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.

 sfshilo wrote:
If your final solution is you are left with a bunch of HQ choices that are all really good, then you have an HQ problem compared to other units, which is the game dynamic most of us want. (Characters SHOULD be really good.)
The issue with special characters is they are inherently fluffy. They should be broken and powerfu[/b][/u]l, because in fluff terms they have a HUGE impact on the universe as a whole. They should be fun to use, and powerful, ]not balanced and boring. But these types of things do not belong in competitive settings. I should not be penalized because the Saint is too good not to take, of course she is too good not to take, she's the freaking Saint.
You have competing ideologies from a game standpoint, they should not be mixed imo.

I still do not see why characters should be removed from competitive play, it is just one more element of the whole and you can only have one.
It is like the argument for removing the Queen from chess.
She is vastly more OP than a pawn.
The only way this starts getting ugly is you get to pick your mix of chess pieces: a ton of rooks or maybe knights?
Plus, some armies may not have as good a "queen" as other ones.

We still fall within a bit of a rock-paper-scissors thing depending on what each of us has picked for our army.
I honestly think with or without characters, competitive play will find a silly way to table people.
Might as well be ridiculous with some character center pieces than a bunch of pawns.

 sfshilo wrote:

 mmzero252 wrote:
Couple pages late, but Celestine would be absolutely fine for her cost if she was limited to Ministorum armies only. That or if there was a weaker version for a generic HQ for them.

Edit: The same goes with Guilliman. Limit him to his stupid Ultrabros and keep him out of other lists where he doesn't belong. They said they wanted to remove deathstars which, by their definition, most often occured by mixing factions and armies and made for a snowballing effect of power.

Well...why can you mix armies of the Imperium so easily still? The codices should fix a lot of that issue. Hopefully people will be swayed toward pure armies instead of the mix and match that we have right now.

I whole-heartily agree. The soup nonsense is really tarnishing a good 8th ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is funny, this exercise reminds me of failure mode removal or production line bottlenecks: as you remove your top problem, it is immediately replaced by the next worst one: it never ends.

Competitive players are just that: they will find the best the rules will allow.
The trick is balancing out any items that are drastically better than any other alternative and making it less so.
Similar when you are faced with similar threats in an army and no particular one is a target priority.

Except that in industry you weigh the cost of doing so before you keep removing bottle necks.

If your final solution is you are left with a bunch of HQ choices that are all really good, then you have an HQ problem compared to other units, which is the game dynamic most of us want. (Characters SHOULD be really good.)

The issue with special characters is they are inherently fluffy. They should be broken and powerful, because in fluff terms they have a HUGE impact on the universe as a whole. They should be fun to use, and powerful, not balanced and boring. But these types of things do not belong in competitive settings. I should not be penalized because the Saint is too good not to take, of course she is too good not to take, she's the freaking Saint.

You have competing ideologies from a game standpoint, they should not be mixed imo.

The issue is that these characters should not be optimal in every single build. Especially imperium characters. I have no problem if Celestine is too good to pass up for sisters (specific sister buffs etc) I have issues when she is too good to pass up for every imperial army. For instance if she did not get Acts of faith unless she were in a sisters detachment (not counting aux support), then she would still be a great choice for sisters, but might be only decent for say Imperial Guard, or Marines. Personally I would like to see her not be optimal in every sisters build, but given their lack of options it is what it is.

Breng77 wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:

Except that in industry you weigh the cost of doing so before you keep removing bottle necks.

If your final solution is you are left with a bunch of HQ choices that are all really good, then you have an HQ problem compared to other units, which is the game dynamic most of us want. (Characters SHOULD be really good.)

The issue with special characters is they are inherently fluffy. They should be broken and powerful, because in fluff terms they have a HUGE impact on the universe as a whole. They should be fun to use, and powerful, not balanced and boring. But these types of things do not belong in competitive settings. I should not be penalized because the Saint is too good not to take, of course she is too good not to take, she's the freaking Saint.

You have competing ideologies from a game standpoint, they should not be mixed imo.

The issue is that these characters should not be optimal in every single build. Especially imperium characters. I have no problem if Celestine is too good to pass up for sisters (specific sister buffs etc) I have issues when she is too good to pass up for every imperial army. For instance if she did not get Acts of faith unless she were in a sisters detachment (not counting aux support), then she would still be a great choice for sisters, but might be only decent for say Imperial Guard, or Marines. Personally I would like to see her not be optimal in every sisters build, but given their lack of options it is what it is.

So, Saint Celestine is in the only optimal build for Sisters because she's one of two choices, and the other choice is worse than the slot being empty. That's an internal problem, though.

I do think that non-Sisters armies should be penalized for having Saint Celestine in their army, and non-Ultramarines penalized for having Guilliman, and so on. The current rules for alliance basically take any semblance of balance and throw it out the window, and I don't think that Chapter Tactics quite offset the power of picking and choosing the optimal collection of units with the Imperial Keyword.

The Keyword-based faction system sort of works, but not very well, because I cal easily make my tanks CADIAN and my artillery and infantry CATACHAN to make sure I have the right buffs all around, and that's before I ally in things from other factions.

In the late 90s / early 00s, the ethos was very much that special characters ought to be limited to narrative games.

