Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jeff white wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And you still have yet to create a list of all the broken Special characters.

Y? Who are you to give me homework?

"Special Characters are broken"
"Provide enough examples to prove your point"
"They're broken because I say so and you're playing the game wrong"
"You still have yet to provide examples"
"I can't because I'm wrong"
That's how the conversation is going now. If you can prove that even 1/5 of special characters that have been made are broken I'd love to concede. You won't be able to do that though. Here's the basic guideline:
1. You say this has been a constant, so it shouldn't be too hard to actually do this.
2. Choose any three editions from 4th to 8th edition. If this were consistent, you will be able to do this.
3. Compare all special characters to the codex equivalents, and prove why they're broke.

Hell, I can make it even easier for you. Go through the new SM, CSM, and Grey Knight Codices and show this. These are all new, so it won't be impossible to get the rules (which I'm sure was going to be your excuse with that last task. "None of the books exist anymore so I can't do it!!!!! Sorry!!!!!!!"). The Tactica threads have been super lively since those releases, so it'll be easy to obtain information you might not have.

You want to make claims like you do? Actually back them up. You have yet to actually do that.

 jeff white wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Seems the concepts of "ethos" and "for its own sake" have gone over your head...

No, sorry, fully understood that.

Well, no, you don't.

Oh, this is too funny!
"Do too!" your turn!

 Talizvar wrote:

Skip condescension and feel free to expand on your rebuttal that has zero for content.
We could then see if your opinion has any merit worth considering.

Looks like you have already made your judgment, huh?

What "went over your head" (do we really need to say this?) is you have expressed views quite vocally but no real reasoning for them.
I am sure you are a fan of the quote "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle" but do that enough and statements like yours appear as devil's advocate for the sake of it.

 Talizvar wrote:
I enjoy 40k for what it is.

And you have the definition ready at hand, huh?

Yes, it is called a rule book.
It even is 90% fluff information and a good look at "the hobby" while the actual rules are just a few pages.

 Talizvar wrote:

A list (net-list or otherwise) is not a means of gauging a person's enjoyment or sportsmanship.
Loading up on characters or avoiding them altogether is also not a means of identifying a person's enjoyment of the game for its own sake.

Never had anything to say about that, but go for it chief,

Not specifically but you appeared to support character removal.
Or are you just toying with the idea?

 Talizvar wrote:
Now the "spirit" of the game can depend on the environment it is played in: a tournament = competitive which is dependent on the tournament rules.
The focus is the journey of doing your best and the process of play to learn and strive for a win without being a jerk about it.
Your opponent is valuable to you even if you are the selfish type: they are "donating" their time for you to practice.
They are like minded people you may want to play again so being nice and polite is a smart thing to do.
It takes a certain mind to be able to cut through the chaff and find the meat of the rules that matter in a game and identify the "value" of rules and units that make the best use of them.
This pretty much applies to anything.
It is a mental exercise of solving a problem or puzzle.
There is pride to be found to even make use of "profit driven rules" and maybe leverage them beyond the author's intent.

This is where you and I part ways.

You seem to enjoy the exercise of debate.
I do have some curiosity on where we part ways here since again you are being rather vague.
I assume "being nice and polite is a smart thing to do" is not agreeable?

 Talizvar wrote:

I find the comments from Jeff off-putting because he belittles the accomplishments of those who won or those who attempt to emulate or improve on those wins.

Of course you do.

Here lies evidence despite claims to the contrary that no "reasonable" discussion is wanted other than baiting people.

 Talizvar wrote:

Sirlin gives a good perspective of the mental exercise of actually trying to perform winning moves and not adding excess baggage to one's thinking.
May I again say it is not inherent for a goal focused person to act like a jerk.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win
You want to play fluff and narrative play, excellent, it is fun to do.
Characters add much to that play.
That is not the topic of the discussion here.
For competitive play, it is just another item to evaluate and determine if it is optimal to use.
Removing characters makes little difference to the outcome it just moves the bar.

Then why resist the removal of special characters, and why not embrace the rpg spirit that birthed 40k in the first place instead?

