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.

I think centerpiece models are great for collection display. I think they can easily feel either OP or pointless depending on rules and point costs.

Like Mortarian used to be a pointless handicap, now he may be a touch OP for his point cost. Compare this to the Baneblade which for a bit felt pretty OP now is little more than a paper weight to burned down in 1 turn.

Done right they can feel ok but in typical GW fashion they suffer from the pendulum swinging from great to suck over and over.

My only problem with them in 40k is that thus far the only options pretty much any army has for big centerpiece character models is for named characters like the Silent King or the Daemon Primarchs. Age of Sigmar has "generic" big centerpiece models that are very cool like the various commander mounted on big monster models a lot of armies have. I'd like if more of these types of 40k models weren't tied to a specific named character.

In general I think anything bigger than a Land Raider and more than about 350 points probably shouldn't be in the regular game - save it for Apocalypse. But I also understand that ship has sailed a long time ago.

The centrepiece models are really hit and miss in terms of design and I hate GW's idea that every faction seemingly needs some massive diorama as its centrepiece. I'd have much preferred the Silent King as just him and his 2 Triarch buddies on foot, for example. It's also a problem if the model is an auto-include, or near auto-include as I think it reduces the specialness of the models and makes armies feel too similar.

From a rules perspective I think they're pretty bad. Either because they're not worth their points or they're just too good. Morty looks like he's going to be the latter. I thought GW were starting to learn with how they design TSK with his abilities degrading as he took wounds so he got less and less useful in a support and offensive role as you damaged him. Sadly they've abandoned that thinking with Mortarion. I have no problem with Marty being the toughest thing in the game - it makes perfect sense. However, what I hate is how ridiculous his support and offensive abilities are. It makes interacting with him an exercise in frustration. If he was slow or could potentially be tarpitted in combat at least you'd feel like you had options when playing against him but he can fly and has multiple attack modes so just deletes most units with ease. It's terrible design, exacerbated by how the shallow 40k rules reduce most interactions in the game to "can I kill it?"

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
I think they can easily feel either OP or pointless depending on rules and point costs.

It cannot be otherwise. Those models are purchased once in a lifetime for a player and GW's ultimate goal is to sell models. So as soon as they think that most of the player base that could have bought the model has already done so then it's the perfect time to nerf the primarch into oblivion.

None of the named superheroes will remain OP for long, an entire edition at most. And that's also the fate of other huge non character centerpiece models like Wraitknights or Imperial Knights.

I hate them, it feels even more like the game is shrinking and we are losing the combined arms feel of the game. To large skirmish factions without support to really be on a battlefield.
Kind of anoying when other games feel like they doing what 40k supposedly does best better :(

It comes off a bit much.

I agree with the general sentiment, I have no qualms with them existing. I just dislike them impinging on games too small to bare them.

I also think in general that a lot of models are terrible gaming pieces. They're huge, with very dynamic poses in spread wings or whatever. So they take up an entire figure case unto themselves. Additionally they have very large intricate details like swirling lightning or whatever which is just begging to be broken.

Out of interest, and without looking to make a point, how often do peeps come up against them in a game?

I've been thinking about it and I'm actually happier with things like a Baneblade or a Knight.

You can imagine a squad of US GIs with bazookas, a couple of M1919s, a handful of Rifle Grenade M1 Garands and a couple of Shermans carefully moving through the countryside because they know at least one Tiger is in the area when suddenly a Maus! But in space.

An unsupported tank, even in tabletop games is not a super challenge, even a super heavy super tank, and can make a good game. But having a demi-god walking the same battlefield? Ehhhhh. Even with the "in universe" explanation it feels a little off.

I used to run Captain Cortez in about a third of the games I played in 3rd. He wasn't an auto choice, but he was a nice flavorful character that didn't break the game. I also needed permission before I could drop him.

He also had the benefit of not being the size of a stompa.

Modern 40K characters have NONE of that going for them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Out of interest, and without looking to make a point, how often do peeps come up against them in a game?

Not too often. The people I play with usually like to use them once or twice but if the model starts to warp the game around it they'll usually drop it in favour of something a bit more "normal". Once the game starts to become all about the big centrepiece model it just becomes less interesting, IMO.