Leaving the philosophical debate to one side, the fundamental issue with SCs in a game like 40k is that by definition SCs will have unique abilities and attributes. In 40k's uneven balance this results in SCs who are no brainers and there will be little reason to opt for the generic version of said character's class.

Which I suppose is no different from any other OP unit but it seems to stick in the craw more when you see the same named characters popping up every game; "haven't I killed this f***er 78 times already?!".

 Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
In the late 90s / early 00s, the ethos was very much that special characters ought to be limited to narrative games.

Leaving the philosophical debate to one side, the fundamental issue with SCs in a game like 40k is that by definition SCs will have unique abilities and attributes. In 40k's uneven balance this results in SCs who are no brainers and there will be little reason to opt for the generic version of said character's class.

Which I suppose is no different from any other OP unit but it seems to stick in the craw more when you see the same named characters popping up every game; "haven't I killed this f***er 78 times already?!".

Again, I think that's kind of weird.

Doesn't it make the least sense for them to be present in narrative games, and the most sense for them to be present in competitive games? Can someone explain this logic to me?



I see the rationale that SC's have unique abilities, and that affects strategy, but given how may people seem the believe that each unit brought in my army should be one-of-a-kind anyway, and decry the bringing of multiple identical units as "spam"...

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
In the late 90s / early 00s, the ethos was very much that special characters ought to be limited to narrative games.

Leaving the philosophical debate to one side, the fundamental issue with SCs in a game like 40k is that by definition SCs will have unique abilities and attributes. In 40k's uneven balance this results in SCs who are no brainers and there will be little reason to opt for the generic version of said character's class.

Which I suppose is no different from any other OP unit but it seems to stick in the craw more when you see the same named characters popping up every game; "haven't I killed this f***er 78 times already?!".

Again, I think that's kind of weird.

Doesn't it make the least sense for them to be present in narrative games, and the most sense for them to be present in competitive games? Can someone explain this logic to me?

When I was more active it seemed to be commonly accepted that a narrative game involved the players taking the time to write a backstory for the events of the battle or perhaps an entire story driven campaign. The special character would form an integral part of said backstory, essentially justifying their presence. Granted, this was before GW started talking about "forging narratives" and the like. I understand that some people now use the term "narrative" to refer to any play that isn't strictly competitive...which is something I would simply call standard play.

Ghorgul wrote:
My suggestion regarding special characters in competitive play is this:
If both armies have the same special character, both players roll a die. The one who scored lowest removes his/her special character from play and game continues.
There shouldn't be any complaints against this, game is full of random rng effects, so having one more a player can easily avoid should be just fine.

Pure nonsense. So now I'm down an HQ along with all the points I just spent? This isn't MTG with the Legend rule.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
In the late 90s / early 00s, the ethos was very much that special characters ought to be limited to narrative games.

Leaving the philosophical debate to one side, the fundamental issue with SCs in a game like 40k is that by definition SCs will have unique abilities and attributes. In 40k's uneven balance this results in SCs who are no brainers and there will be little reason to opt for the generic version of said character's class.

Which I suppose is no different from any other OP unit but it seems to stick in the craw more when you see the same named characters popping up every game; "haven't I killed this f***er 78 times already?!".

Again, I think that's kind of weird.

Doesn't it make the least sense for them to be present in narrative games, and the most sense for them to be present in competitive games? Can someone explain this logic to me?



I see the rationale that SC's have unique abilities, and that affects strategy, but given how may people seem the believe that each unit brought in my army should be one-of-a-kind anyway, and decry the bringing of multiple identical units as "spam"...

One reason is that the competition is no longer between the players and their tactics but between the so called builds and becomes how much op cheese they can fit in a broken system sandwich.

Narrative here means what it is supposed to mean. When you start stacking buffmanders in so called competitive lists, then competitive no longer means what it is supposed to mean. Might as well weigh the wallets of either opponent and declare the winner beforehand.

Guilliman is indeed good, and I like his model, but I doubt I'll put him on the table much because he simply doesn't fit in with the rest of my army.

The army is basically the Ultramarines First Company, so terminators, veterans and dreadnoughts. Calgar (terminator or otherwise) fits in nicely, as do terminator and jump pack Librarians and Chaplains, but Guilliman not so much.

Because each model is relatively expensive there's a smaller number to benefit from his buffs, and of course his high cost means an even smaller army.

I'm on the "leave things as they are" train.

 jeff white wrote:

One reason is that the competition is no longer between the players and their tactics but between the so called builds and becomes how much op cheese they can fit in a broken system sandwich.

Rubbish.

If that was the case then you'd be talking about banning or fixing a couple of overly powerful SCs.

Most SCs aren't any kind of balance problem.

Even if you did that or completely banned SCs then competition would still feature the most powerful army lists possible. That you think that taking a powerful army in a competitive event is some kind of problem betrays some thoroughly warped thinking.

 jeff white wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
In the late 90s / early 00s, the ethos was very much that special characters ought to be limited to narrative games.

Leaving the philosophical debate to one side, the fundamental issue with SCs in a game like 40k is that by definition SCs will have unique abilities and attributes. In 40k's uneven balance this results in SCs who are no brainers and there will be little reason to opt for the generic version of said character's class.

