Herohammer 40K, your thoughts...

[MajorSoB]

I just got of the phone with one of my friends. We were discussing the recent tournament that we ran and ways of improving. The topic of special characters came up and we both seemed to share a similar opinion. While I like the flavor that they add to an army I think they are becoming way to commonplace and overused. I confessed that now when I go to a tourney I will bring two lists, the fair and balanced list and the character heavy beatstick. While I prefer the fluffy list, if I see Vulkan and 4 or his clones along with Kharne, Telion, Kantor, Maugan Ra, Gazgull and Eldred littering the tables I am prepared to turn in the hard list for that days gaming session. I do like what some of the characters add the army but now it seems armies are deteriorating into life support for its special characters. I cant wait to see how many Njal Stormcallers or Logan Grimnars will suddenly spring into existence. I mean I like the game but it seems that characters have now been pushing their way to the forefront right past the basic troops and other units. Is this just my opinion or does anyone else see it like this? What are your thoughts?

[Chumbalaya]

I like that characters are actually viable now, they sucked something fierce in earlier editions. I just wish that you didn't have to bring the same character to unlock certain builds. I'd like to play Salamanders without Vulkan, Deathwing without Belial and so on.

I think enough other HQs offer something that SCs don't, even if it's just being cheaper. Eldrad is neat, but you don't always need every power or maybe you just want a Jetseer. Ghazgkhull is a tank, but I can get by with a regular boss for half the cost or just bring a Biker Boss. Njal is cool, but he requires an army built around him while you can throw a Rune Priest in any army for half the cost. But, with characters like Sammael and Vulkan, I have no alternative. If I want scoring Termies/Bikes, Logan/Belial/Sammael have to be there. If I want Sallies instead of green ultrasmurfs, I need Vulkan.

I wouldn't call it HeroHammer though, they don't really dominate to the point of unbalance. Vulkan is a beat stick, but you don't bring him because he is an army destroyer; his chapter tactics are worth so much more than a master crafted relic blade. I prefer them as another piece of the puzzle, a force multiplier, than just another bruiser. Capable, but mortal.

[AsgeirArnald]

I love SC's for their fluffiness, but in my experience (I've only played Chaos Marines, can't comment on other armies.) the other HQ choices (Lord, Sorcerer, Demon Prince) outperform the named characters by far, especially when you take into account cost versus effectiveness. In my World Eaters army I'd much rather take a Lord with MoK and a Daemon Weapon, with the potential for 17 attacks on the charge, who might stab himself in the foot for 140 points, instead of Kharn with his 5 attacks and potential to stab his buddies in the back for 165 points.

[memnarch_129]

you cant get 17 attacks on the charge Asgeir. The most you can get is 10 same as any stat. 3rd non bold paragraph on pg 6 of the rule book says that "no modifier may raise any characteristic above 10 or lower it below 0".

[BigMac]

MajorSoB you have called it. HeroHammer is here and it is not going away untill 6th ed 40K arrives. I play IG and I never played named characters till the last tourny here in Fort Myers. I played Pask. After the tourny I felt dirty and like a cheat. I can not remember the last SM, IG, or CSM player that I played that did not play with named characters. Heck most are playing with 2! The argument is from SM players is that the named characters are just too cheap in points not to bring. Add in Codex creep and we are in for a long Hero nightmare. I will never play a named character again and that means retiring my Vanquisher. GW had better watchout or it will ruin 40K like it did Fantasy and see the sales come tumbling down. In tournaments I will give a better score to a cheat before a named character player now. Thats how abused the characters have become!

BigMac

[MajorSoB]

Good points lets keep the ball rolling...

@ Chumby: I agree especially with Vulkan, but the reason I think you see him has nothing to do with his fighting prowess but he special ability to twin link flamers and melta weapons. It does get kinda annoying that everyone uses him for this ability. I too understand the other non named HQ do their job but specials now are so cheap its cost prohibitive not to use them. Tell me the last time you saw an autarch played or a generic space marine captain, its just too damn easy to play the other ones for a few points more.

@AA: Being a Chaos player as well I too recognize that chaos is the exception. Most specials there lack Eternal Warrior, and most were toned down from their previous incarnations. The only exception is Abaddon who seems to be priced about right within that codex (not in comparison to other characters elsewhere). Chaos is the one codex where a generic HQ usually outperforms the named ones.

I guess I was reading through the Wolf codex and I was shocked at what some of the characters that I named will now do. I do think Njal Stormcaller is awesome since his powers get progressively stronger each turn. I can project just how hard it would get facing him turn 4, 5 or 6 with most of your army gone. Like Grimnar he is a steal at what he adds to your army for a few measly points.

[The AKH]

@memnarch: IIRC a Khorne Lord with a Bloodfeeder gets 5+2D6 attacks.

With regard to special characters, I don't think the game has become too centred on them quite yet. Most are still fairly pricey, and you are still only a lucky lascannon away from disaster (although the increasing number of Eternal Warriors mitigates this). Sure, often I will build a list around my HQ/characters... but there's a certain charm to playing the game that way, as an army led into battle by a glorious, conquering hero. If I don't feel like playing that way on any given day, I'll drop 110 points on a generic HQ and bring on masses of infantry instead. I don't think the game has swayed so far in favour of SCs yet that you simply cannot play without them - although I can see how it's trending towards that in more competitive circles.

[AsgeirArnald]

The only exception is Abaddon who seems to be priced about right within that codex (not in comparison to other characters elsewhere).

I totally agree about Abbadon. I've used him a few times and for what he does, he's definitely priced right around where he should be. My only problem with him is that as good as he is, I can't justify 275 points that could be used on a lot of other stuff unless its at least a 2000 point game, maybe even 2500. And the majority of the games I play are between 1250 and 1750.

[jcflanker]

I just got of the phone with one of my friends. We were discussing the recent tournament that we ran and ways of improving. The topic of special characters came up and we both seemed to share a similar opinion. While I like the flavor that they add to an army I think they are becoming way to commonplace and overused. I confessed that now when I go to a tourney I will bring two lists, the fair and balanced list and the character heavy beatstick. While I prefer the fluffy list, if I see Vulkan and 4 or his clones along with Kharne, Telion, Kantor, Maugan Ra, Gazgull and Eldred littering the tables I am prepared to turn in the hard list for that days gaming session. I do like what some of the characters add the army but now it seems armies are deteriorating into life support for its special characters. I cant wait to see how many Njal Stormcallers or Logan Grimnars will suddenly spring into existence. I mean I like the game but it seems that characters have now been pushing their way to the forefront right past the basic troops and other units. Is this just my opinion or does anyone else see it like this? What are your thoughts?

SOB, if you are running the tournaments your answer is simple. Do not allow any named special characters in the tournament.

I always made fun lists up for tournaments, lists that were balanced and not cheesy. Recently I realized that the only way to deal with all the cheddar and power gaming armies at tournaments is make such a list for myself and fight fire with fire. If you want to do well in tournaments you have to level the playing field.

[sketchesofpayne]

I want more special characters! They add the narrative aspect to the game. They make a difference. This isn't chess where you bring a 'King', you bring 'Archlord Scrambles the Death Dealer!'

I'm sure GW would have made up a "Build your own HQ" system by now if they could stop the min/max-ers from raping it. That's why the traits system is gone, you could take drawbacks that were irrelevant to your army build. Now the drawback is 'lose combat tactics', which hurts more often than you think it would.

