion (not an easy feat in third edition, it was absolutely a hail mary, after it and a seer council ran amok amongst our forces) at a crucial moment whilst battling for an underground bunker underneath armageddon during the third war that arguably lead to victory on the main table as we could break out into the enemy lines on that table.
That just would not have been as fun if it was marneus doing it instead.
Anyway, big centre-piece models should be for capped at games of 2001pts plus, you don't need to see them in regular games.
I can understand keeping LOWS and SCs out of smaller games below 2000 points, as they can skew low point games, but what problems do you see them causing at 2000 points? If it's simply not liking playing with/against them, then you can simply refuse to play with/against them instead of making a hard cap.
2001+ was an arbitrary number, and rather than SC's in general, it was more the LOW characters etc.
I wouldn't have a fit if was 1999+ pt games but personally, I don't like to see huge unique characters in smallish games from a spectacle pov (all my own opinion that others would disagree with). I think if Ghaz is on the field, he should be leading 2500 or 3000 points etc to make him look like he is leading a huge force, same with the silent king and others etc. As I said, my opinion, not saying I am right.
I can understand that, a primarch leading a patrol seems....odd. I think 2000+ would be a good limit for anything qualifying as a LOW. It's the people who ask for their removal or for them to be "Sent to Apocalypse" that irk me.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I personally miss 3rd edition SC rules in some way, in the sense they required the opponents specific permission to use. You ended up just playing and building a narrative story with your regular commanders, my UM with powerfist force commander took down a wraith lord with another players emperors champion (not an easy feat in third edition, it was absolutely a hail mary, after it and a seer council ran amok amongst our forces) at a crucial moment whilst battling for an underground bunker underneath armageddon during the third war that arguably lead to victory on the main table as we could break out into the enemy lines on that table.
That just would not have been as fun if it was marneus doing it instead.
Anyway, big centre-piece models should be for capped at games of 2001pts plus, you don't need to see them in regular games.
I can understand keeping LOWS and SCs out of smaller games below 2000 points, as they can skew low point games, but what problems do you see them causing at 2000 points? If it's simply not liking playing with/against them, then you can simply refuse to play with/against them instead of making a hard cap.
2001+ was an arbitrary number, and rather than SC's in general, it was more the LOW characters etc.
I wouldn't have a fit if was 1999+ pt games but personally, I don't like to see huge unique characters in smallish games from a spectacle pov (all my own opinion that others would disagree with). I think if Ghaz is on the field, he should be leading 2500 or 3000 points etc to make him look like he is leading a huge force, same with the silent king and others etc. As I said, my opinion, not saying I am right.
I can understand that, a primarch leading a patrol seems....odd. I think 2000+ would be a good limit for anything qualifying as a LOW. It's the people who ask for their removal or for them to be "Sent to Apocalypse" that irk me.
Of course that's just my opinion too.
Oh no, there is absolutely a place for them in 40k and the game would lose a lot of character without them also, I just think their inclusion should be appropriate when playing with them.
For me the problem isn't about other people buying, painting, and playing the big centerpiece named character, the problem is that GW is using named characters as an excuse to take things away from generic characters.
I can see where you are coming from with that. What examples are you thinking of?
Coteaz is the most obvious (literally everything he does was something Inquisitorial Retinues did in the 3e book that got taken away in the 5e book).
I don't think it's gotten as bad as it could yet, but I'm scared that they'll end up using named characters to warp 40k Codexes into the Sigmar army books, where the whole thing is built around a small pool of named characters whose support is necessary to make the army function. The first SM book in 8e 40k was very much broken by that design theory (everything was priced around having Guilliman's aura on all the time, which made it a narrow one-dimensional book that only functioned in gunline castles where everyone was packed around a Captain/Lieutenant in one building). The more they give named characters stuff generic characters can't imitate the more they push the game towards becoming Warmachine where there are no generic HQs and whether your army works is entirely dependent on how well everything interacts with your named character of choice.
For a time it was My fear as well, but GW has come back from such « aura » stuff it seems, for now at least.