Karol wrote:
I have nothing against them in other armies. In general I don't like the idea that core machanics or army efficiancy would be linked to a 100$+ single model kit. Specialy when it is a large model, which really needs to be painted to look passable on the table. A power armoured or termintor armoured HQ is easy to to do for a weekend game, something like mortarion or silent king is not. Plus if a nerf happens to a big model like this, it feels a lot worse, then losing a single meq model.

out of the big models that are out right now, pretty much on ghaz can be considered "necessary" to a certain strategy. Silent king, Ctans and Morty are all just good models, not models that unlock a playstyle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kayback wrote:
I dislike most of them. Why? Because they'd work in an Apocalypse scale game but what's pretty much a skirmish game or a small unit engagement? Nah.

Sure the 2000 points may be the "key engagement" of a 100 000 point battle but it just seems out of place.

Also I think most of the centerpieces are ugly.

Even ctans should be relegated to apoc? Im curious as to why since they arent particularly large/powerful models (except for nightbringer)

The big centerpiece models are fun and I wouldn't mind seeing them more often. Most of the time people here don't run the big stuff because they find them intimidating to paint. People get scared of ruining a big, expensive model with a bad paint job.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Out of interest, and without looking to make a point, how often do peeps come up against them in a game?

I played somewhere between 50-100 games since 8th and only ever had one encounter with a daemon primarch, Magnus. He spent one turn walking into a pair of butcher cannon arrays before getting dogpiled on and finished off by some cultists.

Other big named characters hmm... I saw the Swarmlord pretty often but he's not really the same level of centerpiece. I've run Yncarne occasionally and I used to run Eldrad and pre-plastic kit Abaddon all the time. I've played against triple Knights lists using a Scorpion superheavy grav-tank. Once I shot down an Orion dropship. I dunno, I find the big models exciting, if only because I rarely encounter them.

I'd hate, for example, to see what sort of stats they'd give to Patton, as a general.

Creed ....

Out of interest, and without looking to make a point, how often do peeps come up against them in a game?

In my experience it depends. A pretty good chunk of players in the local meta have at least one such model ( have Mortarion and Guilliman), but outside of tournaments, you rarely see the super heavies around here. Bobby G did feature strongly in a lot of games at the start of 8th, but less so since then. Outside of a tournamentI think I've seen Morty maybe a dozen times since his release (two of those were me bringing him to games where it was agreed beforehand he would make an appearance), and Magnus slightly more. That's not bad though given how long the've been out.

As to the question of, "Do I like them"? I think so? I don't like the design of the "diorama" models like the Shrine, and I feel like whoever designed the Silent King just didn't feel like working that day, but in general I don't mind them. Especially not when you consider the fact that things have gotten killy enough that for a while you did't see Magnus or Morty because the could be shot of the table too fast. I would say that's still a thing, so I'm not sure they're all "too powerful". Ghaz for example, could probably stand to be a little more powerful. I think I've played against him twice, and was underwhelmed both times.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Even ctans should be relegated to apoc? Im curious as to why since they arent particularly large/powerful models (except for nightbringer)

Possibly. I haven't seen a Necron codex since...they were introduced? How do they stack up?

I'm against most "big names" being fielded for the reasons given earlier. A super heavy war machine is understandable as a suprise encounter. A Demi-god?not so much. Was Magnus just out for a daily stroll and he bumped into Guiliman who was leading some neophytes on their first combat patrol?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Out of interest, and without looking to make a point, how often do peeps come up against them in a game?

Watching other people's games at the FLGS, I'd say about 1 in 3 for something like Magnus, Mortation or Guilliman.

I'm an outlier as I refuse to play games against other folks in which there are named characters for WHFB/40K due to past bad experiences. (Outside of WHFB/40K, I am simply leery of games with named characters; I've played a few Legion and many an X-Wing game with few issues for named characters).

 Stormonu wrote:


I'm an outlier as I refuse to play games against other folks in which there are named characters for WHFB/40K due to past bad experiences.

I'm curious as to what these bad experiences were. I don't think any current named character is overbearing (with morty being on standby since i just cannot judge something that isnt even out officially yet)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:


I'm an outlier as I refuse to play games against other folks in which there are named characters for WHFB/40K due to past bad experiences.