I also like that my opponent doesn't have to name of the traits and drawbacks they chose and can just say "I brought Shrike as my commander" and I know exactly what he confers on the army.

I'd much rather say my opponent is fielding "Vulkan He'stan" than "Lash-prince" or "Bike-Captain" or some other build jargon.

[DarkLink]

you cant get 17 attacks on the charge Asgeir. The most you can get is 10 same as any stat. 3rd non bold paragraph on pg 6 of the rule book says that "no modifier may raise any characteristic above 10 or lower it below 0".

GW says your wrong :p
Chaos FAQ: "Models armed with a bloodfeeder can exceed 10 attacks. Is this allowed?
A: Yes, as they are bonus attacks that only apply in that combat turn, and do not permenately modify the model's attack characteristic."
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1610178_Chaos_Space_Marines_FAQ_2008-05_Edition.pdf





I agree with Chumabalaya. I like special characters, they just need to stop making the characters effect the list layout.


Oh, and Kharne gets 6 attacks (he has a plasma pistol). That's 7 on the charge. Between the fact that he hits on 2's and wounds on 2's (on the charge), and that he doesn't have an 11/36 chance of taking an auto wound AND doing absolutely nothing that round of combat, I'd pick him over a lord with bloodfeeder.

Bloodfeeder's average number of attacks is 11 (on the charge). 3's to hit, 4's to wound means he'll put 3.666 wounds on a MEQ squad on the charge.

Kharne gets 7 attacks on the charge, hitting on 2's, wounding on 2's. That's 4.86111 wounds on a MEQ squad, on the charge. He will also, statistically, cause .97 wounds on a friendly model.

If the Bloodfeeder lord even does anything at all, he has to roll very well in order to beat out Kharne. Just don't keep friendly units close to Kharne, and you're ok.
Oh, and Kharne gets 2d6 armor penetration. Bloodfeeder doesn't. Kharne laughs at Dreadnoughts, Bloodfeeder lords cry.

[MajorSoB]

SOB, if you are running the tournaments your answer is simple. Do not allow any named special characters in the tournament.

I always made fun lists up for tournaments, lists that were balanced and not cheesy. Recently I realized that the only way to deal with all the cheddar and power gaming armies at tournaments is make such a list for myself and fight fire with fire. If you want to do well in tournaments you have to level the playing field.

Honestly that is an interesting idea that I was thinking of, but the problem is that some characters are vital to certain builds like Deathwing etc. So this sets up a dilemma, do you disallow all special characters or just the ones that are deemed non essential to special builds? I dont want to set up a banned list like our card flopping friends who play Magic have but what is the solution?

[sketchesofpayne]

Go all or nothing. Special Characters or None, as far as tournaments are concerned. Sure you won't be able to field Death/Raven Wing, but that's the price you pay.

[AsgeirArnald]

Oh, and Kharne gets 6 attacks (he has a plasma pistol). That's 7 on the charge. Between the fact that he hits on 2's and wounds on 2's (on the charge), and that he doesn't have an 11/36 chance of taking an auto wound AND doing absolutely nothing that round of combat, I'd pick him over a lord with bloodfeeder.

Bloodfeeder's average number of attacks is 11 (on the charge). 3's to hit, 4's to wound means he'll put 3.666 wounds on a MEQ squad on the charge.

Kharne gets 7 attacks on the charge, hitting on 2's, wounding on 2's. That's 4.86111 wounds on a MEQ squad, on the charge. He will also, statistically, cause .97 wounds on a friendly model.

If the Bloodfeeder lord even does anything at all, he has to roll very well in order to beat out Kharne. Just don't keep friendly units close to Kharne, and you're ok.
Oh, and Kharne gets 2d6 armor penetration. Bloodfeeder doesn't. Kharne laughs at Dreadnoughts, Bloodfeeder lords cry.

Forgot about his pistol. :D

All excellent points. But in my area, I rarely play against MEQ. And when I say rarely, I mean 2 games in my entire 7 months of playing 40k. I most commonly find myself up against orks and tau, mostly orks, and my bloodfeeder lord with his squad of berserkers destroy orks on a regular basis. That's why I prefer him, I can keep him with a squad and not worry about it. I do still enjoy playing Kharn, and I will concede that as a whole, since MEQ is incredibly common most places, he would be a better choice. And he's hilarious!

[MajorSoB]

OK to keep this moving how about this...

In Europe they had a 16 country 40K team tourney. See the link:

http://www.wh-etc.com/en/wh40k/teams

In their rules the banned the following characters:

Special/Individual Characters are allowed with an exception for:
-Ghazghkull Thraka
-Eldrad Ulthran
-Forgefather Vulkan He'stan
-Shadow Captain Kayvaan Shrike
-Kor'sarro Khan
-Fateweaver, Oracle of Tzeentch
-The Masque
which are banned.(The council took the new IG codex into account for voting the ban list) .

What do you think of their list, is it inclusive enough? Is it not needed? Should we ban 'em all? Discuss please!

[deadmanwade]

So the Ultramarine characters, Pedro and Lysander were ok, but Shrike and Khan weren't?
Neither of them are game breakingly powerful. Pedro's Sternguard = Scoring ability is way more powerful than some fleeting marines.

[AsgeirArnald]

I think they should ban all SC's or none at all.

"I'm taking Abbadon, but you can't take Ghazzy! Hahahaha!!

Although Abbadon doesn't confer special rules to the whole army like the fellows on that list do. I guess that was probably their reasoning. Still doesn't make much sense to me.

[Rapture]

I really dislike special characters. I don't want to play against the same HQ all the time.

Besides, when you see someone playing with Vulkan you know they are only doing it to get the twin-linked special rule. To me it feels almost like they just want to squeeze out any advantage that they can get.

[Chumbalaya]

I am firmly against banning anything. Nothing is so powerful to warrant it and it honestly sounds like sour grapes. These guys aren't unkillable and often extremely expensive. I play DW too, so that may influence my opinion :P

There are alternatives to fielding SCs, it's not like they're the only thing you can field.
Space Marines: You want to keep combat tactics, arguably the best rule they have currently, Librarians are cheap and extremely effective, Chappies somewhat less but still useful, Biker Captains make Bikes Troops.
Chaos: Abby costs as much as a Land Raider, is he really worth it? DPs are better anyway.
Eldar: Jetseer, cheapo Autarch for reserve benefits, cheapo Seer to save points
IG: More tanks and bodies!
Orks: Pay half the points, Nobs are still Troops, but you get a good chunk more points to work with. If you mech up, losing out on 6" Waagh isn't so terrible. KFF Mek ftw.

I feel the worst for Salamanders players. They want to enjoy their formerly obscure army but bringing Vulkan automatically labels you a super cheesy powergamer from hell. Vulkan combines well to make a solid army and he's extremely fluffy for a Sallies build, how dare people field a good army :P

[sketchesofpayne]

It seems like in that tournament they banned the most popular, not the most powerful.