FINALLY the crux of the matter.
I was seriously afraid you would not make your point.
An RPG does not lend itself well to competitive play so it seems counterproductive to move in that direction.
Tournaments with a strong competitive element seems to be an anathema to your sensibilities.

 Talizvar wrote:
Yep, have a career here too.
Two years shy of 50 myself and been building models and gaming in a multitude of ways since I was 12.
Paint, glue... we can move away from comparing our authority or creds I am sure.
To believe many folk here are "only" concerned with getting that win is a bit beyond cynical.

But, isn't that what "competitive" is supposed to mean, at least according to the other posts in this thread?

You appear to only recognize the "ends" without looking at the "means" of achieving those goals.

Well, I tried to explain my position regarding the virtues of NOT using special characters, but I guess this went over your head, too, and I have other things to do than to type at a wall.
If you are seriously interested in a philosophical discussion, then I am in for it in good conscience and in good faith - no bull .
Start a thread or send me a PM.
For me, 40k and wargaming in particular have deep virtues and offer a unique opportunity to practice meta-level discourse over rules by which all participants in said discourse are simultaneously bound, mirroring moral and ethical and legal discourses. IMHO people need more practice in this, especially, as is likely more than evident in rapidly fracturing Western civil society. Seriously deep stuff. And deemphasizing fast food army construction is one important facet of this... That is my take. Anyways, if you are interested in discussing more, then I will make time. Otherwise, I voted, I note the split in the "community", and I am doing what I can to move discourse in a civil manner toward making things clear. Right now, I have other things to get done...

I am afraid that the issue is you are more than happy to have a deep philosophical discussion but you are missing a really key element: you do not wish to participate and possibly exercise those ideas by applying them.
The discourse has not been civil, certainly has not been clear... you yourself seem to think things go over our heads, the fault may lie with the delivery of those ideas and not explaining yourself more fully.
Your failure to articulate does not make your audience dunces and is insulting to assume or infer so.

Scott-S6 wrote:So you would rather not take the best tool allowed by the rules of the event and instead limit yourself to the rules that only exist in your head. This, of course, makes you better than the person who does not share your self imposed limitation.

Sounds like a classic case of scrub mentality.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

Absolutely right.

You have no justification to belittle other people for taking "a grenade launcher to a gunfight" when you could have taken a grenade launcher too. If you choose not to, that's on you, not your opponent.

If you want to win, play the game. If you don't care about winning, play your game.

jeff white wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And you still have yet to create a list of all the broken Special characters.

Y? Who are you to give me homework?

Well, I imagine you MUST have heard of "proving your point"?
No?
Well, it's simple - to convince others to seeing your point and supporting you, you need to PROVE that your point is correct.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to want/be able to prove your point, hence the amount of people disagreeing (very strongly).

As a question added to that - when was Telion broken? Chronus? Harker? Kell? Karamazov? Centos? Darkstrider? Aun'Va? Any of the Dark Eldar SCs? Illic Nightspear? Old One Eye? Lucius the Eternal? Karanak? Ad infinitum...
What's so OP about these characters?

Harker's pretty good right now. Telion had some nice Synergy in 7th with his warlord trait, to get Rending on whatever you wanted. But overpowered? Well, maybe Harker right now (since he gives rerolls to all those big artillery pieces), I'm not sure, I don't know enough about guard. But the rest? Nah?

On the criticism of characters side, Special characters almost always get more rules/equipment for their points than similar stock HQ choices. The issue with this tends to be that they either end up severely overcosted or severely undercosted depending on how powerful their combination of rules happen to be. GW tends to have trouble costing characters based on their actual on table effectiveness. I'm hoping that chapter approved etc will make tweaks to points costs to address some of these problems to make all models in the game playable.

Should competitive play do away with vehicles?
Should competitive play do away with weapons?
Should competitive play do away with models altogether?
Dice?
Tables???

Look, wanting fixes to balance certain specific models is one thing, we all have models we have issues with, and think need to be fixed. But special characters are a big part of the game, and just randomly saying "well, we should just get rid of part of the game for competitive play because I don't like it" isn't a fix. Competitive play and casual play should represent the same game. The fix comes in designing game balance so that armies are all equally as viable in competitive play as they are in casual (and are equally viable to each other)

 jeff white wrote:
PS it is interesting to note that a bit more than half of current respondents would want to limit the use of SCs in some way. So this is not a cut and dried issue. Discourse must continue.

