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 vaguely remember in the last years of 'Ard Boyz, named characters weren't allowed in tournament play.

Or maybe it was just me trying to prove that you could dominate without the use or a named character?

Either way... has anyone seen this as a thing at their local store tournaments? Character-hammer was all too real in some low point games I've played. I mean... I get it... named characters have their appeal for making an army dominate. But it just never makes sense for a Chapter Master, Commander Pask, or The Swarmlord to be leading a patrol detachment... Or some greater named demon or godly Space Marine (of whatever flavor) swooping through a battlefield of 1500 points.

Now, I'm not intending to complain about it. I just like the thought of bringing the world back into harmony by saving those big special dudes for a more appropriate time.

I have seen it as a thing in some tournaments.

It's not a rule that makes sense to me, since there's no balancing logic behind it (and in fact, it puts some armies at a strong advantage or disadvantage).

It's a prettty big red flag for me, and almost guarantees I pass on that event.


EDIT: As to specifics, we have two organizers who occasionally use it. One of them came up in the scene when before 3rd, and claims this was a common rule back then, so he likes it for nostalgia value. The other liked to do it in 5th and 6th, but he was deliberately rigging the field to hamstring a couple of players he didn't like.

My local hobby shop doesn't give prizes depending on how you place in the tournaments. Winning is more for bragging rights. Which is nice, because it keeps the try-hards away and keeps the tournament more about the fun of the game. This is probably why I'm not upset about playing against characters, but slightly annoyed and snarky. "Oh neat, you need that guy."

I dunno... maybe it's just my ego talking here, without intending to be arrogant. But, I just have so much more respect playing against people create balanced armies without characters. The nostalgia of having to compete without a special unit just feeds my love for tactics in this game.

This was certainly a thing way back in 2nd edition, maybe 3rd too. I haven't seen it recently. And yeah it throws off a lot of balance.

What balance? Hard to throw off something that never has existed in thew first place

Disallowing named characters would make strong armies stronger and weak armies weaker mostly. Take Dark Angels for example. They simply can't do well in tournaments without access to Azrael or Sammael (or both). Heck, they don't do that well in tournaments even with those guys, so they really don't need a nerf. Now, Craftworld Eldar on the other hand are already strong and don't even need their unique characters. And that's just one example.

And no named characters means no Ynnari, but of course that might not be such a bad thing...

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Take Dark Angels for example. They simply can't do well in tournaments without access to Azrael or Sammael (or both). Heck, they don't do that well in tournaments even with those guys, so they really don't need a nerf.

That statement just isn't true. Independent Space Marine chapters get some outstanding special units (without being characters). The chapters themselves also get all the other independent things that make them unique and I'd argue keeping them competitive.

People tend to be stuck on the average, "well rounded", aspect of the Space Marines. The truth is, Space Marines can be difficult to be competitive with just because of their multitude of average options. That's often a curse and if you play them with true tactics, it takes skill to be ready for anything. That's why you see inexperienced or less skilled Space Marine players going to spam lists and characters.

I'm not really sure I understand your point.
You think named characters are overall more powerful, and adding them somehow reduces the tactical aspects of a game?
Or are you saying that some of them are too good in small games, and create skew lists?

Out of the top units at the moment, very few are named characters. Some combos require named characters (like Yvraine for the infamous Ynnari tricks, although it's also because there are no non-named Ynnari characters), but not that many.
They're actually more balanced conceptually, since they come with a 1 per army restriction. If a named character is a bit too powerful, at least it can't be spammed.

 Cake Farts wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Take Dark Angels for example. They simply can't do well in tournaments without access to Azrael or Sammael (or both). Heck, they don't do that well in tournaments even with those guys, so they really don't need a nerf.

That statement just isn't true. Independent Space Marine chapters get some outstanding special units (without being characters). The chapters themselves also get all the other independent things that make them unique and I'd argue keeping them competitive.

People tend to be stuck on the average, "well rounded", aspect of the Space Marines. The truth is, Space Marines can be difficult to be competitive with just because of their multitude of average options. That's often a curse and if you play them with true tactics, it takes skill to be ready for anything. That's why you see inexperienced or less skilled Space Marine players going to spam lists and characters.

This isn't third edition anymore and that definitely isn't true about the current state of space marines.

 Kommisar wrote:
This isn't third edition anymore and that definitely isn't true about the current state of space marines.

I never said it was third edition and only briefly reflected on it.

Again, this thread isn't a complaint about named characters. I think it's more of a reflection on where I see the game going in teaching new players how to be tactical with the bare minimum. Never mind the whole, "GW is looking to sell models" (because, no gak). In fact, I love the character models. I love painting them, I love their lore, heck... I even enjoy playing them.

However, in a tournament setting or extremely low point games, I'm admittedly, a little disappointed when I see someone utilizing them. I think this is entirely relevant for inexperienced players, learning to be successful in a tournament setting. The only time I see experienced players bringing out named characters, is for the gaks and giggles. Experienced players don't need characters for a leading edge.

Show me a successful thousand sons army without ahriman or Magnus. Or a successful ultramarine army without G man.

 axisofentropy wrote:
Show me a successful thousand sons army without ahriman or Magnus. Or a successful ultramarine army without G man.

I've seen plenty of them. How does that comment even come close to contributing to the conversation?