[eagleboy7259]

The special characters are fine, they just aren't evenly spread out in usefulness across the races. You usually can't step into a tournament without seeing at least one SM player using a special special character. When was the last time you saw Tau or Chaos bring an SC? Still the worst abuser of all has to be the Blood Angels. They basically can't make a competitive list without seeing Corbulo, Dante, or Lemartes... and I am so sick of that "circle of win"

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I just got of the phone with one of my friends. We were discussing the recent tournament that we ran and ways of improving. The topic of special characters came up and we both seemed to share a similar opinion. While I like the flavor that they add to an army I think they are becoming way to commonplace and overused. I confessed that now when I go to a tourney I will bring two lists, the fair and balanced list and the character heavy beatstick. While I prefer the fluffy list, if I see Vulkan and 4 or his clones along with Kharne, Telion, Kantor, Maugan Ra, Gazgull and Eldred littering the tables I am prepared to turn in the hard list for that days gaming session. I do like what some of the characters add the army but now it seems armies are deteriorating into life support for its special characters. I cant wait to see how many Njal Stormcallers or Logan Grimnars will suddenly spring into existence. I mean I like the game but it seems that characters have now been pushing their way to the forefront right past the basic troops and other units. Is this just my opinion or does anyone else see it like this? What are your thoughts? This is not really an issue, and it's all in people's heads.

If Telion was renamed "Scout Sergeant Instructor" and did the same thing no one would be even thinking of his as an issue. Just because the guy has a name is irrelevant, really. The rules they bring to the game help add a lot of fun unique flavor to every list and personally I love that each codex can be wildly different depending on who leads it -- it is one of the only ways to accurate represent armies like the Space Marines or Chaos Legions, those armies that have many different variations. Plus...we all love these characters. I think its good for the game for certain models to be more than just a statline.

[MajorSoB]

...and there lies the issue. Personally I like special characters and use them sometimes, but that is the key word, sometimes!

Now I don't have an issue playing Salamanders with Vulkan, is fair and fluffy, just dont start adding Tigurius or Telion and expect it to be regarded in the same light.

How do you discourage broken combos like Eldred and Maugan Ra, or better yet Shrike and Calgar ( yep thats correct fleeting Marneus FTW!). I understand why special characters are taken or not taken ( who would ever consider Aun'va? ) but how do you encourage a more focused approach on the rest of the codex minus the specials? Like Eagleboy said I get a little sick of seeing the same "circle of win" what has to be done to encourage a little diversity? If not a ban ( which I dont really like either ) then what would you suggest?

[murrburger]

I'm against the banning of special characters. In fact, I encourage their use.

The main argument seems to be that they take away uniqueness and to play X-army, you need X-special character.

Special characters actually make an army more unique. Taking Khan doesn't mean you're taking a White Scars army (It can, of course), it means that your army is going for a particular style of combat. The same goes for everyone else that replaces Chapter Tactics.

On the flip side of things, there is no rule saying that you need Vulkan to play Salamanders. You don't need every melta and flamer twin-linked in order for you to use a 'Salmanders' army. Why not just take a captain instead? What about using a little imagination? Your flamers and meltas could be 'better' for fluff purposes, but not better so much that they change in game.

On the Dark Angels, I don't have anything to argue. We're pretty much screwed no matter what we do. ;)

[MajorSoB]

This is not really an issue, and it's all in people's heads.

If Telion was renamed "Scout Sergeant Instructor" and did the same thing no one would be even thinking of his as an issue. Just because the guy has a name is irrelevant, really. The rules they bring to the game help add a lot of fun unique flavor to every list and personally I love that each codex can be wildly different depending on who leads it -- it is one of the only ways to accurate represent armies like the Space Marines or Chaos Legions, those armies that have many different variations. Plus...we all love these characters. I think its good for the game for certain models to be more than just a statline.

I guess my focus isnt the average play for fun weekend game because in that situation I would encourage a bring what you want atmosphere, much like an Apocalypse game I could care less what the outcome is as long as its fun getting there. I think I am more focused on the tournament aspect where specials tend to tip the scales a bit and not in a good way. Does this change your opinion?

[murrburger]

...and there lies the issue. Personally I like special characters and use them sometimes, but that is the key word, sometimes!

How do you discourage broken combos like Eldred and Maugan Ra, or better yet Shrike and Calgar ( yep thats correct fleeting Marneus FTW!). I understand why special characters are taken or not taken ( who would ever consider Aun'va? ) but how do you encourage a more focused approach on the rest of the codex minus the specials? Like Eagleboy said I get a little sick of seeing the same "circle of win" what has to be done to encourage a little diversity? If not a ban ( which I dont really like either ) then what would you suggest?

Eldrad and Maugan Ra are not broken. Eldrad is seen everywhere, but taking him pretty much disallows the jetbike council. Maugan Ra is too expensive and doesn't have an invulnerable save. This has some bias, (as I play Eldar) but give the them a break. Barely anything they do these days can be considered broken. The Jetcouncil is the only thing that comes close in my mind.

Shrike and Calgar? Are you serious? And with Fleet replacing Combat Tactics? Is that so dominant where you are that it's a problem? I would have thought you'd be more concerned with the Vulkan/Pedro Dream Team.

And on the aura of win... really, Blood Angels are terrible without it. Their army is seriously underpowered, and they need that to even function effectively.

[MajorSoB]

Well you are right and wrong both in the same sentence. and since you are not creative enough to understand how these combos are broken let me explain.

Eldred and Maugun Ra in and of themselves are perfectly fine. You would probably expect an army with both these characters to feature a Ulthwe theme and a unit or two of Reapers right? How about an army consisting of a huge Wraithguard squad with both special characters attached followed with 3 Wraithlords? Is it broken or just a better build than you thought of? Is it fluffy? I know its good!

Shrike and Calgar, yes not quite as popular as Kantor and Vulkan but quite affective. Using the fleet from Shrike everyone now fleets including Calgar, add in a few squads of termies with TH and LC and you got yourself a party. Why would you bother taking jump pack marines, even though its fluffy for a Raven Guard army?

I agree Blood Angels is underpowered ( for now...) but when was the last time you played a BA list that didnt feature several special characters that accounted for the majority of their kills?

Again the whole point in this discussion isnt for me to sit here and clue you in on all the power builds that special characters open up but to ask if there is some way to restrain the overuse in tournament play without resorting to banning. If the consensus is they are fine like they are I can accept that, after all my opinion is just that and by no means gospel. I am interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this topic and that is why I posted it.

[Lerra]

There are a lot of options between allowing or disallowing all special characters.

You could say that special characters cost 20% more. Or, you get 50 bonus points to add to your army if you don't run any special characters.

I can't even run a legal list without Belial, so folks like me would be unable to enter a "No characters allowed" tournament. I'd be fine with taking a penalty or paying extra for Belial, though.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

Well you are right and wrong both in the same sentence. and since you are not creative enough to understand how these combos are broken let me explain. Oh wow, thanks for enlightening we the unwashed heathen masses, oh great one... *rolls eyes*

I think perhaps it is you who needs educating, my friend. After all...if you want to cry foul because the other guy was dumb enough to spend a quarter of his army's points on two guys, and you think that is some kind of unfair advantage, well...you need to work on your target priority.

The Space Marine codex is a bad example to use; it is very poorly put together and the entire idea of these inter-chapter dream teams is promoted to the point where there's an extra 30 pages of fluff just to justify the incredibly poor structure of the list it creates. The combinations of characters are not only tactically stupid, they are an incredible injustice to space marine fans everywhere and are an utter abomination of the characters they represent rules-wise.