I like the center piece models. However they should not overwhelm the game. I had a friend during 2nd or 3rd edition. He had a blood angel army just so he could include Maphiston. Maphiston would wipe out three quarters of the opposition.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Centerpiece is entriely dependent on game size and table size. I can easily argue a Predator to be a centerpiece in any game below 1000 points, and anyone that's run a Land Raider at any game size but then says they don't like centerpieces are already hypocrites.
Centerpiece is probably a concept that involves size, points cost and quality of the unit. Not just size. Especially now when everything is big.
I've played a LR Crusader in most of my 8th edition games but I also had 3 Razorbacks, Bjorn, a Stormfang Gunship and a 5 man squad of TWC so I've never considered the LR as a centerpiece model. Maybe in 3rd or 5th edition it was. In 3rd I had single ork dreads as centerpiece models.
Now you can have 3 LRs without even investing half the list's budget. Units that cost 450+ points and/or are named characters can't be spammed and they'll likely be extremely powerful, to the point that the controlling player will probably base his strategy around them. You can't say the same about a LR, and mind that I'm one of the few players that still consider a LR at least viable, if not good.
One of the main reasons why I strongly dislike centerpiece models is that I hate relying on a unit/character that does all the job alone, in fact I never liked Deathstars as well. I like the concept of all the units in my lists being useful but expendable. Real centerpiece models don't fit that concept.
a_typical_hero wrote: A question aimed at people who dislike the prevalence of unique characters showing up:
Let's say I want to use the rules from a special character regularely, but I proxy the model with my own kitbashed conversion and give it a custom name on top.
How do you feel about that?
I'd prefer it if all special characters were specific builds of generic ones. Ie: Yarrick is a Commissar with X, Y, and Z wargear and abilities from the list of abilities all Commissars could take, or if Marneus Calgar or Shrike were Chapter Masters with X, Y, and Z wargear and abilities from the list all Captains/Chapter Masters could take.
I can see a few edge cases where that wouldn't make complete sense to do (primarchs/faction leaders), but outside of that, opening up more abilities to mix and match with generic characters sounds like a fun way to go.
a_typical_hero wrote: A question aimed at people who dislike the prevalence of unique characters showing up:
Let's say I want to use the rules from a special character regularely, but I proxy the model with my own kitbashed conversion and give it a custom name on top.
How do you feel about that?
I'd prefer it if all special characters were specific builds of generic ones. Ie: Yarrick is a Commissar with X, Y, and Z wargear and abilities from the list of abilities all Commissars could take, or if Marneus Calgar or Shrike were Chapter Masters with X, Y, and Z wargear and abilities from the list all Captains/Chapter Masters could take.
I can see a few edge cases where that wouldn't make complete sense to do (primarchs/faction leaders), but outside of that, opening up more abilities to mix and match with generic characters sounds like a fun way to go.
This is why universal special rules was actually nice. Chapter masters would be able to choose from a pool of wargear and 2x USP. A named character like Calgar would be the same, however he would have 1 additional USP. Still makes them special and unique but not so wild that they are necessarily an auto take due to some amazing unique rule. Again, people won't agree with this for 1 reason or another and it is just my opinion on the matter, there are cons to this also.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Main one I can think of is Ghaz, as there’s currently no option for a generic Warboss in Mega Armour.
Technically, there was no (non-legends) option to field a generic warboss in mega-armour even bevor Ghaz became a centerpiece model. In addition, the book that introduced Ghaz allowed you to upgrade a MA big mek into to a mekboss, making most converted models legal for play again.
I wouldn't have a fit if was 1999+ pt games but personally, I don't like to see huge unique characters in smallish games from a spectacle pov (all my own opinion that others would disagree with). I think if Ghaz is on the field, he should be leading 2500 or 3000 points etc to make him look like he is leading a huge force, same with the silent king and others etc. As I said, my opinion, not saying I am right.
I can understand that, a primarch leading a patrol seems....odd. I think 2000+ would be a good limit for anything qualifying as a LOW. It's the people who ask for their removal or for them to be "Sent to Apocalypse" that irk me.
