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, special characters have a bad touch. Generally, I dont take them.
I remember that in a GT final, I have been the only Eldar player without Eldrad. I think it was 5th.

 Elbows wrote:
Some yes, some no. From a narrative perspective, they're wildly overused, regardless of power - however in a tournament setting that's to be expected.

This.

G-man and Celestine, often together, show up at every muddy ditch in the galaxy.

It would make them much more tactical if they could only buff 1 unit instead of everybody. The latter encourages static, gunline play where a character hovers around a death star of units. Not much fun, IMHO.

Niiru wrote:
Is this true? Last time I saw the maths on snipers, they were universally a waste of points, as you need something like 200+ points of snipers in order to reliably kill a character within a standard game length. Edit: And that is only if the character stands out in the open for the whole game.

No need to ask when we have forums here with tournament listings and results. The NOVA Open winner last month had 2 squads of Elysium Snipers. Another two lists brought 5 squads each. Not all armies need them because Chaos can do psychic shenanigans (plus Malefic Lord spam) and Orks have Da Jump. The list Brad Chester ran with Guilliman and Celestine had two Vindicares in it. Another had 2 Ratling squads, another had 4 Ratling squads, another had 6 sniper scout squads, another had 20 scout snipers for their troop choices and a Culexus Assassin. This is all just from a single 32-man tournament of the best 40k players. There were others that didn't make this the cut for this list that probably brought even more snipers.

You can find lists of other tournaments too and they feature similarly. BAO had lots of snipers too for example.

 Arkaine wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Is this true? Last time I saw the maths on snipers, they were universally a waste of points, as you need something like 200+ points of snipers in order to reliably kill a character within a standard game length. Edit: And that is only if the character stands out in the open for the whole game.

No need to ask when we have forums here with tournament listings and results. The NOVA Open winner last month had 2 squads of Elysium Snipers. Another two lists brought 5 squads each. Not all armies need them because Chaos can do psychic shenanigans (plus Malefic Lord spam) and Orks have Da Jump. The list Brad Chester ran with Guilliman and Celestine had two Vindicares in it. Another had 2 Ratling squads, another had 4 Ratling squads, another had 6 sniper scout squads, another had 20 scout snipers for their troop choices and a Culexus Assassin. This is all just from a single 32-man tournament of the best 40k players.

You can find lists of other tournaments too and they feature similarly. BAO had lots of snipers too for example.

Oh, most of those being Imperial snipers I'm not surprised they passed me by. Not surprised if they're as good as ratlings either. Elysium snipers work out just as good on paper (if not better), and vinidcares are vindicares.

Don't see how Chaos Malefics help to snipe characters, as they seem to just be smite batteries. Still can't target characters. Da Jump is just another deepstrike, so again can't be used to target characters (they'll always be surrounded by 100 conscripts or similar parking lots). So basically the only way to deal with overpowered Imperial characters, is to play as the Imperium so you can take relatively effective snipers.

I run Lucius. He's the best option for EC due to the fact that he has a cool sword, actual noise marine options (Doomsiren) and interesting duelist rules.

And the voting on this is horrible. Adding the side parts just.. rigs it regardless in a wishy washy mess.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I run Lucius. He's the best option for EC due to the fact that he has a cool sword, actual noise marine options (Doomsiren) and interesting duelist rules.

And the voting on this is horrible. Adding the side parts just.. rigs it regardless in a wishy washy mess.

It's a fuzzy/relative range. I should probably have added a "none at all", to differentiate between "zero, one, or five percent" or so.

Some of them are broken. Most of them are just kinda unnecessary, they should let those rules be purchased by generics.

I don't see how this poll could be very informative. Depending on how you interpret the answer options given, the same general opinion could easily result in a vote for any of these answers.

Some characters are seen extremely disproportionately, and are clearly quite overpowered options compared to their alternatives. Other characters are never taken at all.

Are OP characters a problem because they are characters, because they are OP, or are they OP because GW make characters OP more often than other models? Is the problem aura buff models rather than unique characters? It all depends on whom you ask.