Shame on people for even bringing this up. Half the reason the space marine codex isn't the way it's SUPPOSED to be is because of people who cried foul and whined about "power builds" in 4th using the traits system. "Oh there's no downside to the traits, waaah." There is no downside to the Leman !@#$ing Russ either, but I guess that is okay as long as it's not crewed by a space marine, right? This is the same kind of crap that makes people argue that Shrike apparently can't grant a unit he's with Infiltrate even though his rule says "Shrike and his unit may infiltrate." Shrike should give the whole damn army Infiltrate, that's what his company does! But the whining about that before made them go "We'd better not...it would be too powerful." KHAN should give the army fleet, FFS. Sicarius should be deleted utterly ("Hmm this codex needs more ultramarines!"), his rules given to Pedro, and Pedro's rules belong on Marneus !@#$ing Calgar. Why THE HELL is Pedro Kantor more inspiring than Marneus !@#$ing Calgar?!

The codex is an atrocity. Special Characters are not even close to unbalanced, and many of us avoid them like the plague. The Space Marine codex is full of stupid combinations with no basis in fluff reality and no tactical benefit other than granting a decent character some arbitrary bonus.

Once again this is just more "The Marines thing must be what is ruining the game" debate. The inclusion of the Eldar's "broken" combo is just an added justification. You posted this thread on the wrong forum, I think you ought to have gone to Warseer instead.

Fleeting Marneus Calgar...when was the last time you won a game of Warhammer 40,000 with one model, anyway!?

[Denzark]

There are a lot of options between allowing or disallowing all special characters.

You could say that special characters cost 20% more. Or, you get 50 bonus points to add to your army if you don't run any special characters.

I can't even run a legal list without Belial, so folks like me would be unable to enter a "No characters allowed" tournament. I'd be fine with taking a penalty or paying extra for Belial, though.



Personally disalike tournament organisers disallowing things out of legal 40k lists. Who the hell are they second guess designers and negate options? I took part in one where the organisers thought for balance they would only let IG take one ordnance option - sh*t the bed thats the whole point of IG! Why would you ever say characters cost 20% more - the costs are a given and why do you think you can do better?

I am not a GW N*zi, I am more than happy to allow counts as or other company's miniatures but don't mess with the codex given costs - these are the base line from which everything springs and whilst we all may agree some charachters are ridiculously cheap and others never get used, if I want to spend 300 points of my 1500 on zargon deathbringer then that's my bag.

[MajorSoB]

OK your opinion is noted. I will put that down as a yes vote to allowing special characters.

I will be honest though, by your own admission you stated that some characters are ridiculously cheap in comparison to others. It is confusing why you would make a statement that supports my premise that some sort of control may be in order to help achieve better balance. That is the crux of this discussion.

I would agree that the rules for the most part are fine the way they are written but they are not entirely perfect either. My idea is to run a tourney that focuses more so on army play than on special character traits. Maybe limiting isnt the way to achieve this but rewarding someone who doesnt rely on these abilities may be the way to go.

[Denzark]

OK your opinion is noted. I will put that down as a yes vote to allowing special characters.

I will be honest though, by your own admission you stated that some characters are ridiculously cheap in comparison to others. It is confusing why you would make a statement that supports my premise that some sort of control may be in order to help achieve better balance. That is the crux of this discussion.

I would agree that the rules for the most part are fine the way they are written but they are not entirely perfect either. My idea is to run a tourney that focuses more so on army play than on special character traits. Maybe limiting isnt the way to achieve this but rewarding someone who doesnt rely on these abilities may be the way to go.

Not saying that more balance isn't needed - but I would prefer GW games designers doing it through the medium of the points costs rather than Joe bloggs off the street thinking he can do better.

A tournament that focuses on army play is fine - but more of a narrative event. A competitive event should test all aspects including characters. If we're talking pedantry, why hold a tournament, which implies winning is a necessary aspect, if your not playing the full game? This to me would be the equivalent of touch rugby rather than full contact (or playing basketball but allowing travelling if this example doesn't translate to the US of A:D)

[Wolfshade]

I have to say one of the better discussions I've read so far.

I think the problem is two fold. I think it was 3rd edition that had stated that you can't use special characters (named independants) without the consent of your opponent. Since the special characters were tougher and had special rules when compared with independant characters, so during that ruleset my special characters were left at home :(. Which was a sad state of affairs given that generally people spend more time lovingly painting this dudes to be centre-peices of the army, and so people thought well if I can't use character X in any games, so I won't both buying him. So something needed to be done so they could use them again, now with their special rules and the way they unlock a certain way of playing so in theory the army should be built around this character and make a fluffy list, though it appears that it doesn't look like that is what happening. The trick is combining them in such a way that you would expect to see vulkan in a salamanders army, but not along side calgar. Similiarly, I would play Eldrad with my eldar as I have an ulthwe army, my firend who plays with a beil tan never uses him because he is ulthwe. Perhaps there needs to be a point limit for certain characters, I wouldn't expect to see a chapter master leading a 1,000 pt list, or 2 in a 1,500 pt list. Though then you start affecting how people play because you could argue, well the avatar isn't a special character but is hard as nails and acts very much like one and so could be included in a skirmish game!

[MajorSoB]

Not saying that more balance isn't needed - but I would prefer GW games designers doing it through the medium of the points costs rather than Joe bloggs off the street thinking he can do better.

A tournament that focuses on army play is fine - but more of a narrative event. A competitive event should test all aspects including characters. If we're talking pedantry, why hold a tournament, which implies winning is a necessary aspect, if your not playing the full game? This to me would be the equivalent of touch rugby rather than full contact (or playing basketball but allowing travelling if this example doesn't translate to the US of A:D)

I suppose we are coming from different view. You sir believe GW did a fine job in play testing and balancing each and every codex, that all the rules for each unit fit harmoniously with each and every other one in existence, never to be though about or questioned. I on the other hand have been playing this game far too long to consider any of it perfect. GW does do a fine job overall but there is always a constant need to re balance the ever changing system.

Different tournaments have different focuses. The 'Ard Boyz tourney focuses on nasty and brutal armies while tournaments that include comp, painting and sportmanship focus on all the aspects of the hobby combined. This is the style of tournament that we held and tried to reward the person who demonstrated his mastery in all these different facets as the overall winner or our event. What happened was several less than friendly builds made their way into the tournament and skewed the results. Looking back what made most of these lists down right nasty and unenjoyable was the special characters contained in them. This is why I chose to focus my attention in addressing them as a way to help improve the overall quality of our event. You could say I am not playing the full game, touch rugby as you called it ( the translation was not lost!) but I would choose to look at it as enforcing the spirit of the rules if not the letter of the law. You could get a ticket for doing 56mph in a 55 zone but is this really what you would expect? The vast majority of participants brought fair and fluffy lists while a minority brought more character focused list that seemed to dominate. All I am seeking is a way to help level the playing field so that both list would have a fair and equal chance to win. If you are a purist and want to play whatever is legal, again I would encourage you to participate in the 'Ard Boyz event which is equally fun but for a different reason.

While winning is always a goal in any event I would hardly say it the reason to play. Fun and enjoyment is the only reason to participate, winning is merely a bonus to that.