Which I suppose is no different from any other OP unit but it seems to stick in the craw more when you see the same named characters popping up every game; "haven't I killed this f***er 78 times already?!".

Again, I think that's kind of weird.

Doesn't it make the least sense for them to be present in narrative games, and the most sense for them to be present in competitive games? Can someone explain this logic to me?



I see the rationale that SC's have unique abilities, and that affects strategy, but given how may people seem the believe that each unit brought in my army should be one-of-a-kind anyway, and decry the bringing of multiple identical units as "spam"...

One reason is that the competition is no longer between the players and their tactics but between the so called builds and becomes how much op cheese they can fit in a broken system sandwich.

Narrative here means what it is supposed to mean. When you start stacking buffmanders in so called competitive lists, then competitive no longer means what it is supposed to mean. Might as well weigh the wallets of either opponent and declare the winner beforehand.

To me, competitive means playing to win at all levels and with all resources at my disposal, within the pre-defined parameters of the competition. To this end, having a special character seems logical, especially if they provide a useful effect for my army.

Narrative means playing a game that's about the story unfolding on the tabletop between our armies in their struggle for victory. To this end, because Pask isn't part of the Cadian 9125th Armored Regiment, it doesn't make sense for him to be present. I don't really play this way, but I can see it's appeal.


I do believe your claim regarding it not being about players and their tactics is false. It is very much about players and their strategy and tactics. First off, list building governs what tactical and strategic options you'll have when you play; second, just having those options isn't enough to win, you have to use them optimally to secure victory.

I'm also not sure how buffs and their employment isn't tactical. They're very gamey and artificial, but that doesn't make them not tactical.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

One reason is that the competition is no longer between the players and their tactics but between the so called builds and becomes how much op cheese they can fit in a broken system sandwich.

Rubbish.

If that was the case then you'd be talking about banning or fixing a couple of overly powerful SCs.

Most SCs aren't any kind of balance problem.

Even if you did that or completely banned SCs then competition would still feature the most powerful army lists possible. That you think that taking a powerful army in a competitive event is some kind of problem betrays some thoroughly warped thinking.

Yea bud.
I am insane for not feeling the same as you do about list building vs wargaming as a hobby.
Return to sportsmanship scoring and painting modeling and conversions as important parts of scoring, counting against commissioned painted armies where possible IMHO.
Retool the mindset. Remove the collectible card gae metality and sure you get powerful army lists but the game becomesmuc more than how may rare cards you can stuff in your deck and ten play the odds with...

Here's my biggest problem with named characters, as they currently exist:
Their powers can sometimes be far and away better than anything else available, and there's no way to use those abilities without sticking to a stock, boring, build.

Like, so compare Marneus Calgar to a similarly built Chapter Master.
The closest equivalent built to Marneus is a Space Marine Captain in Terminator Armor. That's about 60 points shy of Calgar, but in exchange, Calgar basically has the effects of three relics and the Chapter Master upgrade all built in, +1 Wound, and +1 attack. (For record: The damage reduction of the Shield Eternal, the RoF, Ap, and Damage from the Primarch's Wrath, and the lack of a to-hit penalty from the Fist of Vengeance.) If you were allowed to build an equivalent Chapter Master, he would need a third arm, two Warlord Traits, and 6 Command Points to get the Chapter Master bonus and all the relics needed. (His build would also be marginally better, but that's not super relevant.)
In practice, Calgar makes any other Terminator Captain obselete, because for about 60pts you're getting FIVE more command points and a much better build overall.
Or with Orks, take Ghazkull Thraka.
Or let any Sisters of Battle player talk your ear off about how much better Celestine is than a Canonness.

Characters should be strong and fluffy, but they shouldn't render 'nameless' alternatives obselete. It should be a variant that is unique but not better, rather than a straight upgrade. (Or, if it is a straight upgrade, that should be reflected in more ways than just a small bump in cost, or a large bump that just isn't large enough.)

 jeff white wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

One reason is that the competition is no longer between the players and their tactics but between the so called builds and becomes how much op cheese they can fit in a broken system sandwich.

Rubbish.

If that was the case then you'd be talking about banning or fixing a couple of overly powerful SCs.

Most SCs aren't any kind of balance problem.

Even if you did that or completely banned SCs then competition would still feature the most powerful army lists possible. That you think that taking a powerful army in a competitive event is some kind of problem betrays some thoroughly warped thinking.

Yea bud.
I am insane for not feeling the same as you do about list building vs wargaming as a hobby.
Return to sportsmanship scoring and painting modeling and conversions as important parts of scoring, counting against commissioned painted armies where possible IMHO.
Retool the mindset. Remove the collectible card gae metality and sure you get powerful army lists but the game becomesmuc more than how may rare cards you can stuff in your deck and ten play the odds with...

How exactly is that an argument for banning all SCs and not just the couple of OP ones?

Special characters should not be a necessity for any army to be competitive, but a lot of stock has recently been placed on them to make an army strong enough to play.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Here's my biggest problem with named characters, as they currently exist:
Their powers can sometimes be far and away better than anything else available, and there's no way to use those abilities without sticking to a stock, boring, build.