As for my personal feeling on the matter, I don't like seeing named characters on the tabletop except in certain circumstances. There's only one Roboute Guilliman, seeing him in action should be rare, and indicative of a major conflict. Most of the time battle in the 41st millennium should be between more mundane leaders. Too many named characters in a non-apocalypse game only makes it look like League of Legends.

I don't think any of the SC's are broken themselves. Celestine is often cited as way under costed but the girl dies way too easily to cost more than she dies currently. I do think that you should be required to field her with both of her Geminae. Having fielded her against Mortarion, Magnus and Gman. None of them have any trouble killing her in their own way. I think the problem that arises with SC's is when they get thrown into a soup list with zero tax. How many would play Celestine if they had to field her as part of a battle forged SoB detachment?

If tournaments just put a cap of one character per list, it would curb the current abuse we are seeing.

Or create a list of characters that cannot be in the same list.

Personally i like to see characters in a narrative setting rather than a tournament setting. Watching magnus v magnus is just silly, been there done that,

Or just removed them entirely. I'm one of those old fuddy duddys from the time when Special Characters required your Opponent's Permission to use, not just sidegrade vanilla characters with pre-set equipment.

EDIT: My reasoning being that any characters worth using in a Tournament generally are the broken ones, so it's not like the unused ones will feel a change anyways. The only people who'd really be shafted would be people taking fluff armies to competitive tournaments, but some casualties are to be had.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Or just removed them entirely. I'm one of those old fuddy duddys from the time when Special Characters required your Opponent's Permission to use, not just sidegrade vanilla characters with pre-set equipment.

EDIT: My reasoning being that any characters worth using in a Tournament generally are the broken ones, so it's not like the unused ones will feel a change anyways. The only people who'd really be shafted would be people taking fluff armies to competitive tournaments, but some casualties are to be had.

You mean like Ynnari that requires you take to take one of three special characters as your Warlord? The main reason every Ynnari force has Yvraine and/or The Yncarne, is for that reason specifically.

 Happyjew wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Or just removed them entirely. I'm one of those old fuddy duddys from the time when Special Characters required your Opponent's Permission to use, not just sidegrade vanilla characters with pre-set equipment.

EDIT: My reasoning being that any characters worth using in a Tournament generally are the broken ones, so it's not like the unused ones will feel a change anyways. The only people who'd really be shafted would be people taking fluff armies to competitive tournaments, but some casualties are to be had.

You mean like Ynnari that requires you take to take one of three special characters as your Warlord? The main reason every Ynnari force has Yvraine and/or The Yncarne, is for that reason specifically.

1.) I honestly forgot that was a thing and

2.) that's a stupid rule anyways. But then again I disliked the Ynnari in concept anyhow. It reeks of the End Times lists. Still though, isn't making generic HQ choices one of the primary complaints for Ynnari anyways?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Or just removed them entirely. I'm one of those old fuddy duddys from the time when Special Characters required your Opponent's Permission to use, not just sidegrade vanilla characters with pre-set equipment.

EDIT: My reasoning being that any characters worth using in a Tournament generally are the broken ones, so it's not like the unused ones will feel a change anyways. The only people who'd really be shafted would be people taking fluff armies to competitive tournaments, but some casualties are to be had.

Your reasoning sucks. Most of the characters being seen right now are the generic ones, with the only named ones being Rowboat, Celestine, and...nope that's it.

For the record that rule for permission was stupid anyway because none of the characters were exactly great. Why do I need YOUR permission if I was using Coteaz from the 3rd edition Daemonhunters, or The Nightbringer/Deceiver from that Necron codex?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Or just removed them entirely. I'm one of those old fuddy duddys from the time when Special Characters required your Opponent's Permission to use, not just sidegrade vanilla characters with pre-set equipment.

EDIT: My reasoning being that any characters worth using in a Tournament generally are the broken ones, so it's not like the unused ones will feel a change anyways. The only people who'd really be shafted would be people taking fluff armies to competitive tournaments, but some casualties are to be had.

Your reasoning sucks. Most of the characters being seen right now are the generic ones, with the only named ones being Rowboat, Celestine, and...nope that's it.

For the record that rule for permission was stupid anyway because none of the characters were exactly great. Why do I need YOUR permission if I was using Coteaz from the 3rd edition Daemonhunters, or The Nightbringer/Deceiver from that Necron codex?