[fuzzbuket]

it all comes down to models

I have no problem fighting a lavishly converted SM captin with a spear, flamer and cloak painted yellow!
I do have a problem with fighting khan, shrike + calgar with no conversion work painted green
I hate the above with no paint at all

quality of model i'd say

Fuzzbuket:D

[eldargal]

I refuse to use special characters at all, though I have toyed with the idea of an Ahriman-led knowledge raiding force. I don't do tournaments so it isn't a big disadvantage for me.
With my own generic characters I try to keep them sensible and win through judicious use rather than overpowering.

[Denzark]

I suppose we are coming from different view. You sir believe GW did a fine job in play testing and balancing each and every codex, that all the rules for each unit fit harmoniously with each and every other one in existence, never to be though about or questioned. I on the other hand have been playing this game far too long to consider any of it perfect. GW does do a fine job overall but there is always a constant need to re balance the ever changing system.


While winning is always a goal in any event I would hardly say it the reason to play. Fun and enjoyment is the only reason to participate, winning is merely a bonus to that.


I wouldn't go so far as saying a fine job - in some cases no more than adequate - I started playing because, having read all reading materiels on a school trip to france in 1990, my friend lent me the only thing we had left - a little known publication called White Dwarf. So I have been around long enough not to be blind to GWs foibles. But like democracy I find it not perfect but best of a bad bunch.

I hope your tournament goes well though I think on the flip side (not playing devils advocate) if you limit that b*stard Vulkan and make SM players actually think about their options its a good thing.

[Duke]

Ok, I think Ill add my two cents... maybe more.

I do think that some characters are way too powerful for their cost (overpowered/ underpriced). Generally speaking I don't care if someone brings a SC, as long as it is costed properly (Logan Grimnar)... However, in a tournament I don't think you should limit special characters.

My main reasoning is this: A lot of the 'broken,' Special Characters change the way the entire list is built. If I have spent my hard earned money and my precious time to build a specific list just so I can be competitive, then so be it. Too many people have built their entire armies around a special Character and aren't as fortunate as you are (Being able to bring 2 tournament level lists.. Which I highly respect you for).

When I get ready for a tournament I build my lists to be ready for the SC's... Its the way the meta game is going, I also prepare to be ready for lots of mech.

If your going to limit Special characters why don't you go to the next level and limit how many transports/ melta weapons you can have in a list. Then why not say you can only have Lightning claw termies cause TH/SS termies are too tough... Oh and no Nob bikers, etc. We may not like the direction the meta game has gone, but in a tournament setting I don't think things should be limited... Frendily games are different.


Duke

[Duke]

Ok, I was just thinking of something, if you want there to be more focus on non-power lists... Simply change the balance of scoring to be on comp/ friendliness/ painting and less on winning. I think it would be good fun to have a guy win a tournie who lost half his games but was a great gent.

Duke

[Aldramelech]

I refuse to use special characters at all, though I have toyed with the idea of an Ahriman-led knowledge raiding force. I don't do tournaments so it isn't a big disadvantage for me.
With my own generic characters I try to keep them sensible and win through judicious use rather than overpowering.

Me too, never have, never will......

[MajorSoB]

Good thoughts Duke, thank you for your comments.

Many people who participate in this hobby have several armies and the means to make many different builds at their disposal. Usually what the addition or removal of a SC comes down to is roughly the cost of another troop squad and transport. I agree the game plays much different when SC are included. Around here when a SC character emerges from his transport, drop pod, etc it signals "the start of the shenanigans" where the game goes from its normal progression of strategy. movement and shooting to who can drop the most BS and out-trump their opponent.

In a friendly afternoon game where nothing is on the line I could care less how bad I lose or win. Many players find it exciting to participate in a story telling narrative where their chapter leader goes toe to toe with the opposition. Win, lose or draw fun will be had by all. A tournament environment is different. Not every army power builds to the same level especially with the addition of SC. The goal of our tournament is first and foremost, for everyone to have a enjoyable time and second and equally important, for everyone to compete on a level playing field.

Hard boys events feature army build and play without any soft scores. GW runs this event and it does not interest me to duplicate this tournament, although every year I do participate in it. I do agree that it is attractive to reward a person who may have dropped one or two of his games but was and enjoyable competitor with alot of attention to his armies appearance and composition as the winner. This is where soft score come in. The key is to balance the score so that you dont give an unfair advantage to a good painter or sportsman over a great general and tactician. We used a matrix this year that worked fairly well. Nearly everyone who attended was satisfied with their experience and the way that winners were decided. We awarded many aspects, painting, sportsmanship and composition as well as best general and overall winner positions. The score were tabulated by both player and judges combined scores. The one negative anomaly as that some players felt unfairly matched when they were playing a more balanced force opposite a win at all cost, special character based list. I am seeking a way to tweak this portion and be fair to everyone. I do not want to get into standardizing a build to specifying what can or cannot be included other than the possible control on some uber characters. I do believe that inclusion of both hard units in every army is part of the game and why we play. I just am feeling that some characters tip the scales a bit too far.

[Chumbalaya]

Thank you Duke, summed my thoughts up perfectly.

I don't have a problem with SCs any more than I do with Nob Bikers or Land Raider spam armies. It's a valid choice, it's part of the Codex, so what's the problem with taking it? They aren't unbalanced or overly tricky, in fact since every sees them so much we should all know what they do :P

A lot of the sentiment against SCs comes from previous editions where they were opponent's permission only. They were terrible, overcosted or just plain bad, then. Now that anybody can take them any time, people feel like they're trying to get one over them or something silly. Banning or restricting SCs is the same as banning Heavy Support or tanks with an AV over 12 or models with a 5 in their statline. It's arbitrary, poorly thought out and effects certain armies more than others.

[MajorSoB]

Thank you Duke, summed my thoughts up perfectly.
Banning or restricting SCs is the same as banning Heavy Support or tanks with an AV over 12 or models with a 5 in their statline. It's arbitrary, poorly thought out and effects certain armies more than others.

Thanks for coming to the party! Now outside of salamanders and deathwing, please cite specific examples in which soem armies are unplayable with the exclusion of special characters. tell me what gets better and tell me what gets worse specifically. Thanks!

[Duke]

...Now outside of salamanders and deathwing, please cite specific examples in which soem armies are unplayable with the exclusion of special characters. tell me what gets better and tell me what gets worse specifically. Thanks!

There are quite a few, but the ones that come to my mind are:

1. Blood Angels: Without Dante/ Corbulo/ Mephiston Blood Angels are sad. Trust me, I have tried to play without special characters and the army melts to just about everything.

2. Crimson Fists: If I spend a ton of money buying sternguard and I can't use Pedro I am completly jacked... Plus, its pretty well known that a sternguard list isn't as broken as it seems on paper.

3. Wolf Wing: Without Logan grimnar I cannot play a wolf wing list...same problem as no Belial for deathwing.

4. Ravenwing: Without Sameul I cannot run bikes as troops for DA (IIRC)

Here is the other thing I just thought of... Just because you don't allow Special Characters doesn't mean that people can't build power builds, I can do Nob Bikers without a SC Ork. I can do a biker army without Khan. I can do Nid Zilla, Seer council, Dread spam, etc. without special characters. The problem is this: If the armies who need SC's can't have them the the armies that don't need them (But are still power builds) are going to be at a distinct advantage.

Possible Solution #2: Because I like offering solutions and not just arguments... You could include extra bonuses in the missions that hinder the use of SC's (eg. +2 Kill points for killing a named character.)