Like, so compare Marneus Calgar to a similarly built Chapter Master.
The closest equivalent built to Marneus is a Space Marine Captain in Terminator Armor. That's about 60 points shy of Calgar, but in exchange, Calgar basically has the effects of three relics and the Chapter Master upgrade all built in, +1 Wound, and +1 attack. (For record: The damage reduction of the Shield Eternal, the RoF, Ap, and Damage from the Primarch's Wrath, and the lack of a to-hit penalty from the Fist of Vengeance.) If you were allowed to build an equivalent Chapter Master, he would need a third arm, two Warlord Traits, and 6 Command Points to get the Chapter Master bonus and all the relics needed. (His build would also be marginally better, but that's not super relevant.)
In practice, Calgar makes any other Terminator Captain obselete, because for about 60pts you're getting FIVE more command points and a much better build overall.
Or with Orks, take Ghazkull Thraka.
Or let any Sisters of Battle player talk your ear off about how much better Celestine is than a Canonness.

Characters should be strong and fluffy, but they shouldn't render 'nameless' alternatives obselete. It should be a variant that is unique but not better, rather than a straight upgrade. (Or, if it is a straight upgrade, that should be reflected in more ways than just a small bump in cost, or a large bump that just isn't large enough.)

Agreed. How the Chapter Masters handled in the current codex is particularly blatant example of this problem. There even isn't an option to get a Chapter Master using points without using special characters, some of which grant command points while the generic one costs three of them. Any chapter without special character Chapter Master is already at serious disadvantage there.

 jeff white wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
In the late 90s / early 00s, the ethos was very much that special characters ought to be limited to narrative games.

Leaving the philosophical debate to one side, the fundamental issue with SCs in a game like 40k is that by definition SCs will have unique abilities and attributes. In 40k's uneven balance this results in SCs who are no brainers and there will be little reason to opt for the generic version of said character's class.

Which I suppose is no different from any other OP unit but it seems to stick in the craw more when you see the same named characters popping up every game; "haven't I killed this f***er 78 times already?!".

Again, I think that's kind of weird.

Doesn't it make the least sense for them to be present in narrative games, and the most sense for them to be present in competitive games? Can someone explain this logic to me?



I see the rationale that SC's have unique abilities, and that affects strategy, but given how may people seem the believe that each unit brought in my army should be one-of-a-kind anyway, and decry the bringing of multiple identical units as "spam"...

One reason is that the competition is no longer between the players and their tactics but between the so called builds and becomes how much op cheese they can fit in a broken system sandwich.

Narrative here means what it is supposed to mean. When you start stacking buffmanders in so called competitive lists, then competitive no longer means what it is supposed to mean. Might as well weigh the wallets of either opponent and declare the winner beforehand.

If you think list matters more than player ability you aren't very good at the game.

 Corrode wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
In the late 90s / early 00s, the ethos was very much that special characters ought to be limited to narrative games.

Leaving the philosophical debate to one side, the fundamental issue with SCs in a game like 40k is that by definition SCs will have unique abilities and attributes. In 40k's uneven balance this results in SCs who are no brainers and there will be little reason to opt for the generic version of said character's class.

Which I suppose is no different from any other OP unit but it seems to stick in the craw more when you see the same named characters popping up every game; "haven't I killed this f***er 78 times already?!".

Again, I think that's kind of weird.

Doesn't it make the least sense for them to be present in narrative games, and the most sense for them to be present in competitive games? Can someone explain this logic to me?



I see the rationale that SC's have unique abilities, and that affects strategy, but given how may people seem the believe that each unit brought in my army should be one-of-a-kind anyway, and decry the bringing of multiple identical units as "spam"...

One reason is that the competition is no longer between the players and their tactics but between the so called builds and becomes how much op cheese they can fit in a broken system sandwich.

Narrative here means what it is supposed to mean. When you start stacking buffmanders in so called competitive lists, then competitive no longer means what it is supposed to mean. Might as well weigh the wallets of either opponent and declare the winner beforehand.

If you think list matters more than player ability you aren't very good at the game.

Not sure I wholly agree, list matters more than player skill until both lists are built reasonably well. Once you get to a certain level of competitiveness in your list, skill starts to matter more. For instance a fairly average to below average player using say an IG artillery list will win tons of games if his opponents are running things like Ork Biker lists, or all tactical marines. However, once those players start optimizing within their own faction to some extent, the unskilled player running an OP list will start to lose because the list gap has been closed to some extent. For instance I ran an Azreal gunline against a player with a sub-optimal deathwatch list. I'm not a bad player, but my play involved little skill and I just blew his army off the table by the top of turn 2. Now he wasn't a great player, but I'm not convinced that a great player would have done any better because he literally had no options for winning the game. That said great players tend to bring strong lists, and at that point list matters very little.

It was not that many editions ago that SC's were with opponents permission only. What 4th ed? My age is showing a bit right now as well as my bad memory.

Waaaghpower basically hit the nail on the head with his post. The problem with SC's is that many of them are *way* under costed or on the flip side their non SC equivalents are way over costed. The Lord Smurf himself and Her Royal Flying Resurrection are the prime offenders currently but there are plenty of other smaller ones that are not as blatant but obviously better choices than many alternatives.

I don't think you need to ban SC's but if they are going to be allowed GW really needs to step up their game as far as pointing both them and their non SC alternatives correctly.