You still haven't explained why you think using named characters makes the game less tactical.
How are named characters different than any other unit in that regard?

fresus wrote:
You still haven't explained why you think using named characters makes the game less tactical.
How are named characters different than any other unit in that regard?

I haven't explained it, because it's a guiding question. If characters weren't any different from taking something else for the same points, you wouldn't be asking this rhetorical question. Named characters give significant advantages. That's why people jump to using them in a tournament setting or think their use is a meta that can't be broken. If it weren't the case, players would take those 200-400+ points paid for a Guilliman like unit and spend them on 2-3 other units that depend more on the chance of the dice and tactics. Ah... but there's the point of taking a unit like that... the odds are more in your favor, having one big guy that can do the job more reliably. Thus, forcing your local gaming group to build their armies around defeating your "that guy" army (or even better, just not playing against you).

The point is, you're only going to get better at the game if you try to break the meta.

There was a point in time where the named characters were in it's own section at the end, and playtests have shown that their point cost or their abilities/capabilities were not balanced at all for some, and for some, the rules were just provided for fluffs sake only (and overcosted for what they actually do) - in other words, not all named characters were made equal.

Having said, I wouldn't mind LOW, including LOW class named characters, to be excluded from semi-competitive/competitive scenes (along with soups). These should be confined to narrative & open play only.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cake Farts wrote:
However, in a tournament setting or extremely low point games, I'm admittedly, a little disappointed when I see someone utilizing them. I think this is entirely relevant for inexperienced players, learning to be successful in a tournament setting. The only time I see experienced players bringing out named characters, is for the gaks and giggles. Experienced players don't need characters for a leading edge.

On a similar sentiment, the pre-official kill team rules used to have a cap of how much points you can spend on a single unit (usually 100pts) in a 500~600 pt games. It does get pretty silly if the said character is a one man army, but if it is a force multiplier, the character doesn't get much done at lower point games.

I mean characters for certain races go from "This is the worst model existence to I give everyone +1 strength and everything dies."

fresus wrote:
You still haven't explained why you think using named characters makes the game less tactical.
How are named characters different than any other unit in that regard?

Well there's one obvious difference. They don't scale well. The effect SC is going to have in a game is going to change depending on point level. Which way also depends on SC. Pask in 1000 pts is awesome. In 2k he's basically just bullet magnet so you pay for ability to direct some firepower from enemy in T1 to known target. Guillimann meanwhile actually goes up in usefullness as the points go up. He's more powerful the more stuff he can buff=he's better at 2k than at 1k.

That's the effect when you have 0-1 units.

 Cake Farts wrote:
If characters weren't any different from taking something else for the same points, you wouldn't be asking this rhetorical question.

The question has nothing to do with characters in 8th, it's entirely a relic of ancient versions of the rules where named characters required special permission from your opponent. Some people are still stuck in the past and think that, because it used to work that way 20 years ago, there must be something special about named characters and it's reasonable to ask about rules for using them. If those ancient rules hadn't existed then nobody would independently come up with the idea in 2019.

And yes, people take good named characters in tournament armies. They also take good non-unique units (like Castellans or the loyal 32 or whatever) in tournament armies. And, just like people ignore the trash-tier non-unique units and don't take them in tournament armies, there are countless named characters that suck and never appear in tournaments. The presence of Guilliman is a result of an individual unit being overpowered, not a general principle about unique characters being "less tactical" or whatever.

Cake Farts wrote:

fresus wrote:
You still haven't explained why you think using named characters makes the game less tactical.
How are named characters different than any other unit in that regard?

I haven't explained it, because it's a guiding question. If characters weren't any different from taking something else for the same points, you wouldn't be asking this rhetorical question. Named characters give significant advantages. That's why people jump to using them in a tournament setting or think their use is a meta that can't be broken. If it weren't the case, players would take those 200-400+ points paid for a Guilliman like unit and spend them on 2-3 other units that depend more on the chance of the dice and tactics. Ah... but there's the point of taking a unit like that... the odds are more in your favor, having one big guy that can do the job more reliably. Thus, forcing your local gaming group to build their armies around defeating your "that guy" army (or even better, just not playing against you).

The point is, you're only going to get better at the game if you try to break the meta.

Named characters, as a whole, don't give a significant advantage. No one is jumping to use a phoenix lord instead of shining spears.
Some named characters are quite powerful, no one is arguing that, but they're really not when taken as a whole group.
It's like saying taking heavy support gives an edge, because everyone is taking Dark Reapers instead of Scorpions.

tneva82 wrote:

fresus wrote:
You still haven't explained why you think using named characters makes the game less tactical.
How are named characters different than any other unit in that regard?

Well there's one obvious difference. They don't scale well. The effect SC is going to have in a game is going to change depending on point level. Which way also depends on SC. Pask in 1000 pts is awesome. In 2k he's basically just bullet magnet so you pay for ability to direct some firepower from enemy in T1 to known target. Guillimann meanwhile actually goes up in usefullness as the points go up. He's more powerful the more stuff he can buff=he's better at 2k than at 1k.

That's the effect when you have 0-1 units.

I agree they don't scale well. My first reply in this thread was actually asking the OP if that's what he meant.
It's mostly that if they're a bit too good for their points, then this imbalance will be a lot more obvious at low point games, since you can dedicate a larger portion of your army to this unit.