Apparently your grasp of statistics is weak.

The current results (52/48) would indicate a high confidence of the results showing no preference in the respondents (based on your biasing of the poll with combining 2/3 choices into a single one for the results).

If we take the three options as being separate rather than abusing them as you've just done then No is the strongest result with a reasonable margin of confidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Should competitive play do away with vehicles?
Should competitive play do away with weapons?
Should competitive play do away with models altogether?
Dice?
Tables???

Look, wanting fixes to balance certain specific models is one thing, we all have models we have issues with, and think need to be fixed. But special characters are a big part of the game, and just randomly saying "well, we should just get rid of part of the game for competitive play because I don't like it" isn't a fix. Competitive play and casual play should represent the same game. The fix comes in designing game balance so that armies are all equally as viable in competitive play as they are in casual (and are equally viable to each other)

He's not interested in fixing game balance. His argument is special characters equal bad because I limit myself to not using them which makes me better than those that do just like my refusal to take a properly strong army also makes me better than those that do. Scrub mentality.

Breng77 wrote:
On the criticism of characters side, Special characters almost always get more rules/equipment for their points than similar stock HQ choices. The issue with this tends to be that they either end up severely overcosted or severely undercosted depending on how powerful their combination of rules happen to be. GW tends to have trouble costing characters based on their actual on table effectiveness. I'm hoping that chapter approved etc will make tweaks to points costs to address some of these problems to make all models in the game playable.

I agree.

I can understand complaints about say RG, Celestine and a few others. They are clearly too cheap, and being so warp the game because there is no reason not to take them.
Banning all special characters however seems like a leap. There are plenty you will never see in a competitive game because they are obviously bad.

Its like "ban forgeworld". There is some stuff which is arguably too good - but there is far more rubbish. Its just the rubbish choices never make the table.

That said, until Sister Superiors can buy jump packs I understand why all Sisters players take Celestine as much as they can.

Jeff White is 100% correct, it used to be called "playing within the spirit of the game" and those who didn't were openly mocked in White Dwarf.

Fortunately it's largely just the internet that seems to advocate playing like this, the real world, as ever, is very different where the..."scrubs" outnumber the oddballs.

I'm fully in support of them getting the boot for non-narrative games. Ditto with the Lords of War. But, I'm in the minority here. I just get me knickers in a twist over the idea that in every corner of the galaxy, Special Character X decides to stroll down to some patrol or two-three squad game, show up, and go, "Hai guys!"

They should be saved for epic, 3000+ games.

Wakshaani wrote:
I'm fully in support of them getting the boot for non-narrative games. Ditto with the Lords of War. But, I'm in the minority here. I just get me knickers in a twist over the idea that in every corner of the galaxy, Special Character X decides to stroll down to some patrol or two-three squad game, show up, and go, "Hai guys!"

They should be saved for epic, 3000+ games.

Because those characters have NEVER done scouting missions before or been cut off from the rest of the main force and have to fight their way back? Or they're using a diversion force against a larger foe?

I know we joke about forging the narrative but gak it's like you didn't even try.

Wakshaani wrote:
I'm fully in support of them getting the boot for non-narrative games. Ditto with the Lords of War. But, I'm in the minority here. I just get me knickers in a twist over the idea that in every corner of the galaxy, Special Character X decides to stroll down to some patrol or two-three squad game, show up, and go, "Hai guys!"

I don't get that at all. In a non-narrative game who cares what characters are there? Surely it's far more important in a narrative game that the only characters present are those that are appropriate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
I'm fully in support of them getting the boot for non-narrative games. Ditto with the Lords of War. But, I'm in the minority here. I just get me knickers in a twist over the idea that in every corner of the galaxy, Special Character X decides to stroll down to some patrol or two-three squad game, show up, and go, "Hai guys!"

They should be saved for epic, 3000+ games.