Breng77 wrote:

 Corrode wrote:
If you think list matters more than player ability you aren't very good at the game.

Not sure I wholly agree, list matters more than player skill until both lists are built reasonably well. Once you get to a certain level of competitiveness in your list, skill starts to matter more. For instance a fairly average to below average player using say an IG artillery list will win tons of games if his opponents are running things like Ork Biker lists, or all tactical marines. However, once those players start optimizing within their own faction to some extent, the unskilled player running an OP list will start to lose because the list gap has been closed to some extent. For instance I ran an Azreal gunline against a player with a sub-optimal deathwatch list. I'm not a bad player, but my play involved little skill and I just blew his army off the table by the top of turn 2. Now he wasn't a great player, but I'm not convinced that a great player would have done any better because he literally had no options for winning the game. That said great players tend to bring strong lists, and at that point list matters very little.

That's how it should work though. If players insist on using lists which are incapable of countering the threats they're likely to face, that isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with the players. There's also a much bigger and greyer area between "optimal", "sub-optimal" and "bad" lists than most of the internet seems to understand - largely because most commentators are not as good at the game as they think they are, or they have agendas which aren't focused on the game as a game.

 Crimson wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Here's my biggest problem with named characters, as they currently exist:
Their powers can sometimes be far and away better than anything else available, and there's no way to use those abilities without sticking to a stock, boring, build.

Like, so compare Marneus Calgar to a similarly built Chapter Master.
The closest equivalent built to Marneus is a Space Marine Captain in Terminator Armor. That's about 60 points shy of Calgar, but in exchange, Calgar basically has the effects of three relics and the Chapter Master upgrade all built in, +1 Wound, and +1 attack. (For record: The damage reduction of the Shield Eternal, the RoF, Ap, and Damage from the Primarch's Wrath, and the lack of a to-hit penalty from the Fist of Vengeance.) If you were allowed to build an equivalent Chapter Master, he would need a third arm, two Warlord Traits, and 6 Command Points to get the Chapter Master bonus and all the relics needed. (His build would also be marginally better, but that's not super relevant.)
In practice, Calgar makes any other Terminator Captain obselete, because for about 60pts you're getting FIVE more command points and a much better build overall.
Or with Orks, take Ghazkull Thraka.
Or let any Sisters of Battle player talk your ear off about how much better Celestine is than a Canonness.

Characters should be strong and fluffy, but they shouldn't render 'nameless' alternatives obselete. It should be a variant that is unique but not better, rather than a straight upgrade. (Or, if it is a straight upgrade, that should be reflected in more ways than just a small bump in cost, or a large bump that just isn't large enough.)

Agreed. How the Chapter Masters handled in the current codex is particularly blatant example of this problem. There even isn't an option to get a Chapter Master using points without using special characters, some of which grant command points while the generic one costs three of them. Any chapter without special character Chapter Master is already at serious disadvantage there.

Like, I don't mind spending Command Points for my Chapter Master. In larger games, the benefits can absolutely be worth it. (They'd be MORE worth it if the way re-rolls worked wasn't ridiculous, and a Thunder Hammer or Power Fist on my CM would allow for re-rolls on the 2s as well as the 1s, but that's aside the point.) But it means if I'm not playing with a named character, I'm at a disadvantage against anyone who's using one.

Which... Gives me an idea.

To everyone in the thread: As a way of balancing things. What if bringing Named Characters just cost Command Points, same as bringing Relics or upgrading to a Chapter Master? You can have your supercharged snowflake character who provides all kinds of extra buffs and abilities, but you're going to have to pay for him - You used all of your leadership abilities to get them on the battlefield, so you have less time for the actual game.

 Corrode wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Corrode wrote:
If you think list matters more than player ability you aren't very good at the game.

Not sure I wholly agree, list matters more than player skill until both lists are built reasonably well. Once you get to a certain level of competitiveness in your list, skill starts to matter more. For instance a fairly average to below average player using say an IG artillery list will win tons of games if his opponents are running things like Ork Biker lists, or all tactical marines. However, once those players start optimizing within their own faction to some extent, the unskilled player running an OP list will start to lose because the list gap has been closed to some extent. For instance I ran an Azreal gunline against a player with a sub-optimal deathwatch list. I'm not a bad player, but my play involved little skill and I just blew his army off the table by the top of turn 2. Now he wasn't a great player, but I'm not convinced that a great player would have done any better because he literally had no options for winning the game. That said great players tend to bring strong lists, and at that point list matters very little.

That's how it should work though. If players insist on using lists which are incapable of countering the threats they're likely to face, that isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with the players. There's also a much bigger and greyer area between "optimal", "sub-optimal" and "bad" lists than most of the internet seems to understand - largely because most commentators are not as good at the game as they think they are, or they have agendas which aren't focused on the game as a game.

Sure it should be how the game works to an extent. IMO "fluffy" lists/balanced lists should be viable. Further there should be no units that are must have choices, or never take options. This obviously isn't the case and never has been. Making bad lists should be more about the combination of units you take than the taking of any specific units. As for the grey area it depends on why you are trying to do. If you are trying to win large GTs I think there is very little grey area, if you just want to have good games, compete and win as often as you lose the area is very large.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Here's my biggest problem with named characters, as they currently exist:
Their powers can sometimes be far and away better than anything else available, and there's no way to use those abilities without sticking to a stock, boring, build.

