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.

Well, as with points and all other balancing facets of a game, making the command points costs for special characters would be on a character by character basis. Some special characters may not need a command points cost at all where Roboute may need a cost of three and some may need even higher costs and some one or two command points.

 jeff white 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.

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.

IOW, everyone who doesn't play like I do is a try-hard and isn't playing correctly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 jeff white 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.

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.

IOW, everyone who doesn't play like I do is a try-hard and isn't playing correctly.

Exactly and exalted.

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
Well, as with points and all other balancing facets of a game, making the command points costs for special characters would be on a character by character basis. Some special characters may not need a command points cost at all where Roboute may need a cost of three and some may need even higher costs and some one or two command points.

The issue with it as a measure of balance is that they aren't very granular. So differentiating between power levels of special characters using CP is difficult. I think the only way you could really do it is make the characters very expensive and then have the ability to spend CP to reduce their cost. So maybe Guiliman gives no CP bonus and costs 500 points, but you can spend 1-3 CP to reduce his cost by 50 points per CP spent.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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...

How does trying out a no special character tourny mean i dont care?

 jeff white 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.

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.

The points cost in narrative play doesn't matter. You're using PL for that.

This thread basically consists of people who don't want to play competitively trying to police people who do, and trying to insist that special characters are somehow "only for fluff" (a thing entirely spawned in your own head) and therefore shouldn't appear in other types of game.

If any unit becomes an auto-pick then that means the points cost should be adjusted, or its rules need to be reviewed - either of the unit itself or in other areas of the faction, because there'll be a reason it's an auto-pick. Maybe it's too cheap for what it does, or it synergises more powerfully with other units, or it's the only good thing in a slot with poor diversity, whatever. That's where the adjustment needs to be made and whether that unit happens to be a particular type of Razorback or Conscripts or a "special character" is completely irrelevant.

Whilst having the special characters to cost command points may technically work, I don't like it for the same reason I don't like Chapter Masters or Relics costing CPs. Always on, list building stage options should cost points (or power levels), that's literally purpose of the points. It is really confused design if some weapons or characters cost points while some cost command points; it doesn't make sense.

Personally I would be fine if most special characters would just be removed, and we would get more modular and customisable regular characters instead. Then most old special characters could just be represented by choosing right gear and abilities. Of course there are some characters for which this wouldn't work (like the Primarchs) and those could remain.

 Corrode wrote:


The points cost in narrative play doesn't matter. You're using PL for that.

This thread basically consists of people who don't want to play competitively trying to police people who do, and trying to insist that special characters are somehow "only for fluff" (a thing entirely spawned in your own head) and therefore shouldn't appear in other types of game.

If any unit becomes an auto-pick then that means the points cost should be adjusted, or its rules need to be reviewed - either of the unit itself or in other areas of the faction, because there'll be a reason it's an auto-pick. Maybe it's too cheap for what it does, or it synergises more powerfully with other units, or it's the only good thing in a slot with poor diversity, whatever. That's where the adjustment needs to be made and whether that unit happens to be a particular type of Razorback or Conscripts or a "special character" is completely irrelevant.

The voice of reason. This is a game that is intended to be played between two people. Balance is paramount and going "these guys should be unbalanced because they are in the fluff!" is ridiculous at best. If you're going by fluff they should also be super valuable, so then you can cost them at thousands of points each.

I think characters should be a part of competitive play, but they're super powerful, so they should come at a cost. I don't believe in just upping the points cost. We had this back in old editions of warhammer fantasy, and it didn't matter that the vampire counts characters cost considerably more than everyone else's when nothing had a chance of killing them.

I think they should give other drawbacks. Like if rowboat dies, your army withdraws and you lose the game. You'd have to have a bloody good plan to bring that to competitive and I can't see any narrative player arguing that the army wouldn't make a hasty retreat with rowboats unconscious body to try and save him.

Now that is just an off-the-top-of-my-head suggestion, and may not be great, but it's an example.

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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...

How does trying out a no special character tourny mean i dont care?

Because I don't always use Special Characters and nobody should be forced into not using them if they don't want to? Does that make sense?

 jeff white wrote:

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?

That is the best way to play the game.

This thread, however, is specifically about competitive play which is a significantly different way to play the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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...

How does trying out a no special character tourny mean i dont care?

Because I don't always use Special Characters and nobody should be forced into not using them if they don't want to? Does that make sense?