Because those characters have NEVER done scouting missions before or been cut off from the rest of the main force and have to fight their way back? Or they're using a diversion force against a larger foe?

I know we joke about forging the narrative but gak it's like you didn't even try.

Such as Sergeant Harker or Telion, for example. It's 100% fluffy to have them in a small detachment.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
I'm fully in support of them getting the boot for non-narrative games. Ditto with the Lords of War. But, I'm in the minority here. I just get me knickers in a twist over the idea that in every corner of the galaxy, Special Character X decides to stroll down to some patrol or two-three squad game, show up, and go, "Hai guys!"

I don't get that at all. In a non-narrative game who cares what characters are there? Surely it's far more important in a narrative game that the only characters present are those that are appropriate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
I'm fully in support of them getting the boot for non-narrative games. Ditto with the Lords of War. But, I'm in the minority here. I just get me knickers in a twist over the idea that in every corner of the galaxy, Special Character X decides to stroll down to some patrol or two-three squad game, show up, and go, "Hai guys!"

They should be saved for epic, 3000+ games.

Because those characters have NEVER done scouting missions before or been cut off from the rest of the main force and have to fight their way back? Or they're using a diversion force against a larger foe?

I know we joke about forging the narrative but gak it's like you didn't even try.

Such as Sergeant Harker or Telion, for example. It's 100% fluffy to have them in a small detachment.

I'm not a fan of balancing entire armies around special characters, such as with Thousand Sons, Death Guard and now Ad Mech. Most characters are fine, and most armies seem to be fine. However, having the same special character in every army list for a certain army (think Death Guard with Typhus/Mortarion, Sisters with Celestine etc) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I feel that the alternatives should be just as viable.

So… By building and playing a list “to win” in a competitive tournament would make me a waac and unsportsmanlike player? Seems to be a very very broad, sweeping statement that will be greatly mis-representing 99% of those at events.

Building a super strong list for a casual or narrative game and playing to win, sure, that could easily be seen as being more than a little waac, as this is an arena where “the spirit of the game” is not only fully embraced but completely exceeded. This is all about the “narrative” and all about laid back fun. But this is a totally different environment to a competitive game/event. Now, don’t get me wrong, competitive events still embrace the spirit of the game, but the stakes are, of course, higher.

If you expect to go to a competitive event/tournament and not see the clear majority of players taking the best lists they can put together, then you are going to the event with the wrong mindset. These are all about testing yourself and your list against other strong armies and players. Sure, you expect everyone to be a sportsman and not try to game every wording of every rule, but to expect them not to play to win in such an event is just plain stupid, and personally, I think you should just avoid tournaments if you expect them to be any different.

SC do not correlate to how “sportsmanlike” a player is, in a competitive environment or casual environment. The only SCs that tend to be a problem right now was BobbyG, Cawl, Celestine to an extent and Magnus and Mortarian. (Adding in Mort cos, let’s face it, he prob will be overly busted) Most of the “minor” characters aren’t a problem at all, and even then, if you know Magnus or Mort are being played, you can generally put together a list that will either counter them, or kill them in 1 turn. I’ve been planning an Eldar army based on the Path of the Warrior book trilogy containing Maugan-Ra, Baharroth and Karandras, but apparently, that’s too unsportsmanlike. Likewise, you’d be removing an entire sub faction in the Ynnari.

Personally, I think some of the fixes are pretty easy adjustments in regards to points or setup. For example, I think the Celestine should be required to take at least 1 Gemini (effectively bumping her up to 200 points). The fact the BobbyG gives 3CP (which would otherwise take 300+ points for Marines) can easily justify an increase in points. Cawl, currently seems cheap for what he can now do with the codex, but I’ll reserve judgement until more games are played/seen.

I think Jeff is mixing the competitive and casual environments up and somehow expecting/wanting them to be exactly the same. One is all about fun and narrative, the other is all about testing yourself and your army to the max. Sure, you can go in with “sub-optimal” or “non-meta” lists to test them out, something which I like to try myself as I prefer to try to beat the meta lists rather than conform to them, but, you have to do that knowing you are going to be facing a whole lot of cheese.

 jeff white wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And you still have yet to create a list of all the broken Special characters.