Like, so compare Marneus Calgar to a similarly built Chapter Master.
The closest equivalent built to Marneus is a Space Marine Captain in Terminator Armor. That's about 60 points shy of Calgar, but in exchange, Calgar basically has the effects of three relics and the Chapter Master upgrade all built in, +1 Wound, and +1 attack. (For record: The damage reduction of the Shield Eternal, the RoF, Ap, and Damage from the Primarch's Wrath, and the lack of a to-hit penalty from the Fist of Vengeance.) If you were allowed to build an equivalent Chapter Master, he would need a third arm, two Warlord Traits, and 6 Command Points to get the Chapter Master bonus and all the relics needed. (His build would also be marginally better, but that's not super relevant.)
In practice, Calgar makes any other Terminator Captain obselete, because for about 60pts you're getting FIVE more command points and a much better build overall.
Or with Orks, take Ghazkull Thraka.
Or let any Sisters of Battle player talk your ear off about how much better Celestine is than a Canonness.

Characters should be strong and fluffy, but they shouldn't render 'nameless' alternatives obselete. It should be a variant that is unique but not better, rather than a straight upgrade. (Or, if it is a straight upgrade, that should be reflected in more ways than just a small bump in cost, or a large bump that just isn't large enough.)

Agreed. How the Chapter Masters handled in the current codex is particularly blatant example of this problem. There even isn't an option to get a Chapter Master using points without using special characters, some of which grant command points while the generic one costs three of them. Any chapter without special character Chapter Master is already at serious disadvantage there.

Like, I don't mind spending Command Points for my Chapter Master. In larger games, the benefits can absolutely be worth it. (They'd be MORE worth it if the way re-rolls worked wasn't ridiculous, and a Thunder Hammer or Power Fist on my CM would allow for re-rolls on the 2s as well as the 1s, but that's aside the point.) But it means if I'm not playing with a named character, I'm at a disadvantage against anyone who's using one.

Which... Gives me an idea.

To everyone in the thread: As a way of balancing things. What if bringing Named Characters just cost Command Points, same as bringing Relics or upgrading to a Chapter Master? You can have your supercharged snowflake character who provides all kinds of extra buffs and abilities, but you're going to have to pay for him - You used all of your leadership abilities to get them on the battlefield, so you have less time for the actual game.

I think that would be hard to balance given how few CP most armies have. I mean if you went the CP route, do all special characters have the same CP tax? Even if they are not super powerful? If so what tax? Almost any reasonable tax for the lower end characters is ignored by things like RG. I think the better solution is just points costing those characters appropriately

I voted point limit because big point sinks in small games risks things becoming one sided (either way really).

Waaaghpower wrote:
Here's my biggest problem with named characters, as they currently exist:
Their powers can sometimes be far and away better than anything else available, and there's no way to use those abilities without sticking to a stock, boring, build.

Like, so compare Marneus Calgar to a similarly built Chapter Master.
The closest equivalent built to Marneus is a Space Marine Captain in Terminator Armor. That's about 60 points shy of Calgar, but in exchange, Calgar basically has the effects of three relics and the Chapter Master upgrade all built in, +1 Wound, and +1 attack. (For record: The damage reduction of the Shield Eternal, the RoF, Ap, and Damage from the Primarch's Wrath, and the lack of a to-hit penalty from the Fist of Vengeance.) If you were allowed to build an equivalent Chapter Master, he would need a third arm, two Warlord Traits, and 6 Command Points to get the Chapter Master bonus and all the relics needed. (His build would also be marginally better, but that's not super relevant.)
In practice, Calgar makes any other Terminator Captain obselete, because for about 60pts you're getting FIVE more command points and a much better build overall.
Or with Orks, take Ghazkull Thraka.
Or let any Sisters of Battle player talk your ear off about how much better Celestine is than a Canonness.

Characters should be strong and fluffy, but they shouldn't render 'nameless' alternatives obselete. It should be a variant that is unique but not better, rather than a straight upgrade. (Or, if it is a straight upgrade, that should be reflected in more ways than just a small bump in cost, or a large bump that just isn't large enough.)

That's more an issue of how the new codex handled pricing Chapter Masters of the generic variety. With BS/WS3+, you don't gain as much benefit from rerolling everything compared to just 1, which is why if the character already grants it you get lucky with whatever special effect they bring in addition to that.

However, pricing the Chapter Masters that are named doesn't work either. Nobody would pick Calgar if he were 40 more points expensive, because it's already hard gaining CP as is and even then he doesn't help so much. Nobody is gonna use Shrike if you bump him up 30 points. I shouldn't have to go into the FW guys but I will if I need to.

That's to say the generic can't be too bad. You already talked about Calgar, and I look at him as someone I can buy a Captain and Leut. for less than his price and gain the same amount of rerolls for more wounds. It's something to consider. Roboute is someone that needs a slight increase in points though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Earth127 wrote:
I voted point limit because big point sinks in small games risks things becoming one sided (either way really).

Why shouldn't I be allowed to bring Khan in smaller games?

 Corrode wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Corrode wrote:
If you think list matters more than player ability you aren't very good at the game.