I'm curious as to what these bad experiences were. I don't think any current named character is overbearing (with morty being on standby since i just cannot judge something that isnt even out officially yet)

Directly, 2E games of 40K against a force-field protected Ghaz (and unkillable) and WHFB (couldn't tell you the edition) invincible heroes. The latter left such an unsavory taste in my mouth, I sold off my WHFB elf army and quit the game. At least through 7E 40K, there's been a slew of 40K character cheese I've observed that reminded me of what I hated about those experiences that I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. I do not like games of Herohammer, and GW's games are poster children for this sort of play.

I don't care for them, really. They occupy too much table space.

The intense focus on named characters, and including multiple characters in a force so small it is unlikely they would all be there is a problem for gameplay as well.

I like some fo the models, sure- Void Dragon, Magnus. But they really belong in very large games on larger tables.

 Stormonu wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:


I'm an outlier as I refuse to play games against other folks in which there are named characters for WHFB/40K due to past bad experiences.

I'm curious as to what these bad experiences were. I don't think any current named character is overbearing (with morty being on standby since i just cannot judge something that isnt even out officially yet)

Directly, 2E games of 40K against a force-field protected Ghaz (and unkillable) and WHFB (couldn't tell you the edition) invincible heroes. The latter left such an unsavory taste in my mouth, I sold off my WHFB elf army and quit the game. At least through 7E 40K, there's been a slew of 40K character cheese I've observed that reminded me of what I hated about those experiences that I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. I do not like games of Herohammer, and GW's games are poster children for this sort of play.

So basically you dislike invincible bubbles? this hasnt been a thing since i started playing in 8th. You should try and be open minded with 9th since characters are much more "fair" nowadays.

GW is in the business of selling people plastic. Big centerpiece named character models sell really well. That's why they make them. It doesn't matter that people who actually play the game tend to dislike them and they tend to create boring and/or bad outcomes on the table, because that isn't what GW is actually about. The rules just have to be tolerable enough to be credible, they don't have to be great.

You're going to see more and more of these big centerpiece models, not less. They sell, and that's what matters.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:


I'm an outlier as I refuse to play games against other folks in which there are named characters for WHFB/40K due to past bad experiences.

I'm curious as to what these bad experiences were. I don't think any current named character is overbearing (with morty being on standby since i just cannot judge something that isnt even out officially yet)

Directly, 2E games of 40K against a force-field protected Ghaz (and unkillable) and WHFB (couldn't tell you the edition) invincible heroes. The latter left such an unsavory taste in my mouth, I sold off my WHFB elf army and quit the game. At least through 7E 40K, there's been a slew of 40K character cheese I've observed that reminded me of what I hated about those experiences that I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. I do not like games of Herohammer, and GW's games are poster children for this sort of play.

So basically you dislike invincible bubbles? this hasnt been a thing since i started playing in 8th. You should try and be open minded with 9th since characters are much more "fair" nowadays.

Simply, nope on allowing named characters for 40K. I will NEVER trust GW in this regard.

<Edit> A bit more on this. When I play wargames, I'm playing for an experience of a combined force that's about the army as a whole. Each piece has it's use and isn't a dominant feature of the force. Dropping named characters like a primarch or somesuch makes it about the characters on the field and the rest becomes cannon fodder. That's not an experience I want.

 Stormonu wrote:

Simply, nope on allowing named characters for 40K. I will NEVER trust GW in this regard.

i mean you can yourself look at the existing characters and see for yourself that literally none are overbearing. In fact, its the generic character that are stronger. I really cannot understand yoru way of thinking but eh, you do you.

For me it isn't the power, it's the stupidity of how often they crop up, and how they constantly die.

We have these characters that have lived for 10,000 years like Ahriman...who is an auto-take in any TS army and who dies in half his games. How many times do you think Ahriman has died on the tabletop? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

yukishiro1 wrote:
For me it isn't the power, it's the stupidity of how often they crop up, and how they constantly die.

We have these characters that have lived for 10,000 years like Ahriman...who is an auto-take in any TS army and who dies in half his games. How many times do you think Ahriman has died on the tabletop? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

its no weirder in my eyes than my Tech Priest Dominus that i named dying in every game. Not all fights are "canon"

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

Simply, nope on allowing named characters for 40K. I will NEVER trust GW in this regard.

i mean you can yourself look at the existing characters and see for yourself that literally none are overbearing. In fact, its the generic character that are stronger. I really cannot understand yoru way of thinking but eh, you do you.