So Rowboat and Celestine aren't broken? And the rest of that didn't make much sense since you're disagreeing with me saying the unused ones won't feel the ban....by saying the unused ones won't be used anyways? I don't get your logic here.

And the rule was there because, back then, special characters were suppose to be stuff for narrative campaigns, they weren't meant to be used in competitive enviroments or pickup games, which is why you needed an opponent's permission AND meet certain points requirements (for example, Calgar and Abaddon would never show up in games below 2000, since that was basically the upper limit of 40k at the time and they wouldn't lower themselves to smaller skirmishes). It was to the point that some special characters were promo-only items for campaigns (like Valten or Harry the Hammer was, before GW decided to break out the molds again just before fantasy ended); GW honestly didn't think you'd want them as anything more than collectors items after the fact. Back then it was basically on par with sticking an Unhinged or Unglued card in your deck at a MTG tournament, and legitimately getting angry at why you got disqualified.

Sadly after the Black Templars Codex, GW decided to streamline everything and just made Special Characters a fact of life. Not at all helped by the exclusive builds or units only they can unlock (worst offender are the "wing" commanders, Logan, Draigo and Beilal) since you're completely locked out of a build if you didn't want to use special characters.

I wish there weren't any characters that were so out of line like Magnus, RG and Celestine at the moment because I really like using characters but since GW can't seem to write rules for them without making some stupidly broken potential around them I guess my vote goes against them.
Problem is some armies don't work at all without them.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I wish there weren't any characters that were so out of line like Magnus, RG and Celestine at the moment because I really like using characters but since GW can't seem to write rules for them without making some stupidly broken potential around them I guess my vote goes against them.
Problem is some armies don't work at all without them.

I find it hilarious that many people point out special characters they think are tough yet then have no problem fielding giant vehicles or knights like it's just run of the mill business as usual.

Every named character that is an autoinclude for his/her army is broken and should be toned down.

And they shouldn't be allowed at all if a player decides to play a soup with different factions. At least in 2500 points and smaller games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I wish there weren't any characters that were so out of line like Magnus, RG and Celestine at the moment because I really like using characters but since GW can't seem to write rules for them without making some stupidly broken potential around them I guess my vote goes against them.
Problem is some armies don't work at all without them.

I find it hilarious that many people point out special characters they think are tough yet then have no problem fielding giant vehicles or knights like it's just run of the mill business as usual.

I feel the same way, 100% agree.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I wish there weren't any characters that were so out of line like Magnus, RG and Celestine at the moment because I really like using characters but since GW can't seem to write rules for them without making some stupidly broken potential around them I guess my vote goes against them.
Problem is some armies don't work at all without them.

I find it hilarious that many people point out special characters they think are tough yet then have no problem fielding giant vehicles or knights like it's just run of the mill business as usual.

I think it's funny you assume that I use giant vehicles or Knights, my biggest vehicle that sees regular use is either a Rhino, a Razorback or a Dreadnaught.
Biggest vehicles I own are a Knight that I was happy to build and paint but has only ever seen use as a bookstop because I never liked Superheavies or GMCs and a Landraider that I've owned for four years and has seen more use as a loaner than in any of my lists, I'm actually yet to run it in 8th.
Want to assume my Space Wolves only ever run TWC next? You might get closer than this effort.

 Arkaine wrote:
I find it hilarious that many people point out special characters they think are tough yet then have no problem fielding giant vehicles or knights like it's just run of the mill business as usual.

No one in my group plays any Lords of War. The largest model I've encountered is a Stormraven, the largest I've played is a Wave Serpent. I think Wraithknights and Imperial Knights should be rare sights on the battlefield as well, but not as rare as named characters. There are quite a few Knights in the galaxy, but only one Girlyman.

The Wraithknight is a cool model, and I might get one at some point for the modelling experience. I own five unique characters, none of which have seen the tabletop

I want my games to be about my guys, not whatever GW want me to play. I absolutely wouldn't play Girlyman even if I played Ultramarines.

 Blackie wrote:
Every named character that is an autoinclude for his/her army is broken and should be toned down.