Of course that's just my opinion too.
Actually, none of the primarchs (or any LoW) can be fielded at 500 points, as you are limited to one detachment and that detachment must be a combat patrol. At 1000 points you can field them, but it's usually unwise to do so. In my experience bringing a morkanaut at 1000 is much more of dick move than bringing Mortarion.
That said, a Primarch hitting some vital point backed up by nothing but some terminators, a squad of assault marines or an honor guard of some sort seems to be happening all the time in the novels.
If someone doesn't want to face Mortarion, I can understand that, and I usually ask/bring a backup list for that case. As someone wrote earlier, he does warp the game, and it's perfectly fine for someone to want a more regular game.
If someone is complaining about named characters in general, I just decline the game, as it's guaranteed to be an unfun experience with the opponent spending more time ranting about how GW ruined the game than on having a good time playing.
Just been building the first of two new Monolith kits, and it’s a lovely beast to work on. Kinda wish I hadn’t glued the first side on, but we live and learn.
Given its a 24 wound LoW, and can kick out some pretty impressive anti-tank firepower (Death Rays being D3+3 damage is good for reliability), would folk consider Monoliths to be, hmmm. Trying to pick a neutral word so as not to come across as deliberately provocative, but all I’m coming up with is taboo. It’s not right but it’ll have to do for now.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Just been building the first of two new Monolith kits, and it’s a lovely beast to work on. Kinda wish I hadn’t glued the first side on, but we live and learn.
Given its a 24 wound LoW, and can kick out some pretty impressive anti-tank firepower (Death Rays being D3+3 damage is good for reliability), would folk consider Monoliths to be, hmmm. Trying to pick a neutral word so as not to come across as deliberately provocative, but all I’m coming up with is taboo. It’s not right but it’ll have to do for now.
Similar to my thoughts above, it is a big model, but not also unique, so I wouldn't like to see one at 1000pts one below, and ideally, not until at 1501pts and above (again, because of the imagery, spectacle of it, not because of the rules so much) but it isn't as weird as seeing magnus etc in such small games also.
Someone bought up land raiders earlier, they use to be the biggest plastic kit/tank you could buy outside of forge world, let alone the biggest model marines could field. In some ways, they were a large uber centre piece model back then and I suppose people thought the same of it as I do now with the large unique LOW's, but now they are not. I suppose with model size creep, it is fluid and opinions change through the years. The same feelings I have about the land raider use to apply to a monolith as well, they just seem average now (which is weird as they are massive)
I wouldn't have a fit if was 1999+ pt games but personally, I don't like to see huge unique characters in smallish games from a spectacle pov (all my own opinion that others would disagree with). I think if Ghaz is on the field, he should be leading 2500 or 3000 points etc to make him look like he is leading a huge force, same with the silent king and others etc. As I said, my opinion, not saying I am right.
I can understand that, a primarch leading a patrol seems....odd. I think 2000+ would be a good limit for anything qualifying as a LOW. It's the people who ask for their removal or for them to be "Sent to Apocalypse" that irk me.
Of course that's just my opinion too.
Actually, none of the primarchs (or any LoW) can be fielded at 500 points, as you are limited to one detachment and that detachment must be a combat patrol. At 1000 points you can field them, but it's usually unwise to do so. In my experience bringing a morkanaut at 1000 is much more of dick move than bringing Mortarion.
That said, a Primarch hitting some vital point backed up by nothing but some terminators, a squad of assault marines or an honor guard of some sort seems to be happening all the time in the novels.
If someone doesn't want to face Mortarion, I can understand that, and I usually ask/bring a backup list for that case. As someone wrote earlier, he does warp the game, and it's perfectly fine for someone to want a more regular game.
If someone is complaining about named characters in general, I just decline the game, as it's guaranteed to be an unfun experience with the opponent spending more time ranting about how GW ruined the game than on having a good time playing.