Duke

[Lerra]

Actual local armies that would have problems without their special characters:

Commander Farsight in a suit-heavy Tau army
Necron player who has no way to pop a land raider without a C'tan (runs warriors, flayed ones, destroyers, scarabs, tomb spyders, no heavy destroyers or monoliths)
Crimson Fists player who has only two 5-man scout squads as scoring without the sternguard
DIY space marine army that runs 5 Dreadnoughts using Master of the Forge
Al'Rahem in a weird IG list with melee guardsmen
One of my friends is building an all-wolf list with Canis Wolfborn (he has something like 145 wolves 0_o)

Not your typical tournament lists, but these are real lists that I've seen at local tournaments, usually played by casual players that are there to have fun.

I'd strongly suggest that, if you want a tournament with fewer special characters, do something to encourage people to run without them, rather than forcing their hand. Lots of people run special characters for flavor and fun, or require a special character to make their weird list work at all.

[Chumbalaya]

Aye, rewarding players for not using them is much more agreeable than punishing those who do.

It still leads to some unbalances between armies though. Certain armies just don't benefit from losing SCs while others nearly depend on them.

Tau, Tyranids, Necrons, DE, and Inquisition armies either have no SCs or terrible SCs. Banning or restricting them doesn't hurt their options, it just gives their competition more of an advantage.

Space Marines, IG, Chaos, Eldar, and Orks have useful SCs, some that unlock certain variant builds or open up different strategies. While not totally gimped by losing them, you are denying them options and reducing the number of possible viable armies to run.

Deathwing, Ravenwing, Loganwing, Ork Biker armies (not Nobs mind you), Wolf-heavy armies, Farsight Enclave armies, Sternguard armies, and Blood Angels to a lesser extent all need special characters to work. None of them are abusive or even viable, so all you're doing is restricting options.

So, if SCs are banned or players get docked points for them, the change will not affect everyone equally. Those that lose out the most are characterful armies like Deathwing, Ravenwing, Farsight Enclaves, and Wazdakka Bikerz. Fluffy armies at heart that aren't even all that viable in competitive play without serious tweaks and a great player at the helm. Tau, Tyranids and DE don't lose anything since their SCs suck or don't exist, while the middle of the road armies just get slapped with an arbitrary restriction.

If SCs do get banned or heavily restricted I probably won't go, I don't even run SCs normally unless I'm playing Dark Angels but I don't like shenanigans like that.

[MajorSoB]

Possible Solution #2: Because I like offering solutions and not just arguments... You could include extra bonuses in the missions that hinder the use of SC's (eg. +2 Kill points for killing a named character.)

Duke

Thank you! I like that and will add that to a list of possible solutions!

[MajorSoB]

Aye, rewarding players for not using them is much more agreeable than punishing those who do.

It still leads to some unbalances between armies though. Certain armies just don't benefit from losing SCs while others nearly depend on them.

Tau, Tyranids, Necrons, DE, and Inquisition armies either have no SCs or terrible SCs. Banning or restricting them doesn't hurt their options, it just gives their competition more of an advantage.

Space Marines, IG, Chaos, Eldar, and Orks have useful SCs, some that unlock certain variant builds or open up different strategies. While not totally gimped by losing them, you are denying them options and reducing the number of possible viable armies to run.

Deathwing, Ravenwing, Loganwing, Ork Biker armies (not Nobs mind you), Wolf-heavy armies, Farsight Enclave armies, Sternguard armies, and Blood Angels to a lesser extent all need special characters to work. None of them are abusive or even viable, so all you're doing is restricting options.

So, if SCs are banned or players get docked points for them, the change will not affect everyone equally. Those that lose out the most are characterful armies like Deathwing, Ravenwing, Farsight Enclaves, and Wazdakka Bikerz. Fluffy armies at heart that aren't even all that viable in competitive play without serious tweaks and a great player at the helm. Tau, Tyranids and DE don't lose anything since their SCs suck or don't exist, while the middle of the road armies just get slapped with an arbitrary restriction.

If SCs do get banned or heavily restricted I probably won't go, I don't even run SCs normally unless I'm playing Dark Angels but I don't like shenanigans like that.

Well you didnt go this current year when we gave out over $2500 of prizes so I will take my chances that you might not go next year and do what I think might work best! ;)

Lerra and Chumby, I do appreciate your examples and it has me thinking. I appreciate the thought behind them and it is information I need to consider this information to help formulate a decision on the matter. As stated I dont like the idea of a ban but now I am leaning toward a more subtle way of basing points around using/not using SC as well as the inclusion or exclusion in ones army. Understand too I am not speaking from ignorance either, I have played in many events that do not allow SC like those held at Coyote's Den and the former GW store in Syacuse to name a few. Yep I couldnt bring my Deathwing and that was OK I took something else. Few players who play specialized lists do so as their only army.

[Chumbalaya]

You're free to do as you please as TO, I would simply advise that in order to get the best turnout you should not alienate people from the get-go. People go to tournies for all sorts of reasons, all perfectly valid and fun for them. Somebody goes to meet new people, somebody goes to see awesomely painted armies or cool terrain, some people go to hit on college girls (pokemon indeed ;) ) and some go for the competition. If you can get everyone together under a big roof and let them nerd out how they like and reward those who excel, you'll have a good tourney on your hands.

Something like prizes for Best General, Painted, Sports, and so on would reward people for achievement in certain aspects and Best Overall goes to the person who excells in every arena. No duplicates obviously, but everybody should get what they want. If you don't want to bring a SC then don't, just accept that you may not be bringing the best list possible. You can still get Sports, Painted, or Overall. If I could get them painted to an acceptable standard I'd love to bring my Deathwing out, otherwise it would be my no-SC mech IG army of DOOM ;)

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I agree with Chumbalaya. Restricting SCs is like restricting any other powerful thing in the game. It is way too restrictive and generally completely unnecessary.

[Cthulhu]

To be honest, my favorite army list to date in any edition was my 4th edition Iron Warriors list, it was simple, involved no special characters whatsoever. I used to refer to the leader of my Iron Warriors army as the Chaos Administrator because he was simply attached to a Havoc squad, had a clipboard and a pen, he simply pointed out targets and marked them off of a list of things to be destroyed.

HQ: Chaos Administrator (2 wound Chaos Lord, no options usually)
Elites: 3 Obliterator Squads (3 each)
Troops: 2 CSM squads (6 man) with counter attack, heavy bolter, plasma gun, AC with PFist, etc. (aka skirmish squads), 4 CSM squads (5 man) with tank hunters, lascannons, no AC.
Heavy Support: 1 Basilisk, 1 Defiler, 2 havoc squads (8 man) with tank hunters, autocannons.
Everyone had the mark of Chaos Undivided.

Simple, effective, no special characters, good lord I hate the new Chaos codex.

[BigMac]

I agree since GW created the SC mess you should not ban them. Since every SM IG and CSM player I know always play them they are not "Special" anymore. Just give me the chance to bury them on the Sportsmanship score! I will be happy to give out ZEROs! Lets be honest almost every player bringing SC is doing it for the power-play. Vulkan in a Salamander painted Army I have no problem with. Calgar in a painted Ultamarine list okay. But also everytime? Please.