Does trying a format out not make sense?

just like people that want to try out highlander or something

where on earth did i say we should absolutely bar special characters for EVERY SINGLE FORMAT.

 jeff white 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.

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?

Since, I don't know, the fact that this thread is "Should Special Characters be banned from competitive play?"

I don't know about you, but when I'm playing games in the league or at a tournament, I expect my opponent to at least be trying his best to win, and I will with all certainty be trying mine. I find it kind of insulting otherwise.

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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...

How does trying out a no special character tourny mean i dont care?

Because I don't always use Special Characters and nobody should be forced into not using them if they don't want to? Does that make sense?

Does trying a format out not make sense?

just like people that want to try out highlander or something

where on earth did i say we should absolutely bar special characters for EVERY SINGLE FORMAT.

And anyone could tell you how stupid Highlander is when you got armies like SoB and Necrons. It's the very principle people are making these formats because they think they're fixing a problem, but instead they're taking the single laziest route possible. So even support of those formats is stupid.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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...

How does trying out a no special character tourny mean i dont care?

Because I don't always use Special Characters and nobody should be forced into not using them if they don't want to? Does that make sense?

Does trying a format out not make sense?

just like people that want to try out highlander or something

where on earth did i say we should absolutely bar special characters for EVERY SINGLE FORMAT.

And anyone could tell you how stupid Highlander is when you got armies like SoB and Necrons. It's the very principle people are making these formats because they think they're fixing a problem, but instead they're taking the single laziest route possible. So even support of those formats is stupid.

Or its something different for people to try especially the people that are tired of playing the same lists over and over

the heck is wrong with you? Just because its a style or format you dont like doesn't make everything stupid.

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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...

How does trying out a no special character tourny mean i dont care?

Because I don't always use Special Characters and nobody should be forced into not using them if they don't want to? Does that make sense?

Does trying a format out not make sense?

just like people that want to try out highlander or something

where on earth did i say we should absolutely bar special characters for EVERY SINGLE FORMAT.

And anyone could tell you how stupid Highlander is when you got armies like SoB and Necrons. It's the very principle people are making these formats because they think they're fixing a problem, but instead they're taking the single laziest route possible. So even support of those formats is stupid.

Or its something different for people to try especially the people that are tired of playing the same lists over and over

the heck is wrong with you? Just because its a style or format you dont like doesn't make everything stupid.

If you're bored there's several missions you can play and then Maelstrom. What these "formats" are is garbage attempts at fixing a problem, and that's all they were ever proposed as. Nothing more, nothing less. So there's nothing wrong with me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you're bored there's several missions you can play and then Maelstrom. What these "formats" are is garbage attempts at fixing a problem, and that's all they were ever proposed as. Nothing more, nothing less. So there's nothing wrong with me.

Missing the point that people that want to shift the status quo of list building. regardless of missions considering people still play them all and it still can get old when several types of characters are auto takes or unit spam or whatever.

the point of the formats isnt to FIX anything its just to do something different

your problem is that you dont like it so you call it garbage.

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you're bored there's several missions you can play and then Maelstrom. What these "formats" are is garbage attempts at fixing a problem, and that's all they were ever proposed as. Nothing more, nothing less. So there's nothing wrong with me.

Missing the point that people that want to shift the status quo of list building. regardless of missions considering people still play them all and it still can get old when several types of characters are auto takes or unit spam or whatever.

the point of the formats isnt to FIX anything its just to do something different

your problem is that you dont like it so you call it garbage.

Then feel free to build a highlander list. However, don't ignore the origins of its creation and why it is stupid. Because it IS stupid.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
However, don't ignore the origins of its creation

Doing something different for the sake of doing something different when burnt out on the same gak over and over. got it.

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you're bored there's several missions you can play and then Maelstrom. What these "formats" are is garbage attempts at fixing a problem, and that's all they were ever proposed as. Nothing more, nothing less. So there's nothing wrong with me.

Missing the point that people that want to shift the status quo of list building. regardless of missions considering people still play them all and it still can get old when several types of characters are auto takes or unit spam or whatever.

the point of the formats isnt to FIX anything its just to do something different

your problem is that you dont like it so you call it garbage.

The status quo of list building is huge bricks of conscripts, spammable 'generic' characters (malefic lord, Culexus wall) spammable guard bullgak, spammable chaos bullgak and Guillamen. Even Celestine is just an afterthought for the most part.