Y? Who are you to give me homework?

Because the burden of proof lays with the accuser. That's how it works.

Ruin wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And you still have yet to create a list of all the broken Special characters.

Y? Who are you to give me homework?

Because the burden of proof lays with the accuser. That's how it works.

Still has yet to do it with just the current Codices. They have no point to prove and I gave the EASY version of the task.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ruin wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And you still have yet to create a list of all the broken Special characters.

Y? Who are you to give me homework?

Because the burden of proof lays with the accuser. That's how it works.

Still has yet to do it with just the current Codices. They have no point to prove and I gave the EASY version of the task.

I believe that dictatorial types are not accustomed to being given tasks or to explain themselves.
I would suggest the more helpful thing is not the list itself but maybe the criteria of "broken".
I can only see that starting where the most "abuse" of an ability or power can be used as a force multiplier.

Auras appear to be the easiest to spot and then their accompanying force to augment. (Guilliman springing to mind).
The easiest means of limiting Auras is naming specifically the faction type, model type (i.e. infantry) or something of that nature can ramp-up or tone-down those.
I think many earlier suggested this.

Celestine has some nice unit Aura buffs but that 2+ (83% chance) to come back to life with all 7 wounds restored? Nasty.

Dante was more for his jumppack/mobility for getting in range of his aircraft and his re-roll buff (I would say the lesser of "broken" really, takes a bit of skill there...).

Commissars: taking a cheap low-leadership blob, sacrifice one guy and all is good. For those who like fluff, he may need to substitute a "to hit" roll in case he misses.
Oh wait, this is not a "special character" of sorts.

In the end, these combinations make it interesting to see what can be done to leverage these models to make the most of that model or the units accompanying them.
The games would not be near as interesting getting all these rules into play.

Dai wrote:
Jeff White is 100% correct, it used to be called "playing within the spirit of the game" and those who didn't were openly mocked in White Dwarf.

And where, exactly, are you getting this information that using SCs is not "playing within the spirit of the game"?

I would suggest in counter-point that going to a competitive event and not using all of the tools at your disposal to take the best army you can and play it as well as possible is not "within the spirit of the game".

Heck, by GW's own statements, "competitive play" is not "playing within the spirit of the game".

Why are people being shamed for playing Warhammer 40,000 8e? I wasn't aware that somehow the restrictions of Warhammer 40,000 2e applied to 8e somehow.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Dai wrote:
Jeff White is 100% correct, it used to be called "playing within the spirit of the game" and those who didn't were openly mocked in White Dwarf.

And where, exactly, are you getting this information that using SCs is not "playing within the spirit of the game"?
I would suggest in counter-point that going to a competitive event and not using all of the tools at your disposal to take the best army you can and play it as well as possible is not "within the spirit of the game".

I agree I had read a few times in White Dwarf the "spirit of the game" according to Jervis Johnson was basically Risk mixed with DnD: "Forge the Narrative" should spring to mind.

Jervis Johnson in the Citadel Journal #48 writes this rant about how competitive play is damaging.
https://greenblowfly.blogspot.ca/2015/07/40k-rant-travesty-that-is-jervis-johnson.html

What is particularly interesting is that Alessio Cavatore basically says "there is no such thing as competitive 40k".
http://bloodofkittens.com/wargaminghub/2017/08/26/competitive-warhammer-40k-does-not-exist-2/
Which is a whole different angle of things.

There are more than a few game designers represented in the interviews here:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/06/40k-phil-kelly-talks-8th-ed-plotline.html

So the armies as a whole were updated together and there is a better handle on how to control the model rules.
The most telling comment is about "keywords" to be able to create "desired rules synergies", "while restricting unwanted rules combos".

I keep thinking it is merely a case of needing to tweak a few abilities when it comes to special characters and not "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

In a tournament, everything that is legal, should remain legal. Yes, I know seeing Rowboat/Celestine nigh on dozens of times gets boring, but I take as a sign that the player is there to win and I know it's going to be a tough game.

