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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
"That Mortarion got totally trashed by those eradicators! Oh well, order up a new one at the factory. Overtime for everybody!" - Dark Mechanicus Bob

Yeah to say they're "the same as Leman Russes" is kinda silly tbf. Leman Russes are literally the example of a heavy asset that's wasted in huge numbers for marginal gains. To say "You could say the same about your Russes that you can about Mortarion" is literally the point I am trying to make (because that's such a silly, counterintuitive thing to say).

It's like saying that "You may've blown up Rommel, but I blew up three T-34s!"

I guess we have different view on our armies. My armies are always the same guys, even when they die, when i play them in the next game its still the same army. My dunecrawler isnt a new one being made in my mind, its litterally the same as the one i was playing before.

Yeah, that doesn't make logical sense to me. At the risk of veering off topic, this is why I dislike 9th's Crusade; progression is not the same thing as narrative.

If my Fire Prism explodes and everyone inside of it dies, how the hell does it have a "battle scar" next round? It should just be outright gone... and I've even done this in our Crusade once, paying the RP to delete a fireprism from the list and then re-adding a new fire prism, because the old one exploded in a game. I actively hurt myself to follow the narrative inside GW's narrative system...

I think the reason my have to do with the fact that GW was going for a campaign system that has a better than average chance of making it to Week 3. You know, that point in most stronger get stronger, weaker get weaker half the players drop out because they aren't playing games but bringing punching bags for the players that found initial susccess. Another way of looking at it is why are these game being played at equal points? I am guessing to make a game of it and not an activity. Maybe your campaigns have been different. Mine have almost always ended the same way: First few games played and the campaign is basically decided. The only ones that really want to continue are either the ones winning or the ones that can't get in games anywhere else.

Why did you catch Morty in the part of the battle where it is so under-strength? Is he there to try to hold the line himself? If that's the case maybe, he wasn't killed at all. He just saw the fortune of battle turn against in this part of the field and turned to other areas where his power would be better used. Maybe that second fight you have with Morty is another part of the line only minutes later where again Morty thinks he wants to turn the tide. I think a guard player could literally fight Mortarian in dozens of games before that player could claim they defeated in even a single battle. There are several ways the story can go beyond, "I removed the model. That's means it has been utterly destroyed." Especially with special characters. Most of which use the thing between their ears just a bit more than the average Khorne Berserker. They likely know what a loss cause is and 40k propaganda aside understand retreating maybe the best course of action.

I think we can also consider something like Genestealer Cults. Just by being in open combat means a lot with them. Maybe they were discovered. Maybe they view the opposing player's army as a threat to their plans. Maybe the Hivefleet is very, very close. In almost all cases that particular cult is done. Even if they lose and are forced underground, it is going to be possibly centuries before the Patriarch (new or old) gathers the strength to try another pitched battle. Now I like coming up with little fluff stories for my armies. But even I don't want to have to come up with a new Cult each and every time I play. So the GSC I field is generally the same one. Unless I make them more of an NPC type to better match my opponent's faction such as basically being mutants and count-as beastmen in the Eye of Terror on a planet under the control of the Thousand Sons attempting to rebel/seize power.

***

To answer the OP, I like them. My Black Legion has Abbadon and Haarkeen. I haven't fielded Abbadon, but I did field Haarken who I wanted to wait about 80 days before finally fielding Abbadon. Even my GSC, I don't believe I have fielded the Patriarch. Which by all intents and purposes is of named character importance to Genestealer Cults. Kinda a dinky center piece but it works for kinda a small potatoes faction. I want to keep them special. So I don't make use of them all the time.

But I can't control what my opponent brings. And I don't really want to. If they like those big, scary centerpeice models and want to field them, I'll play the game the best way I know how to deal with them. One in my gaming group absolutely loves his FW Nidzilla list. He loads up with the biggest Tyranid models that probably exist. Like the Carnifex is one of the smaller things he brings. In 8th, it was a horrible, horrible list. I don't suspect it will be much better in 9th. But man does he enjoy playing it. Even myself, a guilty pleasure in all 28-32mm games I play is if they include flyers, I want them in my army. I know they don't fit scale or scope of the game, and they don't work very well any that I have played. I like them all the same. So when the annual, 'don't include super heavies and flyers in 40k' comes around I am super quiet.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
...I think the reason my have to do with the fact that GW was going for a campaign system that has a better than average chance of making it to Week 3...