BigMac

[Chumbalaya]

I agree since GW created the SC mess you should not ban them. Since every SM IG and CSM player I know always play them they are not "Special" anymore. Just give me the chance to bury them on the Sportsmanship score! I will be happy to give out ZEROs! Lets be honest almost every player bringing SC is doing it for the power-play. Vulkan in a Salamander painted Army I have no problem with. Calgar in a painted Ultamarine list okay. But also everytime? Please.

BigMac

Yeah, anybody who brings Heavy Support is just playing for the win so I will nuke them on comp.

If you wanted an argument why comp scoring is stupid, I don't even need to say anything :D

[Cthulhu]

Yeah, anybody who brings Heavy Support is just playing for the win so I will nuke them on comp.

If you wanted an argument why comp scoring is stupid, I don't even need to say anything :D

Comp and Sportsmanship are both jokes as far as I'm concerned. At least in tournaments, you could be the nicest guy in the world and if you win all your games I can almost guarantee you got a crappy sportsmanship score. As for Comp, seriously, is there any point to Comp scores anymore? Troops are such a critical part of the game at this point that nobody's showing up without a significant portion of their army invested in beat troops.

[Schultzhoffen]

I used to think Special Characters were too tough and that noone should really use them. Then I grew up and realised that it's relative. I'd expect to face SC characters at Tourneys and therefore shouldn't really complain and when I play friendlies I play for fun and couldn't be concerned obout his army comp anyhow.

I'd agree with an earlier post that it is about model quality.

It's unfair that Salamander players should feel guilty about having Vulcan, or that DA can't have Belial or Sammael or UM can't have Calgar or Tigurius. So what if your opponent has them? If you are really that annoyed don't play against him again.

I'd also agree that SCs are pricey so anyone who wants to have 2 in a moderately sized game (1850pts and under) will suffer in other areas. I'd rather have 7 Assault Terminators instead of one Calgar, anyway.

SCs add something to the game. As an earlier post said, it is more interesting to face Typhus, Calgar, etc, that 'just some random dude with no name'.

[RocketRollRebel]

You're free to do as you please as TO, I would simply advise that in order to get the best turnout you should not alienate people from the get-go. People go to tournies for all sorts of reasons, all perfectly valid and fun for them. Somebody goes to meet new people, somebody goes to see awesomely painted armies or cool terrain, some people go to hit on college girls (pokemon indeed ;) ) and some go for the competition. If you can get everyone together under a big roof and let them nerd out how they like and reward those who excel, you'll have a good tourney on your hands.

Something like prizes for Best General, Painted, Sports, and so on would reward people for achievement in certain aspects and Best Overall goes to the person who excells in every arena. No duplicates obviously, but everybody should get what they want. If you don't want to bring a SC then don't, just accept that you may not be bringing the best list possible. You can still get Sports, Painted, or Overall. If I could get them painted to an acceptable standard I'd love to bring my Deathwing out, otherwise it would be my no-SC mech IG army of DOOM ;)

17th over all! Haha

Any way I run both ways. With ig I rarely use any SC's while my BA are almost required to roll out Dante/Corbs tag team. SC's aren't always the best choice tho. I'm only a fan if they benefit your whole army (ie:Dante or pedro or vulkan) or a cheap killing machine like Kharn. I gotta say tho that Im on the fence about Njal.
He's pushing 300 but he is simply a monster. I find most SC's that breach 200pts to be a bit of a Pt's sink in normal sized games. Looking at you Abadonn and Calgar!

[ggg]

There is nothing wrong with using special characters. They can be fun, characterful and can add a quality model to an army.
A tournament that bans their use is a weaker tournament.
If it is in the army book people should be able to take it.
Fundamentally, everything dies - come on- just think about how many characters / special characters you have blown away this month alone? (I watched a great game a week ago where Calgar died surrounded by 20 genestealers, it was epic.)
The rather idiosyncratic views of unit selection in some of the posts indicate the inherent problem with sportsmanship scoring.
2nd Ed went character mad - we have not reached that stage. I think the balance is about right.
Space Marine armies are the usual target for SC complaints - there are only 1,000 or so in a chapter with usually less than half that amount in active battle companies. Space marines are defined by and should be chock full of heros.
SC use should be limited by how much they cost in points.
The problem of repetitive selection by gamers could be further avoided by adding a range of options in the standard character templates.

[Duke]

I saw a game not too long ago where a lr filled with th/ss termies and a sc were imboilised and the surrounded by a cheap squad so they couldn't get out. The game ended without the sc or the termies doing anything at all... Effectivly a500+ point power unit was held up by a bunch of boys. This has influenced my opinion heavily, a smart player can neuter a sc power list by using his brain.

I saw another one where the troops were forced to emergency disembark and "couldn't do anything next turn," the were then lashed in a nice little group and plasmaed to death... Brains over Braun gentlemen!

Duke (master of the universe)

[Xas]

I like SC and I use them pretty much every game (my renegade IG are lead by Marshall Kratos who uses straken profile) but I like to see them more like a template.

"normal" charackters are those abilities and wargear options which are not powerfull enough that GW allowed free combinations without fear of super-combinations.
"special" charackters are those abilities and wargear options which are powerfull enough so that the players could not be trusted with freely combining them or GW didnt want to spend enough time on playtesting if there could be made super-combinations. additionally the 0-1 mechanic was made more elegant by saying that those abilities are so pwoerfull/rare that only special 'heroes' can have them and dont appear twice in an army. additionally they porived an example charachter with that ability-tempalte from known background.

this is especially true for the newer dexes (E5). in old dexes like chaos E3.5 and dark eldar the special chars are more geared towards their special background and pointed by a roll of dice from the GW studio as it seams. their abilities are a hit or miss if they are good or bad (example: eldrath hit, phoenix lords miss).


the only reason a char like vulkan-template are seaming "over the top" is because his ability greatly benefits the current "fotm" of marine lists and the costs (in form of combat tactics) is an ability most players havent come to fully get ahead of.

the other marine chars are far from powerfull. lysander is a nice fighter but his stubborn is in my eyes a bad trade for a shooty army (which codex marines finally are when everything is said and done).

flanking marines seam nice but once you tried building a list you come to realize that it is hard to pull off (people have learned their lesson from all the stealer shock nids ^^).

malleus and sicarius are the same. nice combat abilities but far from underpriced and their abilities are only neat but not game changing (if malleus were an IG char he would be OP but marines do not suffer much from morale anyways).

ig chars fall into the same. the most outstanding ones straken, al rahem and creed all center around one maina bility each.

straken is msotly about a bit more punch than your normal fist-senior officer combined with an assoult enhancing aura. if he were a space marine he would be OP but with this abilities IG squads only reach codex marine niveou in close combat. nothing to be proud of. what he excells at is killing terminators with fists and combat squads with fist because he strikes before them. points wise he is a bit more expensive than a space marine captain with similar combat abilities (honor blade) but has worse stats while still beeing able to issue orders and with a command squad. a bad day for marines who think guard suck in combat but if you threat him like you would threat a captain + command squad and he dies much faster.

creed basically is all about his special order and giving one unit the outflank special rule. his big price means you could get 2 regular senior officers for the same price (who have 2*12" bubble and 2 orders each resulting in aprox the same order-coverage). so basically for 40pts you can order a unit to be fearless and furious assoult for one turn and make one unit outflank. as described above even with this order guard arent going to excell (maybe surprise but not excell) in close combat. is outflanking worth 40points? maybe if guard had a good unit like genestealers but they dont. so it still is neat but not breaking.

finally al rahem. including the normal wargear to equip a junior officer the same he comes at around 50points premium which is one whole 10man squad! a s3 instant death powersword definatelly isnt the cut. the rest of the discussion is the same as with creed. outflanking is hard to use now that people have adapted.