Me? I don't really take characters at all. Neither do most of my FLGS as tournaments. Christ, in a 7th edition tournament a guy in my FLGS came 5th using a pure Khorne Berzerker army. Was it full of characters? No. Did he understand the game, his skill, tactics and simply outsmarted his opponents? Yup.

Netlists mean feth all if you can't understand the synergies in it or the skill required to use. Characters can make your army stronger. Understanding HOW they make it stronger is the key. Banning characters is the easy way out.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Dai wrote:
Jeff White is 100% correct, it used to be called "playing within the spirit of the game" and those who didn't were openly mocked in White Dwarf.

And where, exactly, are you getting this information that using SCs is not "playing within the spirit of the game"?
I would suggest in counter-point that going to a competitive event and not using all of the tools at your disposal to take the best army you can and play it as well as possible is not "within the spirit of the game".

I agree I had read a few times in White Dwarf the "spirit of the game" according to Jervis Johnson was basically Risk mixed with DnD: "Forge the Narrative" should spring to mind.

Jervis Johnson in the Citadel Journal #48 writes this rant about how competitive play is damaging.
https://greenblowfly.blogspot.ca/2015/07/40k-rant-travesty-that-is-jervis-johnson.html

What is particularly interesting is that Alessio Cavatore basically says "there is no such thing as competitive 40k".
http://bloodofkittens.com/wargaminghub/2017/08/26/competitive-warhammer-40k-does-not-exist-2/
Which is a whole different angle of things.

There are more than a few game designers represented in the interviews here:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/06/40k-phil-kelly-talks-8th-ed-plotline.html

So the armies as a whole were updated together and there is a better handle on how to control the model rules.
The most telling comment is about "keywords" to be able to create "desired rules synergies", "while restricting unwanted rules combos".

I keep thinking it is merely a case of needing to tweak a few abilities when it comes to special characters and not "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

I'll go back to my question - is there anything from GW referring to this edition to suggest that using SCs is not playing within the spirit of the game?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
I'll go back to my question - is there anything from GW referring to this edition to suggest that using SCs is not playing within the spirit of the game?

Sorry, got too caught up in what Dai, had to say.

No, I have never seen anything that GW has published that would say fielding/playing characters are not within the spirit of the game.

In all honesty, would anyone expect them to down-play or speak badly of ANY of their product?
I just got rid of my 15 years of white dwarf magazines that ended about 2015 and played since 2nd edition if any credentials are to be given.
BUT how you use the characters, especially in a way contrary to the "narrative" of what is 40k, you may see an argument from those like Jervis and possibly Andy Chalmers.

I honestly see competitive play and fluff play as two completely different goals where it is nice to meet somewhere in the middle.

I see rules, I figure out my strategy and figure out the optimal means of winning which is largely spent trying to overcome the random elements of dice throwing.
It is a legitimate means of fun, matching wits with another player is always a fun endeavor and I can admire how different people approach this puzzle.

Fluff play is literally a participative narrative, simulating/sandbox some part of the 40k universe and RPG some element of it.
You have an emotional investment in the characters at play and want to see them reach their intended goals so there is a little competition somewhere in there.
I greatly enjoy seeing painted miniatures on the table and these folk tend to invest time in making their models look good more than most.
I am more than happy to craft an army list that best fits the "fluff" of a given scenario so it makes sense in the narrative: this is different goal in a game, to tell a better story.
I usually talk ahead with these guys to make sure neither of us bring a rocket launcher to a knife fight.

I like making scenarios with a fair bit of control of what is allowed to go into that scenario.
A means of getting a match as close as possible, my goal is to get a close game, a "nail biter" because those are the most fun and memorable.
Like any good book, not knowing the outcome till the bitter end makes for the pleasing game AND narrative.
The players should be able to switch armies and have an equally good chance of a win.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
I'll go back to my question - is there anything from GW referring to this edition to suggest that using SCs is not playing within the spirit of the game?

Sorry, got too caught up in what Dai, had to say.

No, I have never seen anything that GW has published that would say fielding/playing characters are not within the spirit of the game.

In all honesty, would anyone expect them to down-play or speak badly of ANY of their product?
I just got rid of my 15 years of white dwarf magazines that ended about 2015 and played since 2nd edition if any credentials are to be given.
BUT how you use the characters, especially in a way contrary to the "narrative" of what is 40k, you may see an argument from those like Jervis and possibly Andy Chalmers.