They're also trying to write a campaign system for a game where 70-90% of the models on the table are dead by the end of every game. If you try to implement permadeath in a 9e campaign nobody would make it to game 2, let alone week 3.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
...I think the reason my have to do with the fact that GW was going for a campaign system that has a better than average chance of making it to Week 3...

They're also trying to write a campaign system for a game where 70-90% of the models on the table are dead by the end of every game. If you try to implement permadeath in a 9e campaign nobody would make it to game 2, let alone week 3.

Good point.

Personally I'm not a big fan of giant centerpiece named characters on the field. On occasion? Sure thing! But seeing the same named character fighting it out, especially when it is a faction leader, makes me immediately thing "wow this war is going badly for them that A) they need to intervene personally or B) the enemy has made it all the way to their base of operations easily".

Then again, I'm of the mind that most faction leaders (barring say Ghaz, who is an Ork who likes crumping things) have better things to do than intervene in small scale battles across the galaxy. Things like coordinating their troops, figuring out the logistics of the war and the overall strategies being employed. Going with people's World War 2 references, it would be less like seeing Patton, Montgomery and Rommel on the front lines, and more like seeing Eisenhower, Churchill, and Roosevelt leading the charge on D-Day while Stalin personally took to the field at Kursk.

I'm also not overly fond of named characters in general, and find it annoying that they tend to get special rules that cannot be obtained elsewhere. It would be far more interesting if generic characters had a variety of options to take and that named characters just happened to be specific builds of said generic.

I feel like Mortarion is more than just a center-piece at 150$ but he is over powered on purpose to get people to buy a whole death-guard army if they want to play something competitive other then space marines

I despise the show piece units that are generally a unique character or thing and yet they show up in every battle somehow. Perhaps it's the way I view the hobby but for me the hobby is about my armies fighting battles and those battles take place in my own little piece of head canon. With the models representing my army, my army isn't going to have a Gaz, Gulliman, Shadowsun, etc because they aren't a part of my army. Even if I use a named character's rules, I try to always make the model unique so that it doesn't feel like my army has a character that doesn't belong. The big stompy units that aren't unique but sorta fit that center piece role are not as bad but generally I avoid the giant units unless it makes sense to have it (a Stompa make sense for an Ork army, a Taunar or Stormsurge feels counter intuitive to Tau military doctrine).

It's also to be said that I generally dislike unique character's and prefer to use generic character units that I have kit bashed together from basic kits to make them one of a kind. Its just much more appealing to see a character model that I kitbashed/cobbled together instead of the same thing that everyone else has.

When it comes to rules, I absolute despise these gods among men type units waddling around the battle field that is essentially a giant target for the limitless amount of overwhelming destructive weapons that can evaporate tanks, let alone some uppity git in power armor. I just prefer the meat and potatoes of infantry being the bulk of a force with vehicles being the supporting elements and characters are there to boost the combat effectiveness of the infantry and/or bring an above average close combat unit (exception being that it's ok for a unit like a Warboss being a dump truck without brakes because a Warboss in the fluff is more than just a rank but a whole different physical form for an Ork compared to a Nob or Boy)

Not gonna quote, but vankraken about got it. ^^

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Most people aren't you and would be entirely unhappy with not being able to play with models they own. This is why death is a rarity in almost every campaign system.

I used the same Fire Prism model, it's not like I ran out and bought a new one. I did rename it though and reset its experience.

Where did I say "the unit died = you cannot ever use that model again"?

Removing a model/unit from the game means its a causality and no longer contributing to the fight, not necessarily dead. In fact, really old editions of 40K had an "after-action" table you would roll on to see what was the actual fate of the model, ranging from just grazed (and back in the next game) through crippled (and possibly getting some neat bionics) to really dead.

There's also plenty of war stories (esp. WW2 tank crews) who'd have their vehicles shot out from under them but the crew would be reassigned - sometimes in the same battle (I seem to recall a sherman tank commander who had 4 such tanks shot out from under him in the same battle. Course, had I been the crew of the 3rd or such vehicle I'd have kicked him out because he was doing obviously something wrong losing those tanks whereas we'd had the sense to keep ours intact so far).

Now, if it was a vehicle that exploded - that's a little more difficult to explain, but with 40K's waffling time scale for turns, the crew may have bailed and gotten clear before the boom. It's just a matter then of waiting for a new vehicle...

And not just older versions of 40k; in Necromunda, (both editions) also rolls for casualties to see what happened to them after they were removed from play; Blackstone did it, Kill Team does it.