And they shouldn't be allowed at all if a player decides to play a soup with different factions. At least in 2500 points and smaller games.

but then there's characters like cawl who is the only named character making him an auto include because no one else in admech does what he does as well as him

 Arkaine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I wish there weren't any characters that were so out of line like Magnus, RG and Celestine at the moment because I really like using characters but since GW can't seem to write rules for them without making some stupidly broken potential around them I guess my vote goes against them.
Problem is some armies don't work at all without them.

I find it hilarious that many people point out special characters they think are tough yet then have no problem fielding giant vehicles or knights like it's just run of the mill business as usual.

I find it hilarious that you think people who play special characters only with opponents consent, somehow also play lords of war and superheavies willy-nilly.

I think you'll find the kind of fair-minded gamer who plays special characters only with opponent consent, also only plays superheavies and lords of war with opponent consent. Giving the opponent a chance to tailor their list slightly, so the game isn't a total walkover.

Personally, I would hesitate to even run a flyer without notifying my opponent.

Niiru wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I wish there weren't any characters that were so out of line like Magnus, RG and Celestine at the moment because I really like using characters but since GW can't seem to write rules for them without making some stupidly broken potential around them I guess my vote goes against them.
Problem is some armies don't work at all without them.

I find it hilarious that many people point out special characters they think are tough yet then have no problem fielding giant vehicles or knights like it's just run of the mill business as usual.

I find it hilarious that you think people who play special characters only with opponents consent, somehow also play lords of war and superheavies willy-nilly.

I think you'll find the kind of fair-minded gamer who plays special characters only with opponent consent, also only plays superheavies and lords of war with opponent consent. Giving the opponent a chance to tailor their list slightly, so the game isn't a total walkover.

Personally, I would hesitate to even run a flyer without notifying my opponent.

Why would players who make the decision to tone down their 40k games give a rats behind what is or isn't allowed in a semi-competitive or all out competitive environment?

Speaking competitively with mono build Sisters and Celestine, of course she is as near to an auto take as you can get. The army is built around her. If you don't take her you are stuck with your one remaining HQ choice, the Canoness. Limiting yourself to just the Canoness pushes Seraphim out of your list entirely and limits you to Dom rush as your only chance of competing.

I would never play an ImpSoup army, they are what is causing issues. Its not like mono build Sisters or mono Ultra's are running the tables everywhere they go. I would look into putting the tax back into bringing allied factions before I thought about nerfing SC's directly.

 kastelen wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Every named character that is an autoinclude for his/her army is broken and should be toned down.

And they shouldn't be allowed at all if a player decides to play a soup with different factions. At least in 2500 points and smaller games.

but then there's characters like cawl who is the only named character making him an auto include because no one else in admech does what he does as well as him

Or Celestine for Sisters, as well.

Some armies just don't have a choice. They need to take their special character. It's stupid, but the way to fix it isn't to ban them but rather to give generic characters more options and better customizability, plus simply having MORE generic character types for armies that lack them.

 dracpanzer wrote:
Why would players who make the decision to tone down their 40k games give a rats behind what is or isn't allowed in a semi-competitive or all out competitive environment?

Speaking competitively with mono build Sisters and Celestine, of course she is as near to an auto take as you can get. The army is built around her. If you don't take her you are stuck with your one remaining HQ choice, the Canoness. Limiting yourself to just the Canoness pushes Seraphim out of your list entirely and limits you to Dom rush as your only chance of competing.

I would never play an ImpSoup army, they are what is causing issues. Its not like mono build Sisters or mono Ultra's are running the tables everywhere they go. I would look into putting the tax back into bringing allied factions before I thought about nerfing SC's directly.

If you refuse to play Soup, you too are making the decision to tone down your 40k games. I don't see the difference.

Some people don't like Soup, some people don't like special characters showing up everywhere. Some (many) don't like either.

 Cream Tea wrote:

If you refuse to play Soup, you too are making the decision to tone down your 40k games. I don't see the difference.

Some people don't like Soup, some people don't like special characters showing up everywhere. Some (many) don't like either.

Just because I dont want to play a soup army doesnt mean I wouldn't play against one. I guess I didn't make that distinction before. Strictly nerfing or banning SC's because of what they do in a soup army has different effects on the armies they come from.