I honestly see competitive play and fluff play as two completely different goals where it is nice to meet somewhere in the middle.

I see rules, I figure out my strategy and figure out the optimal means of winning which is largely spent trying to overcome the random elements of dice throwing.
It is a legitimate means of fun, matching wits with another player is always a fun endeavor and I can admire how different people approach this puzzle.

Fluff play is literally a participative narrative, simulating/sandbox some part of the 40k universe and RPG some element of it.
You have an emotional investment in the characters at play and want to see them reach their intended goals so there is a little competition somewhere in there.
I greatly enjoy seeing painted miniatures on the table and these folk tend to invest time in making their models look good more than most.
I am more than happy to craft an army list that best fits the "fluff" of a given scenario so it makes sense in the narrative: this is different goal in a game, to tell a better story.
I usually talk ahead with these guys to make sure neither of us bring a rocket launcher to a knife fight.

I like making scenarios with a fair bit of control of what is allowed to go into that scenario.
A means of getting a match as close as possible, my goal is to get a close game, a "nail biter" because those are the most fun and memorable.
Like any good book, not knowing the outcome till the bitter end makes for the pleasing game AND narrative.
The players should be able to switch armies and have an equally good chance of a win.

How is any of this relevant to competitive play discussion? A full page of rambling that basically sums up to 'I play fluffy a lot and think it's fun' which is fine but has nothing to do with anything going on with this thread.

Keep your fluff outta my crunch.

I don't think it makes sense to remove named characters in competitive, or any kind of play, for strictly the reason of "game balance."

In your own campaign setting? Do whatever you like. I know at one point in 7th we ran a "nonames" campaign that required no named characters because everyone had a generic character they would run and gain upgrades/relics with over time.

But it's just as asinine to outlaw named characters from competitive play because of Guiliman, celestine and cawl as it is to outlaw flyers because of Hemlocks and Stormravens, or outlaw infantry because of conscripts and brimstones.

The actual solution is to let GW know we prefer balance to their current spanking off to how great their current favored crop of special snowflakes is. if we're at a level in competitive play where you have to pay full price for models that only come into play when other models you had die and who then IMMEDIATELY have to take a morale test (see: Pink Horrors), then yes, obviously, you should have to pay reinforcement points for a character who comes back to life. How is this in any way different than summoning a new model onto the field, except for it being named "Gemini Specialius Snowflakia" instead of "blue horror #3456534"?

it's clear from the nerfs to Stormraven lists, razorwings, Conscripts (incoming) and others that GW is at least looking at and thinking about competitive balance now, and that's great. But if you'd pull out the same level of whining about seeing someone like Lukas the Trickster or Fuegan as you do about Guilliman or Cawl, then yeah, you're just arguing from scrub mentality, and you should really re-examine as to whether the "spirit of the game" restrictions you put on yourself are REALLY just personal preferences, or whether you just want an inbuilt excuse for yourself as to why games you lose aren't "your fault."

 Talizvar wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
I'll go back to my question - is there anything from GW referring to this edition to suggest that using SCs is not playing within the spirit of the game?

Sorry, got too caught up in what Dai, had to say.

No, I have never seen anything that GW has published that would say fielding/playing characters are not within the spirit of the game.

In all honesty, would anyone expect them to down-play or speak badly of ANY of their product?
I just got rid of my 15 years of white dwarf magazines that ended about 2015 and played since 2nd edition if any credentials are to be given.
BUT how you use the characters, especially in a way contrary to the "narrative" of what is 40k, you may see an argument from those like Jervis and possibly Andy Chalmers.

I honestly see competitive play and fluff play as two completely different goals where it is nice to meet somewhere in the middle.

I see rules, I figure out my strategy and figure out the optimal means of winning which is largely spent trying to overcome the random elements of dice throwing.
It is a legitimate means of fun, matching wits with another player is always a fun endeavor and I can admire how different people approach this puzzle.