Being removed from the battlefield has never meant dead, unless you roll poorly in the post battle sequence.

Is it bad to imagine that you face Mortarion 3 times in a tournament that it is because losing all his wounds doesn't necessarily kill him and he runs to tend his wounds for the next fight? That your fight it all part of some grand campaign by Death Guard on a particular planet?

The setting is pretty vast and flexible. It doesn't take a ton to imagine these scenarios.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Most people aren't you and would be entirely unhappy with not being able to play with models they own. This is why death is a rarity in almost every campaign system.

I used the same Fire Prism model, it's not like I ran out and bought a new one. I did rename it though and reset its experience.

Where did I say "the unit died = you cannot ever use that model again"?

Removing a model/unit from the game means its a causality and no longer contributing to the fight, not necessarily dead. In fact, really old editions of 40K had an "after-action" table you would roll on to see what was the actual fate of the model, ranging from just grazed (and back in the next game) through crippled (and possibly getting some neat bionics) to really dead.

There's also plenty of war stories (esp. WW2 tank crews) who'd have their vehicles shot out from under them but the crew would be reassigned - sometimes in the same battle (I seem to recall a sherman tank commander who had 4 such tanks shot out from under him in the same battle. Course, had I been the crew of the 3rd or such vehicle I'd have kicked him out because he was doing obviously something wrong losing those tanks whereas we'd had the sense to keep ours intact so far).

Now, if it was a vehicle that exploded - that's a little more difficult to explain, but with 40K's waffling time scale for turns, the crew may have bailed and gotten clear before the boom. It's just a matter then of waiting for a new vehicle...

Yeah, I mean it's not like I expect Tank Aces to be demoted. The crew getting away is fine, getting a replacement vehicle is fine - even if it's the same model. No problem.

But Mortarion? Maybe the first fifteen times I kill him he's "just wounded". But what about the eighteenth time I've killed time that edition? Maybe it's the 50th time he's died overall (if the DG player plays weekly). Is he dead yet?

Is there any narrative risk in this game at all to encourage you not to throw your guys (especially the REALLY IMPORTANT ONES) under the bus for giggles?

As far as after-action tables, those are awesome. Most of the other systems I play (including 30k ) have an after-action damage table for hurt units. Even Crusade has that, though there's no real risk of death.

Honestly Mortarion is the worse example you can use to support your opinion since demons are known to just retreat back to the immaterium when the "die".

Take almost any other character as an example and then i can agree that it makes no sense. Ragnar, Daedalosus, Junith, Eldrad, Lelith etc.
Only the chaos characters should have that "immortality" since they can litterally just retreat back to the warp at the last second

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Honestly Mortarion is the worse example you can use to support your opinion since demons are known to just retreat back to the immaterium when the "die".

Take almost any other character as an example and then i can agree that it makes no sense. Ragnar, Daedalosus, Junith, Eldrad, Lelith etc.
Only the chaos characters should have that "immortality" since they can litterally just retreat back to the warp at the last second

I mean those other characters can "retreat" via teleportarium/webway/arcane science/miraculous intervention. You can always fabricate a narrative reason for a character survived - I mean, heck, Star Wars literally used the villain cloned himself a bazillion times archetype previously reserved for fan fiction in a blockbuster movie.

But that's stakeless writing. There's nothing compelling about the defeat of Angron at Armageddon for the loss of 100 Grey Knight Terminators if he just shows up a week later to conquer the planet anyways - or to be driven off by those exact same 100 Grey Knights who all teleportarium'd out at the very moment of death the first time.

Though it would be hilarious to try to actually write a sci-fi universe where death was outright impossible by the laws of reality, that's not how I imagine 40k. I mean we're literally talking about banishing a Daemon Primarch to the Warp by feat of arms as a trivial thing, because he'll just be back and you can just do it again that time too. That's why I don't like these characters in the game. It trivializes them. It makes the background into a joke.

If we're trying to apply realism to the Crusade/Necromunda system of 'you got tabled but 5/6 of your army isn't really dead', I have to point out that the force that has to vacate the battlefield at the end of the engagement typically is not recovering many casualties from the field. Survivors are either taken as POWs by the victors or executed, depending on the conflict.

The Crusade system of two armies fighting each other again and again with roughly the same forces each time is, realistically speaking, nonsense. It's a game. Just roll with it.

But if someone wants to make a Total War style system where you actually are marching armies across a theater and losing them wholesale in combat, I'm all for that and would love to help playtest. It's just not the experience GW was targeting.