That's what I do as well if I want to bring any of my LoWs: I bring other units that I can swap out for them if my opponent doesn't think they are fun to play against. I see no point in a game that isn't fun for both parties. Glad to see I'm not the only one who does this.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Just been building the first of two new Monolith kits, and it’s a lovely beast to work on. Kinda wish I hadn’t glued the first side on, but we live and learn.
Given its a 24 wound LoW, and can kick out some pretty impressive anti-tank firepower (Death Rays being D3+3 damage is good for reliability), would folk consider Monoliths to be, hmmm. Trying to pick a neutral word so as not to come across as deliberately provocative, but all I’m coming up with is taboo. It’s not right but it’ll have to do for now.
I definitely don't consider LoWs "taboo", I love mine, but I won't play them below 2000 points. Even at 1500 points units like that become the game for both sides. If you and your opponent are fine with that, some kind of "boss fight" situation, go for it. But it's something you should probably agree on beforehand. At 2000+ I see no problem with typical LoWs. Again, that's just my opinion. YMMV, to each their own, and all that.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just been building the first of two new Monolith kits, and it’s a lovely beast to work on. Kinda wish I hadn’t glued the first side on, but we live and learn.
Given its a 24 wound LoW, and can kick out some pretty impressive anti-tank firepower (Death Rays being D3+3 damage is good for reliability), would folk consider Monoliths to be, hmmm. Trying to pick a neutral word so as not to come across as deliberately provocative, but all I’m coming up with is taboo. It’s not right but it’ll have to do for now.
Eh - far as the Monolith goes, the general consensus is that it's a little odd they made it a LoW. With the loss of "fly", and the fact that hiding it is impossible, a lot of folks seem to think it's under-powered, so as long as you aren't doing something cheeky like taking it in a 1000pt game, you'd probably be safe to use it.
I know when we were playing with the new 'dex, the Monoliths weren't performing like you would expect from "Lords of War" so I don't think they're much of an issue.
I actually enjoy the occasional LoW in my opponent's list anyway.
Wasn't it wierd that the adds for them told how much bigger they are, and when placed next to the old monos it doesn't seem to be the case?
I wouldn't give the mono an inv. But I would give them a -2D, aka D3=D1, rule and an outright immunity to str 4 weapons. multiple cubic meters of super alloy should not be damged by a bolter or heavy stubber.
Karol wrote: Wasn't it wierd that the adds for them told how much bigger they are, and when placed next to the old monos it doesn't seem to be the case?
I wouldn't give the mono an inv. But I would give them a -2D, aka D3=D1, rule and an outright immunity to str 4 weapons. multiple cubic meters of super alloy should not be damged by a bolter or heavy stubber.
immunity to bolters would change nothing. In-game it effectively requires such ridiculous firerate for bolters to damage it that it doesnt really matter.
"-X" damage are one of the strongest abilties you can have in the game and dreadnoughts + DG being the only ones with access to it is more than enough.
Giving it an invuln or at the very least quantum shields would help the model a lot.
Well, that and the frankly baffling lack of an Invulnerable Save
The lack of Quantum Shielding is baffling.
24W T8 2+ is a pretty durable statline. What I think when I look at a Monolith is "lack of firepower". It doesn't have much gun compared to other similar LoWs. Even with the four Death Rays. My Achilles can outshoot it, and it isn't even a LoW.
Well, that and the frankly baffling lack of an Invulnerable Save
The lack of Quantum Shielding is baffling.
24W T8 2+ is a pretty durable statline. What I think when I look at a Monolith is "lack of firepower". It doesn't have much gun compared to other similar LoWs. Even with the four Death Rays. My Achilles can outshoot it, and it isn't even a LoW.
Fair point on the durability (although I still find the lack of QS odd), I guess my bigger point is more what you're pointing out. If you're going to slap "LoW" on something, in my mind, it needs to be as close to the "OP" line as you can get without going over, and I just don't see that with the Monolith.
Tycho wrote: ...Fair point on the durability (although I still find the lack of QS odd), I guess my bigger point is more what you're pointing out. If you're going to slap "LoW" on something, in my mind, it needs to be as close to the "OP" line as you can get without going over, and I just don't see that with the Monolith.