I'm pretty unhappy with the tourney meta right now. Nearly every table has one of the big 3 (Rowboat, Magnus, Celestine). About 1/3 of all tables have 2 or more. That is a pretty crappy meta in my opinion. Name characters should be mainly for fluffy/narrative games, and the lack of balance being put into a handful named characters is really problematic.

I think special characters should be a bit broken, that's kind of what makes them Special. Something like Magnus or Mortaron should be an absolute nightmare on the table, they are in the story. To me, the idea of a Special Character, is someone who has risen so far beyond the others like him/her that they truly stand out and really make a difference. As such, they should really make a big impact in the game. They should be balanced with a good point cost to offset this, but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be a bit overpowered.

Ravingbantha wrote:
I think special characters should be a bit broken, that's kind of what makes them Special. Something like Magnus or Mortaron should be an absolute nightmare on the table, they are in the story. To me, the idea of a Special Character, is someone who has risen so far beyond the others like him/her that they truly stand out and really make a difference. As such, they should really make a big impact in the game. They should be balanced with a good point cost to offset this, but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be a bit overpowered.

Uh, what?

No one is saying Celestine, Guilliman or Mortarion shouldn't be powerful. If they are to exist in the game they should of course be really powerful, like they are in the lore. Overpowered doesn't mean powerful, it means it's too good in context, including points cost.

If Mortarion cost three times as much as he does, he would still be as powerful, he'd still have the same stats. He'd be underpowered though, because he's not worth that much. Conscripts are weak, but they're very good for their points.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Or just removed them entirely. I'm one of those old fuddy duddys from the time when Special Characters required your Opponent's Permission to use, not just sidegrade vanilla characters with pre-set equipment.

EDIT: My reasoning being that any characters worth using in a Tournament generally are the broken ones, so it's not like the unused ones will feel a change anyways. The only people who'd really be shafted would be people taking fluff armies to competitive tournaments, but some casualties are to be had.

Your reasoning sucks. Most of the characters being seen right now are the generic ones, with the only named ones being Rowboat, Celestine, and...nope that's it.

For the record that rule for permission was stupid anyway because none of the characters were exactly great. Why do I need YOUR permission if I was using Coteaz from the 3rd edition Daemonhunters, or The Nightbringer/Deceiver from that Necron codex?

So Rowboat and Celestine aren't broken? And the rest of that didn't make much sense since you're disagreeing with me saying the unused ones won't feel the ban....by saying the unused ones won't be used anyways? I don't get your logic here.

And the rule was there because, back then, special characters were suppose to be stuff for narrative campaigns, they weren't meant to be used in competitive enviroments or pickup games, which is why you needed an opponent's permission AND meet certain points requirements (for example, Calgar and Abaddon would never show up in games below 2000, since that was basically the upper limit of 40k at the time and they wouldn't lower themselves to smaller skirmishes). It was to the point that some special characters were promo-only items for campaigns (like Valten or Harry the Hammer was, before GW decided to break out the molds again just before fantasy ended); GW honestly didn't think you'd want them as anything more than collectors items after the fact. Back then it was basically on par with sticking an Unhinged or Unglued card in your deck at a MTG tournament, and legitimately getting angry at why you got disqualified.

Sadly after the Black Templars Codex, GW decided to streamline everything and just made Special Characters a fact of life. Not at all helped by the exclusive builds or units only they can unlock (worst offender are the "wing" commanders, Logan, Draigo and Beilal) since you're completely locked out of a build if you didn't want to use special characters.

With a small point adjustment they're honestly not broken. Give Celestine a 20-25 point bump and Rowboat 35 or so to make him 400. Quick fix.

What I'm saying is the ban of special characters in general is stupid, as most people are using the generic counterparts for most of them. So you say that they're broken but they aren't.

In fact, every time this pops up I always ask for the long list of broken Special Characters throughout the history of the game. Guess how often that gets done? Never. We had a poor attempt in the one Guard thread where someone said 6-7th Eldrad and Ghaz were more broken than their generic counterparts, and both you and I know that's simply not true in any way, shape, or form.

Also I don't care what you think GW intended. I don't need permission to run either my Imperial Knight or Tyberos or generic Chaplain in the same way you don't need my permission to run either Scatterbikes or Tactical Marines.