Brother Captin Stern is litteraly a brother captin with extra rules, and costs less then a regular brother captin. Voldus is a space marine chapter master and GK librarian slaped in to one model, this time not cheaper then a Librarian, but not that much cheaper then a GM to make him over costed. Same was true for Draigo in 8th. They were always better then stock option.

It's not that it's impossible to rationalize, it's the Saturday Morning Cartoon element that gets me. "Oh, Heman err I mean Bobby G is fighting Skeletor err I mean Mortarion again. That's new and different!"

There's always been an element of 40k being much smaller than its setting would actually imply, but it's greatly exaggerated when you have auto-take special characters. I mean like how freaking busy is Daedalosus? The guy must never have any time to actually do any archaeology, he's too busy getting blown to smithereens in literally every single ad-mech game.

I think big single models like Mortarian or Knights or whatnot break some of the basic notions that Warhammer was predicated on, the squad unit, and as a big, disabled lump of points in a single-model package make for boring games. The degrading profile solution is clever but doesn't solve the problem of the unit not changing as it is damaged (footprint, morale, weapons, etc), and limits how they can be played. You can chip away at their wounds and that's about it.

Weirdly, now that the degrading profile thing had been a thing I look back on the vehicle damage tables and armour facings and think they were onto something. Again, not perfect, but allowing the vehicle to be immobilized (when infantry could be forced to fall back or be pinned), or have weapons chipped off, and progressing those effects was the right idea. Of course, now that morale and pinning is completely irrelevant...

Back in Epic Space Marine (2nd edition) Titans were made up of parts. A Warlord Titan was 900pts (for reference, three squads of Tactical Marines and their Rhinos was 250-300pts) and after hitting it with an attack you had to choose a location (legs, weapons, carapace, head, reactor) that was laid out on a nice 3x3 grid. You could damage or destroy weapons and shields, you could slow or immobilize the Titan with damage to legs, head, or reactor.

So while it was the case that the game had things like the Imperator Titan eventually bolted on in Epic Titan Legions, it handled the big stuff pretty well (which isn't to say perfectly) because it operated like a collection of small stuff in a vertical space.

It's less a complaint about 'balance' and moreso a complaint that they make games boring by tying all that content up in a less interesting package.

Generic characters can get some amazing relics for free. Which is potentially why they seem lacklustre off the datasheet.
TBH I don't like it, I've seen a generic Space Marine Captain beating the gak out of Abbaddon, it made me want to hurl lol.
But that's a separate issue.

Karol wrote:

Brother Captin Stern is litteraly a brother captin with extra rules, and costs less then a regular brother captin.

As he should, because most of his extra rules and the fact that he has to take the worst weapon make him actively much worse than a generic brother-captain. His unique smite is arguably better against Daemons, but actively much worse against literally anything else because it is capped at one damage (it doesn't benefit from tides of escalation) and has worse range.

The Strands of Fate is a trap ability. You can reroll a hit or wound roll for Stern but like, who cares? His combat is mediocre, his shooting consists of nothing but a storm bolter or a grenade throw, and you can use it to reroll a saving throw but Stern shouldn't be exposed to enemy shooting or combat much because he should be tucked in the core of your army providing his double smite range aura. If something can force Stern to take a saving throw you're either getting sniped or in the process of being tabled.

And of course as said, he has to take a nemesis force sword and as such is strictly worse at combat than the generic brother-captain who comes standard with a force halberd and can get a daemon hammer.

All he has going for him is his extra cast. It's a shame that all he can use it for, his smite, is strictly inferior to the smite of everything else in the army in almost every situation.

Draigo and Voldus are good and often strictly better than taking generic versions but Stern is not. If you need to save points (eight of them to be precise) but want a brother-captain aura is pretty much his only selling point.

 Stormonu wrote:


Directly, 2E games of 40K against a force-field protected Ghaz (and unkillable) and WHFB (couldn't tell you the edition) invincible heroes. The latter left such an unsavory taste in my mouth, I sold off my WHFB elf army and quit the game. At least through 7E 40K, there's been a slew of 40K character cheese I've observed that reminded me of what I hated about those experiences that I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. I do not like games of Herohammer, and GW's games are poster children for this sort of play.

I remember the days of named character bans, but out of curiosity have you played 8th/9th at all? It's a totally different beast.