Banning special characters hurts mono-faction armies WAY more than it hurts soup armies. Ban Celestine and guard just takes 50 more conscripts, no big whoop. SoB on the other hand can pack up and go home because building a competitive SoB list without her is fething impossible. You end up with 2 extra canonesses you don't even take out of your carrying case hoping desperately your opponent doesn't notice they're missing because they're worth less to the way your army functions than the +1 to go first and you can't put them in a transport because they feth up your dominions.

 Purifier wrote:
I think they should give other drawbacks. Like if rowboat dies, your army withdraws and you lose the game. You'd have to have a bloody good plan to bring that to competitive and I can't see any narrative player arguing that the army wouldn't make a hasty retreat with rowboats unconscious body to try and save him.

Actually, I really like this suggestion.

I've played Warmachine for some times a few years ago and it basically works like this. You either win on objective points or you try to zerg the ennemy Warcaster and kill him. It makes the game more interesting tactically.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

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?

That is the best way to play the game.

This thread, however, is specifically about competitive play which is a significantly different way to play the game.

But why doesnt so called competition involve more of the hobby than deck, err, list building?
It used to...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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...

How does trying out a no special character tourny mean i dont care?

Because I don't always use Special Characters and nobody should be forced into not using them if they don't want to? Does that make sense?

Does trying a format out not make sense?

just like people that want to try out highlander or something

where on earth did i say we should absolutely bar special characters for EVERY SINGLE FORMAT.

And anyone could tell you how stupid Highlander is when you got armies like SoB and Necrons. It's the very principle people are making these formats because they think they're fixing a problem, but instead they're taking the single laziest route possible. So even support of those formats is stupid.

Or its something different for people to try especially the people that are tired of playing the same lists over and over

the heck is wrong with you? Just because its a style or format you dont like doesn't make everything stupid.

If you're bored there's several missions you can play and then Maelstrom. What these "formats" are is garbage attempts at fixing a problem, and that's all they were ever proposed as. Nothing more, nothing less. So there's nothing wrong with me.

Actually, feeling a need to say that is the first sign that there is...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

 jeff white 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.

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?

Since, I don't know, the fact that this thread is "Should Special Characters be banned from competitive play?"

I don't know about you, but when I'm playing games in the league or at a tournament, I expect my opponent to at least be trying his best to win, and I will with all certainty be trying mine. I find it kind of insulting otherwise.

See comment above.
Different ways to do competition and MtG is only one of them...

"Why does a competition about winning games focus on winning games?"

I wouldn't expect to turn up to Golden Demon and win because I had the nastiest netlist, so why are you expecting that tournaments should be won based on some vague definition of "hobby" (which is no more fair - better hobby skills require much greater natural skill, and far greater investment of time and money than winning games does).

 Corrode wrote:
"Why does a competition about winning games focus on winning games?"

I wouldn't expect to turn up to Golden Demon and win because I had the nastiest netlist, so why are you expecting that tournaments should be won based on some vague definition of "hobby" (which is no more fair - better hobby skills require much greater natural skill, and far greater investment of time and money than winning games does).

Yup which is why I like when events have separate awards and a "Best Overall/Ren Man" award, because I know I can never compete on the painting aspect of the hobby, so if best overall was the only award I would never have a chance. Physical limitations on my part limit how well I can do on that front. So if the community said that was all that mattered, it would be bad for my enjoyment.

There is of course the issue of commission painting etc for that being the primary aspect.

Now if people think it is a problem of the community putting more emphasis on Best General than they do on Best Overall, that is an issue with individuals in the community not events. I think it is also a symptom of forums, because list design and game outcomes are easy to discuss on forums. High level tactics, hobby tips, etc are much harder to discuss.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Since, I don't know, the fact that this thread is "Should Special Characters be banned from competitive play?"
I don't know about you, but when I'm playing games in the league or at a tournament, I expect my opponent to at least be trying his best to win, and I will with all certainty be trying mine. I find it kind of insulting otherwise.

Amen?
Playing a competitive tournament is fielding "what works" not some scrub army.
We play by the rules of the game not extra ones that people decide on their own.
You want to do some narrative play for fun? That is a different category (and a different topic) and has been the draw for historical gaming for decades.