I don't know if that's true at all. The "LoW" label means "more than 20 Wounds" as much as it does "very powerful characters"; Forge World is stuffed full of super-heavies that are unplayable overpriced/squishy/underarmed, and even when you go back to plastic the Baneblade/variants, the Stompa, and the Wraithknight have been no better than mediocre for most of their existence (barring the Wraithknight's brief edition in the sun in 7th that means GW will never make it good again for fear of igniting the same outrage).
Fair point on the durability (although I still find the lack of QS odd), I guess my bigger point is more what you're pointing out. If you're going to slap "LoW" on something, in my mind, it needs to be as close to the "OP" line as you can get without going over, and I just don't see that with the Monolith.
It has the ability to stuff someone in the face with a billion models without blinking, but that doesn't work well at this size game. It is a huge model and it can't fly - if it moved faster and had fly it might be more threatening. Stick a couple in 3K/4K game and it'd be a monster.
Well, that and the frankly baffling lack of an Invulnerable Save
The lack of Quantum Shielding is baffling.
24W T8 2+ is a pretty durable statline. What I think when I look at a Monolith is "lack of firepower". It doesn't have much gun compared to other similar LoWs. Even with the four Death Rays. My Achilles can outshoot it, and it isn't even a LoW.
Whilst not being up on the modern game, I’d definitely trade number of shots for the reliability of damage.
I mean, if my 4 Deathrays all do unsaved damage, it’s a minimum of 16 (which I understand would take out most non-superheavies). Particle whip only adds to the party. Plus it’s surprisingly handy in HTH (not that I’d ever factor charging with it into a plan. Though it might be good for a giggle. 6 S8, -3, D3 auto-hit attacks can do some serious damage to the unsuspecting. And I would be screaming “get in the back of the van” whilst doing so. Because.)
Not sure what the Achilles’ minimum is I’m afraid, but there remains the chance of a bunch of ones ruining an otherwise stellar shooting phase.
The reliability is also seen across the Necron army, with relatively few doing entirely variable damage (as in just D3 or just D6). In the later stages of the game, I could be dropping in a Death Ray Monolith to mop up multiple things which I’ve battered with the rest of my army.
In summary? I’ll freely admit I don’t really know what I’m talking about, and welcome any and all critique (reckon I’ll do a separate thread though) , it seems to me the strength of the Monolith lies beyond its straight forward snootiness?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Size wise it’s about the same, but I’d say it’s an infinitely superior kit.
Whilst I’m regretting gluing one of the sides in place, the design make sub-assemblies for painting a piece of cake.
Yeah, I did both of those myself.
I've now replaced 2/3 of my old Monoliths.
The first new one? I glued 2/4 sides on before deciding that was a very un-wise move.... I finished building it & gave it a base coat. I'll deal with the difficulties of painting it down the road. For now it's the one that sees play.
The second one? This one I'm painting sub-assemblies as I assemble. When I'm done I'll swap it for the first one & tackle my increased painting challenge.
Well, that and the frankly baffling lack of an Invulnerable Save
The lack of Quantum Shielding is baffling.
24W T8 2+ is a pretty durable statline. What I think when I look at a Monolith is "lack of firepower". It doesn't have much gun compared to other similar LoWs. Even with the four Death Rays. My Achilles can outshoot it, and it isn't even a LoW.
Whilst not being up on the modern game, I’d definitely trade number of shots for the reliability of damage.
I mean, if my 4 Deathrays all do unsaved damage, it’s a minimum of 16 (which I understand would take out most non-superheavies). Particle whip only adds to the party. Plus it’s surprisingly handy in HTH (not that I’d ever factor charging with it into a plan. Though it might be good for a giggle. 6 S8, -3, D3 auto-hit attacks can do some serious damage to the unsuspecting. And I would be screaming “get in the back of the van” whilst doing so. Because.)
Not sure what the Achilles’ minimum is I’m afraid, but there remains the chance of a bunch of ones ruining an otherwise stellar shooting phase.