Not sure I wholly agree, list matters more than player skill until both lists are built reasonably well. Once you get to a certain level of competitiveness in your list, skill starts to matter more. For instance a fairly average to below average player using say an IG artillery list will win tons of games if his opponents are running things like Ork Biker lists, or all tactical marines. However, once those players start optimizing within their own faction to some extent, the unskilled player running an OP list will start to lose because the list gap has been closed to some extent. For instance I ran an Azreal gunline against a player with a sub-optimal deathwatch list. I'm not a bad player, but my play involved little skill and I just blew his army off the table by the top of turn 2. Now he wasn't a great player, but I'm not convinced that a great player would have done any better because he literally had no options for winning the game. That said great players tend to bring strong lists, and at that point list matters very little.

That's how it should work though. If players insist on using lists which are incapable of countering the threats they're likely to face, that isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with the players. There's also a much bigger and greyer area between "optimal", "sub-optimal" and "bad" lists than most of the internet seems to understand - largely because most commentators are not as good at the game as they think they are, or they have agendas which aren't focused on the game as a game.

No that is not how it should work, I'm sorry but seeing the Saint and a Primarch in damn near every comp Imperial list is not being "tactical", it's not "countering", it's the easiest way to succeed as the Fluff based characters were never meant to be played in the way they are being used.

I don't want to see them nerfed, they should be beat sticks on table. But using them in competitive play is absolutely garbage, our solutions to the problem of "Making it more appropriate points wise" or "Nerf X Unit" just ruins the special character for everyone else. (Narrative, apoc, friendly, etc.)

We don't need balanced special characters in comp play, we just need characters with tactical and narrative flavor that forces our comp community to think. I have zero issues with the special characters in the codices, I have HUGE issues with comp players abusing a non-comp model.

 Corrode wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Corrode wrote:
If you think list matters more than player ability you aren't very good at the game.

Not sure I wholly agree, list matters more than player skill until both lists are built reasonably well. Once you get to a certain level of competitiveness in your list, skill starts to matter more. For instance a fairly average to below average player using say an IG artillery list will win tons of games if his opponents are running things like Ork Biker lists, or all tactical marines. However, once those players start optimizing within their own faction to some extent, the unskilled player running an OP list will start to lose because the list gap has been closed to some extent. For instance I ran an Azreal gunline against a player with a sub-optimal deathwatch list. I'm not a bad player, but my play involved little skill and I just blew his army off the table by the top of turn 2. Now he wasn't a great player, but I'm not convinced that a great player would have done any better because he literally had no options for winning the game. That said great players tend to bring strong lists, and at that point list matters very little.

That's how it should work though. If players insist on using lists which are incapable of countering the threats they're likely to face, that isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with the players. There's also a much bigger and greyer area between "optimal", "sub-optimal" and "bad" lists than most of the internet seems to understand - largely because most commentators are not as good at the game as they think they are, or they have agendas which aren't focused on the game as a game.

Again. Why is so much of the "game" about list building to WAAC?
Maybe army collecting for a rich mutual experience, that aids immersion in the universe, that celebrates all aspects of the hobby and lifestyle, why isn't this the optimal way to play the game?
Since when is 40k ruled by MtG dropouts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sfshilo wrote:

Spoiler:

 Corrode wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Corrode wrote:
If you think list matters more than player ability you aren't very good at the game.

Not sure I wholly agree, list matters more than player skill until both lists are built reasonably well. Once you get to a certain level of competitiveness in your list, skill starts to matter more. For instance a fairly average to below average player using say an IG artillery list will win tons of games if his opponents are running things like Ork Biker lists, or all tactical marines. However, once those players start optimizing within their own faction to some extent, the unskilled player running an OP list will start to lose because the list gap has been closed to some extent. For instance I ran an Azreal gunline against a player with a sub-optimal deathwatch list. I'm not a bad player, but my play involved little skill and I just blew his army off the table by the top of turn 2. Now he wasn't a great player, but I'm not convinced that a great player would have done any better because he literally had no options for winning the game. That said great players tend to bring strong lists, and at that point list matters very little.

That's how it should work though. If players insist on using lists which are incapable of countering the threats they're likely to face, that isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with the players. There's also a much bigger and greyer area between "optimal", "sub-optimal" and "bad" lists than most of the internet seems to understand - largely because most commentators are not as good at the game as they think they are, or they have agendas which aren't focused on the game as a game.

No that is not how it should work, I'm sorry but seeing the Saint and a Primarch in damn near every comp Imperial list is not being "tactical", it's not "countering", it's the easiest way to succeed as the Fluff based characters were never meant to be played in the way they are being used.

I don't want to see them nerfed, they should be beat sticks on table. But using them in competitive play is absolutely garbage, our solutions to the problem of "Making it more appropriate points wise" or "Nerf X Unit" just ruins the special character for everyone else. (Narrative, apoc, friendly, etc.)

We don't need balanced special characters in comp play, we just need characters with tactical and narrative flavor that forces our comp community to think. I have zero issues with the special characters in the codices, I have HUGE issues with comp players abusing a non-comp model.

Exactly and exalted.

I like the idea of special characters costing command points because there is a problem with just straight up raising the points cost of the special characters.