I love putting guys like Skarbrand and Skulltaker in my armies, but generally, I play my own guys. Everyone is talking about how good Mortarion is, and while it's great that his rules match his fluff, I think I'll be running my own custom Chaos lord as my warlord.

I despise the show piece units that are generally a unique character or thing and yet they show up in every battle somehow.

This bit feels like internet hyperbole though. We've had multiple people use the "they show up in every battle" line, but at the very least, my own real world experience doesn't bear that out. You've literally seen Mortarion, The Silent King, and Magnus in literally every battle where they're able to be taken? Really?

I haven't even seen them in a majority of games. I've had my own Mortarion since he was released. He's seen the table twice. Like I mentioned earlier, it's been comparatively rare to actually see one. Even in the competitive scene, it was rare to see these pieces "every time". Just curious where that comes from I guess.

I have probably killed Marty & Magnus 30-40 times and it never gets old

Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue. Superheavies used to be Apocalypse only, now they're every game. Used to be a limit on what you can take, now you can take whatever obscene nonsense you like. So now we've got to this point where 40k is a bad joke. The game is a MTG ripf-off, the lore becomes more and more like the Marvel universe and the models are overdesigned and overpriced junk.

In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.

In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.

What have they really become though? Like I said before, a lot of this feels pretty hyperbolic. You mention them being "standard issue", but even in tournaments, I've seen way more games against DG/Tsons, etc WITHOUT Magnus/Morty than I did WITH.

So ... what are we really upset at here? Because most people who have followed the competitive scene will tell you it was way too easy to 1-turn kill those guys (there's a reason GW has had to introduce the "can only take x wounds per phase rule" and not everyone even gets that), and in my own anecdotal experience, they are pretty rare in pickup games too. Plus, when you did see Morty, it was usually in a weird mixed army with a few detachments. You aren't likely to see that anymore since DG armies have to be 100% DG in order for a lot of things to work. You want to ally in some CSM to get Warptime? Ok. But you now give up everything that makes the rest of your army good.

So, again - what are we upset at? Is it the potential to see them too much? Is it the idea that some want there to be more restrictions? Is it fear of facing them in pick up games? What is it, because I just don't buy the "I face them every game" excuse.

If someone dislikes them simply because they dislike them, that's fair game. Don't care for the look, don't like concept, wish named characters would remain in the fluff - that's all fair game. I just don't buy a lot of the other reasons I'm seeing here I guess.

 Banzaimash wrote:
Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue. Superheavies used to be Apocalypse only, now they're every game. Used to be a limit on what you can take, now you can take whatever obscene nonsense you like. So now we've got to this point where 40k is a bad joke. The game is a MTG ripf-off, the lore becomes more and more like the Marvel universe and the models are overdesigned and overpriced junk.

In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.

damn, maybe you should take a break, thats a lot of vitriol towards a miniatures game.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue. Superheavies used to be Apocalypse only, now they're every game. Used to be a limit on what you can take, now you can take whatever obscene nonsense you like. So now we've got to this point where 40k is a bad joke. The game is a MTG ripf-off, the lore becomes more and more like the Marvel universe and the models are overdesigned and overpriced junk.

In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.

damn, maybe you should take a break, thats a lot of vitriol towards a miniatures game.

It's an expensive and time-consuming hobby, so I would be lying if I said it wasn't valued part of my life, and that I am deeply disappointed with how it's turning out. This is just my genuine feeling. At least I'm not trying to trivialise others' concerns and imply they have no life. If some are happy rolling over without a squeek that's fine, if they actually like how things are going that's fine, but it's just not me, so while there's a 40k discussion going on, I'll discuss what I feel about 40k. Peace.

 Banzaimash wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue. Superheavies used to be Apocalypse only, now they're every game. Used to be a limit on what you can take, now you can take whatever obscene nonsense you like. So now we've got to this point where 40k is a bad joke. The game is a MTG ripf-off, the lore becomes more and more like the Marvel universe and the models are overdesigned and overpriced junk.

In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.

damn, maybe you should take a break, thats a lot of vitriol towards a miniatures game.

It's an expensive and time-consuming hobby, so I would be lying if I said it wasn't valued part of my life, and that I am deeply disappointed with how it's turning out. This is just my genuine feeling. At least I'm not trying to trivialise others' concerns and imply they have no life. If some are happy rolling over without a squeek that's fine, if they actually like how things are going that's fine, but it's just not me, so while there's a 40k discussion going on, I'll discuss what I feel about 40k. Peace.