Corrode wrote:"Why does a competition about winning games focus on winning games?"
I wouldn't expect to turn up to Golden Demon and win because I had the nastiest netlist, so why are you expecting that tournaments should be won based on some vague definition of "hobby" (which is no more fair - better hobby skills require much greater natural skill, and far greater investment of time and money than winning games does).

Tournaments are very much about competition but some may focus a fair bit on the look of the army not just it being a game winning one, it really depends on the organizers and how they set up their scoring.
In the end, we all come back to "gaming" the tournament rules as well as the 40k rules.
I personally like my army to look good but it REALLY irritates my competitive side since it will take forever to prepare that "ideal" list based on the rules/meta of the time.
I can sometimes understand how some more competitive players field bare plastic armies (looks like garbage and is gives zero attraction as a good looking game), I may not agree with it, but I understand.

Most tournaments I go to have 2 top prizes, Best Painted, which is voted on by the participants, and the winner of the tournament. It's pretty rare for the best painted army not to be owned by one of the top ranking players in the tournament. It's almost like people that are competitive and good also care about what their models look like. The people that show up with gray armies are either new players or flavor of the month players that generally don't do the best because they haven't played the army long. You can download a netlist, but it doesn't guarantee you know how to play it well.

Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

 deviantduck wrote:
Most tournaments I go to have 2 top prizes, Best Painted, which is voted on by the participants, and the winner of the tournament. It's pretty rare for the best painted army not to be owned by one of the top ranking players in the tournament. It's almost like people that are competitive and good also care about what their models look like. The people that show up with gray armies are either new players or flavor of the month players that generally don't do the best because they haven't played the army long. You can download a netlist, but it doesn't guarantee you know how to play it well.

That is what I have viewed, being competitive applies to all elements of the hobby.
They step-up their game because they want to try to win everything they can.
I have found incredibly nice people who thrive on competition taking on newbie or expert alike because it is "all good" to them.
Those who enjoy the best pursuit of the goal, tend to be more fun than those who are only concerned with the goal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

Total answer to that is "because the rules allow it."
How does configuring your army the best you can, automatically become a sportsmanship issue?

Seems rather unfair.

Wiki: Sportsmanship is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors. A "sore loser" refers to one who does not take defeat well, whereas a "good sport" means being a "good winner" as well as being a "good loser"[1][2] (someone who shows courtesy towards another in a sports game).

If the person allows you to correct an honest mistake, is generous when the situation or rules are not clear, you will penalize them because you do not "like" their army configuration?
I figure we should reward good behavior, I will take a pleasant person over them making a fluffier army list any day.

IMO this thread has derailed into the classic narrative vs waac style.

Which is a shame.

This thread is specifically about waac play. If you are a narrative-only player, its not a context that applies to you. Trying to push the narrative playstyle to the people that enjoy powergaming is as futile as taking a whiz into a strong wind.

Lets not worry about the tournament players playing waac... thats kind of the point of the tournament playstyle.

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

Sportsmanship should never be a commentary on list composition, but instead on the other players behavior at the table. This is frequently not the case, and why it has largely fallen out of favor. Too many people take losing badly as a knock against their opponents sportsmanship. These people have obviously never competed in say sports if they feel that way. It also frequently got used to "chipmunk" players so that they could get their buddies to win the event.

Breng77 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Sportsmanship was a general score.
If I saw nothing but SC soup and conscripts on the other side of the table then that score would suffer.
Besides all that, how is it competitive to use cardboard cutout characters to exploit loopholes in obviously halfassed rules systems? For whom is this seriously a rewarding challenge?
I say ban them all to forge a more redeeming mindset, narrative aside.

Sportsmanship should never be a commentary on list composition, but instead on the other players behavior at the table. This is frequently not the case, and why it has largely fallen out of favor. Too many people take losing badly as a knock against their opponents sportsmanship. These people have obviously never competed in say sports if they feel that way. It also frequently got used to "chipmunk" players so that they could get their buddies to win the event.

Yeah we used to do sportsmanship votes at the tournaments I ran (you didn't get points but we had a separate trophy for whoever got the highest number), and it was remarkable how many times people's favourite game was against the guy they hammered off the table. Sports scores also suffer from the obvious problem that in a room of 70 guys, you'll only play 5 or 6 - and since most people are fairly neutral, it only takes one or two personality clashes to undeservedly tank someone's sportsmanship score.