Fluff play is literally a participative narrative, simulating/sandbox some part of the 40k universe and RPG some element of it.
You have an emotional investment in the characters at play and want to see them reach their intended goals so there is a little competition somewhere in there.
I greatly enjoy seeing painted miniatures on the table and these folk tend to invest time in making their models look good more than most.
I am more than happy to craft an army list that best fits the "fluff" of a given scenario so it makes sense in the narrative: this is different goal in a game, to tell a better story.
I usually talk ahead with these guys to make sure neither of us bring a rocket launcher to a knife fight.

I like making scenarios with a fair bit of control of what is allowed to go into that scenario.
A means of getting a match as close as possible, my goal is to get a close game, a "nail biter" because those are the most fun and memorable.
Like any good book, not knowing the outcome till the bitter end makes for the pleasing game AND narrative.
The players should be able to switch armies and have an equally good chance of a win.

They did down play special characters in the past, some previous editions have seen a variety of limitations on SCs.

In a narrative game the use of special characters does need careful consideration - does it make sense for that character to be involved at that time and place. Of course, this also applies to non SCs and some squads. A chapter doesn't have a supply of disposable chapter masters.

None of which is relevant to competitive play. As for the rocket launcher to a knife fight comment, in a competitive environment the same idea applies but the problem is when someone brings a knife to a rocket launcher fight. Of course, the CAAC never turn that judgemental eye on themselves...

 Scott-S6 wrote:
They did down play special characters in the past, some previous editions have seen a variety of limitations on SCs.

Oh, yes, a variety of adjustments were made for tournament play but they always seemed to try very hard not to get them banned.
I have had trouble getting my hands on anything further where anyone from WD complained on the use of special characters.

In a narrative game the use of special characters does need careful consideration - does it make sense for that character to be involved at that time and place. Of course, this also applies to non SCs and some squads. A chapter doesn't have a supply of disposable chapter masters.

100% agree, it needs to "make sense" within the context of the 40k universe.
Things have to be really hitting the fan if any HQ is required to show up.

None of which is relevant to competitive play. As for the rocket launcher to a knife fight comment, in a competitive environment the same idea applies but the problem is when someone brings a knife to a rocket launcher fight. Of course, the CAAC never turn that judgemental eye on themselves...

It is hypocritical I agree.
Competitive events explain well the expectations.
CAAC has no qualms about roasting anyone bringing a "net-list" in pretty much any environment.
When warned, when in a tournament, it is incredibly irritating to see a fluff-bunny list across the table.
Heaven forbid there is a "sportsmanship" score because when they are utterly destroyed, no matter how much you try to hold off you will get a 1 or 0.
There will be complaints, "that is cheesy"... etc... and the only answer would be:

"You got to pick ANYTHING you want according to the rules, why am I not allowed?", that is because they are playing a different game in their head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
How is any of this relevant to competitive play discussion? A full page of rambling that basically sums up to 'I play fluffy a lot and think it's fun' which is fine but has nothing to do with anything going on with this thread.
Keep your fluff outta my crunch.

Because why is there ANY discussion on removing special characters? (this is the topic after all).
What is to be "fixed" in doing that?
The only answer is because people think it will add more "fluff to your crunch".
The "I like to play fluffy" folk feel that tournaments need to "lighten up" on what they view as "abuse" in play.
I personally think that they just want to remove any "flavorful" elements of competitive play and be able to say that narrative play is much sexier since they can play anything they want because only they know how to play well with others.
I believe I pointed all that out in my "ramblings" earlier if you were looking for relevance.

Wakshaani wrote:
I'm fully in support of them getting the boot for non-narrative games. Ditto with the Lords of War. But, I'm in the minority here. I just get me knickers in a twist over the idea that in every corner of the galaxy, Special Character X decides to stroll down to some patrol or two-three squad game, show up, and go, "Hai guys!"

They should be saved for epic, 3000+ games.

Why? Who says those two or three squads aren't that special character's private retinue? Do you think military leaders of that calibre travel alone when they aren't engaged in some enormous battle? Who's to say that they aren't on their way to some 20,000 point mega battle, and were ambushed by a small force hoping to take out the enemy commander before they could take the field?