Yeah sure, discussion is fine, just don't start slinging gak at other players for liking something you might not like. Its all subjective. Just because i like Maggy/Morty/etc doesnt mean im "greedy" and "less imaginative" and "focused on eating what GW is cooking".

Your whole original comment attacks the players instead of GW.

 Banzaimash wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue. Superheavies used to be Apocalypse only, now they're every game. Used to be a limit on what you can take, now you can take whatever obscene nonsense you like. So now we've got to this point where 40k is a bad joke. The game is a MTG ripf-off, the lore becomes more and more like the Marvel universe and the models are overdesigned and overpriced junk.

In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.

damn, maybe you should take a break, thats a lot of vitriol towards a miniatures game.

It's an expensive and time-consuming hobby, so I would be lying if I said it wasn't valued part of my life, and that I am deeply disappointed with how it's turning out. This is just my genuine feeling. At least I'm not trying to trivialise others' concerns and imply they have no life. If some are happy rolling over without a squeek that's fine, if they actually like how things are going that's fine, but it's just not me, so while there's a 40k discussion going on, I'll discuss what I feel about 40k. Peace.

I'm still curious to hear, more specifically, what it is you don't like. During most of 8th edition, I was in a job where I had to do tons of travel all over the U.S. Stopped in on many a game night. Saw Mortarion/Morty, etc etc precious few times. When you look at tourney data, it's kind of similar. You see them being taken frequently (I should add that I've never seen either taken frequently in pick-up or casual games), and then not at all. Ghaz ... Fhaz is actually dissapointing. The C'tan shards? Not only did their fluff get changed so that they aren't "unique single characters" anymore, but they were also pretty bad for a long time. Nightbringer is finally good, but he needs to be given he's going to be darn near 1/4 the cost of your army.

So many people are going on like that's all you see now and I just don't get it, so what is it specifically? If you don't like the inclusion at all, fair enough. If you prefer a focus on non-named characters so that players can "tell their own stories", I get that too, but your posts make it seem like it's just all Supreme Command characters all the time, and I'm just not seeing that.

They definitely make 40K game system worse over all by having them as playable options.

They definitely make 40K game system worse over all by having them as playable options.

How though? Specifically?

Because I don't really think I agree, but I'm open to being wrong here. They certainly can pose potential issues, but they really haven't unbalanced the game more than things like Screamer star in 7th, or similar "problem" units that are not named characters.

And I like the fact that they are available as options. I loved painting Mortarion for example. Mine has only seen two games in all the time I've had him, but they were fun games (for everyone involved) I would add.

Again - if a person just doesn't like them fair enough. But these "They definitely xyz" type statements don't make sense to me. What am I missing?

Tycho wrote:
What am I missing?

Honestly? Probably what people were expecting when they started playing.

When I got in in WH40K was relatively small firefights that were slightly larger than a skirmish. That's evolved over the years into mini-appocalypse games. Nothing wrong with evolution, I'm happy to play along but one key element missing from earlier editions was Primarchs and the Chaos Primarchs. They were literally missing. WH40K wasn't necessarily a large name unit game, it was squads of relatively interchangeable troops slugging it out.

Now I don't think any of the "Primarchs" are horribly imbalanced in terms of game play I do find them out of kilter with the thematics of the game.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Your whole original comment attacks the players instead of GW.

But the players immediately shelling out for whatever the next flashing thing is SHOULD be attacked as it is what facilitated the current climate of 3 year total rollover that we're experiencing now. Anyone who isn't buying along when this sort of thing happens is getting outvoted by the people who are, and their opinion shouldn't be silenced just because there is a plurality of players who DO immediately shell out for the next flashing thing.

The reason you didn't see them very much was because they weren't very good before.
But Girlyman was turning up in most Smurf lists I saw.
Most people are attracted to the best options, even if they don't go all out on super cheese lists.

Girlyman had a huge advantage compared to models like Mortarion. He's easier to assemble and paint, while cheaper in points and money.

He's actually pretty easy to field and even people who dislike massive models can accept using him because he's basically sized as a dread, not a knight or a titan. Same with Ghazghkull.

I don't see Girlyman as any different though. He's a Primarch all the same.
Reasons for him being more common are just that. They don't excuse the fact that he's a tough centrepiece model who's a unique character.
From a fluff perspective one could argue that Girlyman leading a small platoon in a minor skirmish makes significantly less sense than a Daemon Primarch going out to have some fun on a whim.