Right now I think a lot of the generic Space Marine HQs have a pretty good points cost, so lowering their points to make the jump to the special character relatively more expensive is probably not a great idea. The generics would then be too good.

Making a large point increase to the special characters hurts because someone like Roboute would then be approaching 500 points and that would be a quarter of your army at 2000 points. The reason that hurts is because less people may then buy the model and GW will not have that.

An easier way to balance the generic with the special without drastically altering points would be to reverse the current command point bonuses and costs with the HQs. Instead of Roboute giving extra command points he would cost your force command points. I don't think the generics should give bonuses to command points, but they definitely should not cost you command points. That way, instead of a no brainer choice between the special character and the generic you would be forced to consider whether you would rather get that slightly better buff and stronger stat-line of the special character versus paying a little less for a weaker buff and stat-line but getting the flexability of more command points.

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
I like the idea of special characters costing command points because there is a problem with just straight up raising the points cost of the special characters.

Right now I think a lot of the generic Space Marine HQs have a pretty good points cost, so lowering their points to make the jump to the special character relatively more expensive is probably not a great idea. The generics would then be too good.

Making a large point increase to the special characters hurts because someone like Roboute would then be approaching 500 points and that would be a quarter of your army at 2000 points. The reason that hurts is because less people may then buy the model and GW will not have that.

An easier way to balance the generic with the special without drastically altering points would be to reverse the current command point bonuses and costs with the HQs. Instead of Roboute giving extra command points he would cost your force command points. I don't think the generics should give bonuses to command points, but they definitely should not cost you command points. That way, instead of a no brainer choice between the special character and the generic you would be forced to consider whether you would rather get that slightly better buff and stronger stat-line of the special character versus paying a little less for a weaker buff and stat-line but getting the flexability of more command points.

Again though try applying that fairly across special characters. Sure Spending say 3 CP to bring Guiliman might seem a reasonable bargan, but what about say Snikrot in the ork book, at under 70 points. No one would bring him at the cost of a CP, same with a lot of the lesser Special characters. It is much more reasonable to find the happy medium on points (maybe RG should be 400 points, not a huge increase, but enough to make a dent).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sfshilo wrote:

 Corrode wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Corrode wrote:
If you think list matters more than player ability you aren't very good at the game.

Not sure I wholly agree, list matters more than player skill until both lists are built reasonably well. Once you get to a certain level of competitiveness in your list, skill starts to matter more. For instance a fairly average to below average player using say an IG artillery list will win tons of games if his opponents are running things like Ork Biker lists, or all tactical marines. However, once those players start optimizing within their own faction to some extent, the unskilled player running an OP list will start to lose because the list gap has been closed to some extent. For instance I ran an Azreal gunline against a player with a sub-optimal deathwatch list. I'm not a bad player, but my play involved little skill and I just blew his army off the table by the top of turn 2. Now he wasn't a great player, but I'm not convinced that a great player would have done any better because he literally had no options for winning the game. That said great players tend to bring strong lists, and at that point list matters very little.

That's how it should work though. If players insist on using lists which are incapable of countering the threats they're likely to face, that isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with the players. There's also a much bigger and greyer area between "optimal", "sub-optimal" and "bad" lists than most of the internet seems to understand - largely because most commentators are not as good at the game as they think they are, or they have agendas which aren't focused on the game as a game.

No that is not how it should work, I'm sorry but seeing the Saint and a Primarch in damn near every comp Imperial list is not being "tactical", it's not "countering", it's the easiest way to succeed as the Fluff based characters were never meant to be played in the way they are being used.

I don't want to see them nerfed, they should be beat sticks on table. But using them in competitive play is absolutely garbage, our solutions to the problem of "Making it more appropriate points wise" or "Nerf X Unit" just ruins the special character for everyone else. (Narrative, apoc, friendly, etc.)

We don't need balanced special characters in comp play, we just need characters with tactical and narrative flavor that forces our comp community to think. I have zero issues with the special characters in the codices, I have HUGE issues with comp players abusing a non-comp model.

If you want them only for fluff games why do you care about them having a points increase? How does that ruin the character if they are still powerful beat sticks, but might be sub-optimal for tournament play? That is what I don't get, if they are there for "fun only" then why does them being fairly or even over costed matter at all? They will still rip things up on the table in fun games, but won't be game winning pieces. That is what I don't get from your argument, are you saying "these characters should be OP in games, but that is ok because we will only use them in games where no one cares about winning?" Then why does them being higher points matter if winning doesn't matter? In Apoc nothing will matter, in fun games, RG comes in and wrecks face, but you lose because his support isn't so great, doesn't matter right the game you are playing isn't competitive after all.

That said I think the fix to a lot of these issues is leaving "allies" out of matched play. It will never happen, but doing that would tone down on a lot of spam.

Why not try it and see how the army lists fluctuate and settle.

asides from like a few not actually full army armies everyone has an alternative to a particular character.

 Desubot wrote:
Why not try it and see how the army lists fluctuate and settle.

asides from like a few not actually full army armies everyone has an alternative to a particular character.

Because you're not caring about balance. Nobody is gonna pay for Tyberos if he's 230-240 points. He's not taken at 205 by anybody! Well except for me because I'm planning a special model for him...