The reliability is also seen across the Necron army, with relatively few doing entirely variable damage (as in just D3 or just D6). In the later stages of the game, I could be dropping in a Death Ray Monolith to mop up multiple things which I’ve battered with the rest of my army.
In summary? I’ll freely admit I don’t really know what I’m talking about, and welcome any and all critique (reckon I’ll do a separate thread though) , it seems to me the strength of the Monolith lies beyond its straight forward snootiness?
As AnomanderRake pointed out, it basically gets stuck in the LoW slot because it has 20+ wounds, which seems to be gw's definition of LoW for anything that isn't a character (if there's any non-chararacter LoW in the game with less than 20W, please correct me).
With its ability to deep strike and "transport" role (yes, I know it works different, but it's similar), the LoW I'd most closely compare it to is the Karybdis Assault Claw. Similar shooting, melee capability, but it's transport and deep strike capabilities is what you're paying for.
So yes, as Daed pointed out, its strength isn't about straight shootiness, but about pumping all those great Necron troops out. I'd definitely take it out for a spin. Sounds like fun.
Well, that and the frankly baffling lack of an Invulnerable Save
The lack of Quantum Shielding is baffling.
24W T8 2+ is a pretty durable statline. What I think when I look at a Monolith is "lack of firepower". It doesn't have much gun compared to other similar LoWs. Even with the four Death Rays. My Achilles can outshoot it, and it isn't even a LoW.
Whilst not being up on the modern game, I’d definitely trade number of shots for the reliability of damage.
I mean, if my 4 Deathrays all do unsaved damage, it’s a minimum of 16 (which I understand would take out most non-superheavies). Particle whip only adds to the party. Plus it’s surprisingly handy in HTH (not that I’d ever factor charging with it into a plan. Though it might be good for a giggle. 6 S8, -3, D3 auto-hit attacks can do some serious damage to the unsuspecting. And I would be screaming “get in the back of the van” whilst doing so. Because.)
Not sure what the Achilles’ minimum is I’m afraid, but there remains the chance of a bunch of ones ruining an otherwise stellar shooting phase.
The reliability is also seen across the Necron army, with relatively few doing entirely variable damage (as in just D3 or just D6). In the later stages of the game, I could be dropping in a Death Ray Monolith to mop up multiple things which I’ve battered with the rest of my army.
In summary? I’ll freely admit I don’t really know what I’m talking about, and welcome any and all critique (reckon I’ll do a separate thread though) , it seems to me the strength of the Monolith lies beyond its straight forward snootiness?
As AnomanderRake pointed out, it basically gets stuck in the LoW slot because it has 20+ wounds, which seems to be gw's definition of LoW for anything that isn't a character (if there's any non-chararacter LoW in the game with less than 20W, please correct me).
With its ability to deep strike and "transport" role (yes, I know it works different, but it's similar), the LoW I'd most closely compare it to is the Karybdis Assault Claw. Similar shooting, melee capability, but it's transport and deep strike capabilities is what you're paying for.
So yes, as Daed pointed out, its strength isn't about straight shootiness, but about pumping all those great Necron troops out. I'd definitely take it out for a spin. Sounds like fun.
I still feel like I don't see enough of the big, tough centerpiece models on the tabletop. I guess it's because most people prefer to field their own creation and not GW's.
For me it has always been a pleasant surprise to encounter a daemon primarch or a supreme commander-style unit. Most people seem to echo the sentiments in this thread and generally avoid the named warlords, so in my experience actually playing against one has been rare. People really enjoy the personalization and creativity that goes into making their own HQs.
artific3r wrote: I still feel like I don't see enough of the big, tough centerpiece models on the tabletop. I guess it's because most people prefer to field their own creation and not GW's.
For me it has always been a pleasant surprise to encounter a daemon primarch or a supreme commander-style unit. Most people seem to echo the sentiments in this thread and generally avoid the named warlords, so in my experience actually playing against one has been rare. People really enjoy the personalization and creativity that goes into making their own HQs.
Which is, unfortunately, not particularly well-supported mechanically.
Look at Dark Eldar. Or Necrons. Or Death Guard. They barely have any options to customize their HQs.
