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.

Looking to ban all special characters in an upcoming tournament, unless they modify your forces by allowing certain troops as core.

What do you guys think?

Also trying to find that exact list of every char, I know Skaven, WE, OK, DE, etc.

Why, they make the game fun.

Yes, Kairos and Teclis make the game ... Fun.

The same thing is true now that has always been true:

Artificial restrictions on lists is a coping mechanism to give breathing room to incompetent generals.

Codexes are written to be as balanced as possible. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Trying to forcibly neuter certain builds doesn't stop powergaming, it just shifts its presentation.

Dashofpepper wrote:The same thing is true now that has always been true:

Artificial restrictions on lists is a coping mechanism to give breathing room to incompetent generals.

Codexes are written to be as balanced as possible. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Trying to forcibly neuter certain builds doesn't stop powergaming, it just shifts its presentation.

Agreed.

And even then, the player still has to know how to run the list effectively(case in point, my group's BA player, who can't win with the army to save her life except against Necrons and Tau).

This is a question about Warhammer Fantasy, not Warhammer 40,000.

While in 40k all of Dash's comments are quite true, the same is not so widely accepted for Fantasy at present.

Isnt it in the wrong section then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevermind, there isnt a warhammer tourney disscussions =P

Dash's "always" comments are always funny, since he's been playing such a short time and has so little knowledge about the history of the game.

Traditionally Special Character restrictions/banning in competitive events were because most of the special characters had zero playtesting and they were frequently badly unbalanced. GW's level of playtesting has always been a bit light, and the SCs were the worst part of it. Years ago, banning them was an easy way to reign in some of the craziness at tournaments without putting major restrictions on armies, or generally impacting any specific build.

When I started with 3rd ed 40k and 5th, then 6th ed WH, GW itself kind of tacitly acknowledged this, by noting that SCs were usable with your opponent's permission, and weren't standard for regular games.

-------------

That being said, in recent years GW seems to have generally done a better job with most SCs. Very few of them seem to be genuinely broken at this point; in WH, arguably Teclis, maybe Kairos Fateweaver are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Also, GW has been integrating them into the game more fully. First by removing the "opponent's permission" clause from the rules, then by making certain army builds and special rules ONLY accessible using special characters. Like Deathwing and Ravenwing, Logan SW wolfguard armies, Dante Sanguinary Guard armies, etc. Or Throgg in WH, to alllow the Troll army.

At this point the trend is definitely toward allowing them in most events. Especially in the US. The only big event I can think of which still doesn't allow them is the European Team Championships. To my understanding that's mostly a holdover from the old days, and the somewhat conservative nature of the Captain's Council voting structure for event rules changes just hasn't let allowing them get quite enough momentum yet.

I also sometimes see events in the US do targeted bans, for example restricting only Kairos and Teclis, but allowing the others. This is an option too, if you/your group find particular characters over the top. Overall, though, I think most of them are pretty reasonable at this point, so it's probably better to err on the side of allowing them, and maybe consider restrictions later if something really proves itself to be crazy.

I've been back and forth on this issue a lot recently ... Classically I've been in full support of the hard ban from pretty much all of 7th edition, but % caps, step up, and the arrival of 8th edition armybooks with apparently ok SC (I'm not a fan of how 'auto-include' some of the TK ones are threatening to become, but we shall see) have got me rethinking the situation. I would be happy with your approach of only allowing force org manipulating SC, though I would also be fine with targeted bans as well.

Probably one of my favorite recent approaches was a 'There Can Be Only One' deal, where all SC were allowed, but the first submitted list to include one claimed it and ensured none of this inane duplication you see in 40k or 'Ard Boyz.

- Salvage

There are a number of codicies which this specifically targets, and a number of codicies that this specifically benefits, and in that regard, this makes it entirely unfair to ban all special characters.

You would ruin:
Fatecrusher / Fatefiend lists
Loganwing

You would hamper:
Blood Angels
Dark Eldar

You would benefit greatly:
Tau
Necrons

Tau's special characters a bumping worthless (except MAYBE farsight.. but he's still pretty bad for what you get)

Necron's.. well.. duh.

Overall I think given the current climate of 5th edition 40K, you can't just outright ban all special characters. It's grossly preferencial, and outright breaks certain lists/playstyles/armies.

you pay the points for the character most of the time, i say if people wanna take a 700 point character, thats fine, my 200 point lord and 500 point of units will kill him

Cottonjaw wrote:There are a number of codicies which this specifically targets, and a number of codicies that this specifically benefits, and in that regard, this makes it entirely unfair to ban all special characters.

You would ruin:
Fatecrusher / Fatefiend lists
Loganwing

You would hamper:
Blood Angels
Dark Eldar

You would benefit greatly:
Tau
Necrons

Tau's special characters a bumping worthless (except MAYBE farsight.. but he's still pretty bad for what you get)

Necron's.. well.. duh.

Overall I think given the current climate of 5th edition 40K, you can't just outright ban all special characters. It's grossly preferencial, and outright breaks certain lists/playstyles/armies.

I would suggest re-reading the thread so far; the initial post clearly implied Warhammer Fantasy (look at army books referenced), and that was further clarified later on.

The OP should probably amend to be more clear, but, it's not about 40k.

i think you pay the cost, for example teclis- you hit his unit and he dies.

let be honest, we are in a day of a lvl 1 throwing 6 dice at a massive spell, blowing himself up- but taking out a massivr 500 point unit anyway.

an interesting thing to do is to do what we did at a tourney and just have a composition list.

if your score is over, say 10 for army comp, you get a bonus 'win' so for example, you get -5 for taking a named lord, +5 for taking a lord with no magic, +10 for taking no magic etc etc, but itwas specifically tailored for each list and a general one too.

what this means is, yes you can take a named charactr, but you forfeit 3 tournament points (which was what a win was worth) the result- 1 person showed up with a 'gt' list and everyone else had soft fluffy lists with no magic and like empire lords with great weapons and full plate etc etc. the empire player came last