Kall3m0n wrote: With all you narrative guys here, I bet you don't even play it like I do, because I'm really a narrative player. Whenever a model I own gets killed, I smash it with a hammer and toss it away. My dude is dead and can therefore never be fielded again. If a tank gets exploded, I load it up with some black powder and blow it up. It blew up in the game, so it should be blown up! Get on my level, plebs!
Isn’t this on the data sheets from GW? I mean, isn’t this what we are supposed to do?
Never use named characters. Do have some older models, but use them as exarchs or commanders etc.
I agree with consensus... some nice enough models, but not good for the standard game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: A question aimed at people who dislike the prevalence of unique characters showing up:
Let's say I want to use the rules from a special character regularely, but I proxy the model with my own kitbashed conversion and give it a custom name on top.
How do you feel about that?
If your dude who is a primarch class character hits the field in a 1000pt game, then same question arises - Why?
Is this the piece of that 100,000 pt battle playing out on all sides that happens to include the primarch class character or... he or she just rolls like that?
jeff white wrote: If your dude who is a primarch class character hits the field in a 1000pt game, then same question arises - Why?
Because primarchs regularly join surgical strikes and aren't exactly know to have the best judgement on when it's the right time to join a battle, especially when honor, revenge or Tzeench are involved?
Why wouldn't Mortarion himself go out to personally slaughter a strike force of Ultramarines, when the whole point of his entire campaign is causing mayhem on defenseless worlds to draw out his brother?
jeff white wrote: [
If your dude who is a primarch class character hits the field in a 1000pt game, then same question arises - Why?
Is this the piece of that 100,000 pt battle playing out on all sides that happens to include the primarch class character or... he or she just rolls like that?
jeff white wrote: [
If your dude who is a primarch class character hits the field in a 1000pt game, then same question arises - Why?
Is this the piece of that 100,000 pt battle playing out on all sides that happens to include the primarch class character or... he or she just rolls like that?
Depends on the day.
"And the Emperor did make unto him sons, who were to be to his Angels of Death even as He unto them. Untiring in war, steadfast in courage, unstoppable in might, and unshaking in wisdom, and they knew no fear, excepting every Thursday, when they would go barmy and wander into battle alone or with few companions, and it is said that when the madness took them they would rage against ' ONES?! AGAIN!?!' and 'Jeff's cheesy netlist ', and then indeed were they perilous to attend"
Something that I posted to an old blog about six months after 8th edition dropped covered my thoughts on this and it is something that I still full agree with under 9th.
There are also complaints about the inclusion of primarchs into the game. Quite frequently I see rants about the return of "herohammer" and how these characters appear all the time and that it's not fun. If you've read this blog for even just a few entries or battle reports then you'll know that I am an extremely casual player and with that in mind I've got a couple things to share here:
1. Given the choice of an army with or without a special character, I would always say go for it. It's much more fun to see the big heroes and villains on the table rather than generic characters. The same applies to the primarchs. They are strong units but this is 8th edition where even Mortarion can be brought low by enough bolt pistols or cultists with autopistols. I don't think "herohammer" is the same issue that it was 20 odd years ago.
2. With 8th edition the timeline has advanced 100 years or so. We have at last moved into the 42nd millennium and there is something that I think players need to bare in mind:
While we are not having "end times" this is the beginning of the end. Night is falling across the Imperium. Mankind's enemies are circling, licking their blades and preparing to cut our throats. We are no longer playing meaningless battles over airless asteroids, nameless worlds or ruined cities. Games of 8th edition are now playing out the major engagements of the age. Demi-gods and monsters stride across the battlefields of the 42nd millennium like the titans of ancient legend. These are the wars that will save or destroy mankind. We need our greatest heroes and villains leading our forces across the tabletop. The future of Warhammer 40,000 is EPIC!
Don't worry about primarchs and special characters being played. This is the time to play them and enjoy the experience.
) have an after-action damage table for hurt units. Even Crusade has that, though there's no real risk of death.
ONES?! AGAIN!?!' and 'Jeff's