I ahve no experience with the wolve chars but from reading over them they are priced high enough. true heroes they might be but if you do not use them smart they arent worth it. most armies have an option to beat them dead. be it a 40man platton with a comissar and some pwoerswords (not recomended against the wolfrider one.), hughe unit of gaunts or an adequate points value of SS/TH termies.

bottom line: SC are cool but not no-brainers :)

[Deej]

CBA to read the whole thread, but to me it seems like a balance between 2nd Edition's kid-friendly, can't-field-an-army-without-'em approach to special characters, and the last two editions where they were no better than un-named characters.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, anybody who brings Heavy Support is just playing for the win so I will nuke them on comp.

If you wanted an argument why comp scoring is stupid, I don't even need to say anything :D

Well said, Chumbalaya, well said.

Comp scores as a whole encourage players to take advantage of them and mark down their opponents, not the other way around. Not that most of us would do that... I hope.

[Kanaellars]

SOB, if you are running the tournaments your answer is simple. Do not allow any named special characters in the tournament.



I completely disagree with this.

In fact, I wouldnt play in such a tournament.

Gone are the 3rd edition days of "Special characters require opponents permision."

The special characters aret a creative plus to the codex for fun games any more, they are part of the codex.

[Duke]

Not to point out the obvious, but I think your going to piss more people off by banning sc's than you will make happy by the same action...

Duke

[MarshalAdamar]

I would agree with the people that have brought up that banning a SC’s is a slippery slope. You quickly get into banning certain SC because those are the cheesy ones (at the moment) and amazingly enough; the offending SC’s are the ones that the complainer doesn’t play. hmmm

GW put the SC and the terms and conditions of fielding them in their respective codex they're legal, short and simple.

I can understand not liking the power builds but in the end if the list is legal I think you have to allow it.

I also would like to chime in my two cents about the comp and sportsman ship score. I again refer to “if the list is legal let it stand”

I play Black Templars and we can take LRC as a dedicated transport but field one or two of them and the world cries crocodile tears.

Field a couple big 20 man crusader squads and MORE crocodile tears.

Take “Accept the Challenge no matter the odds” OMG, people are apoplectic

In essence I’ve noticed that everyone ELSES army is cheesy or a power build. Why is maximizing your armies effectiveness cheesy, especially when wholly in the spirit of your fluff?

For friendly games, I try and take some different builds some fun stuff, or try out a SC, field different builds.

For tournaments though, where at least someone is going to bring their A game, you should be prepared.

If you want to bring a fun Tau assault army then by all means do so. However when you get tabled in turn 3just be happy.

People play tourneys to win, to see how well they can do and not to try out a “fun” army lists (for the most part, I’m sure some people do). If you want to field fun army lists that are just not competitive play a friendly game not a tourney.

In the end if you use your head, play to the strengths of your army, and against your opponent’s weakness, keep the objectives in mind and the conditions for victory, it doesn’t matter what army your opponent has.

You ALWAYS have a chance, and victory is all that much sweeter.

[DarkLink]

In the end if you use your head, play to the strengths of your army, and against your opponent’s weakness, keep the objectives in mind and the conditions for victory, it doesn’t matter what army your opponent has.

You ALWAYS have a chance, and victory is all that much sweeter.

That's why I play Grey Knights :D

[MarshalAdamar]

Grey Knights are SO COOL, they’re the only psykers allowed in our club!

[PhoenixFlame]

How about a bonus for fluffy based use of SC (or no use of SC)?
This would preserve use of lists that are dependent on their SC to function (or for that matter to exist at all i.e. Wolfpack, Ravenwing, etc.
But would also provide and incentive to not use (at least some, I don't claim to know all the combos as that's not my thing) SC combos just for Min/Maxing.
IMO if someone wants to build an army around the fluff of a given SC *and* can make that highly combat effective then good on them. Add a detailed paint job and a few custom conversions and IMO you have an example of the hight of the hobby. I'd personally enjoy playing someone like that, even in a tourny, win lose or draw.

Also keep this simple fact in mind, the Codex aren't balanced, the army lists aren't balanced. Simply put 40k isn't completely balanced and while I'd rather that it was it's unlikely to happen until (unless :p ) all of the codex out there are from the same (current) edition at the time. Otherwise there's way to much apples to oranges going on in trying to tweak something. Because what a Heavy slot or troop slot means to one Codex is not what it means in another.

I play Daemons quite a bit so here's an example from that list, what The Masque does for a pure Slaanesh list is very different in effect than what she does for a mixed Slaansh/Tzeench list, let alone one that includes Nurgle.

As a further comment there (so long as you're not talking broken list wide rules combos) consider a 300 pt Bloodthirster up against most of your SC choices. Or a super Carnifax, or a 300 pt Daemon Price, or an Avatar.


Hence the suggestion above, because it sounds like the problem your players had was losing some enjoyment in playing against lists that were built in a way that clearly took the Ard' Boyz 'numbers over fluff' approach. If that's the case then I'd say focusing on rewarding the spirit of play you want for your event is going to be your best option :)


Also this:


The problem of repetitive selection by gamers could be further avoided by adding a range of options in the standard character templates.

my current Daemons list doesn't include a single SC, my current Wolfy list Requires one (thank you Logan) but only since the new Dex. I played 13th Co. with a Wulfen Lord build purely for the flavor and fluff of it. I love the concept and aspect, and it didn't require a single SC. Now with the current Dex EoT isn't really usable for Tourny play anymore and the closet thing I can get flavor/fluff wise to my Wulfen pack is running lots of Wolf Guard (they also sub pretty well tactically into the same combat role with given the right build). If there were a Saga that let me take Wolf Guard as Troops I'd buy it for my first HQ Choice and never look back (even if it cost 100 pts which would be a waste tactically but even in competitive environment I want my fluff from my build or I'm not going to enjoy myself as much).
Tho I know this second part is probably less useful in regards to your question :p


Also a quick note on 'soft' scores. I can see including them, but IMO they should be handed out by a Tourny judge only to avoid punitive moves. Hopefully people won't be doing that anyway but the "judge only" method removes the possibility for someone to cry foul about it and/or exploit it.
If having the players rate each other is an important aspect of your Tourny method that can still be done but I'd give it it's own separate category that stands alone (i.e. does not effect the standings in your "overall" category).

2c

Phoenix

[DarkLink]

Grey Knights are SO COOL, they’re the only psykers allowed in our club!

:D We're like Space Marines WITH Jedi powers:D




I also dislike tournaments modifying the core rules of the game. Banning SC's, or modifying the force org chart, or list composition scores, it gets to the point where it's impossible to keep things fair.

If you ban this Special character, why is this one allowed? If you modify the force org chart, or ban duplicate units, you effectively handicap certain armies, while benifiting others. For example, I always get mad when I hear about a tournament limiting the number of heavy support slots that can be taken (and similar things). I play Grey Knights, which are no longer competitive unless you can take 2-3 Land Raiders, and if you don't take a Land Raider that means you're taking a Dreadnought, because the Heavy Support section is the only place to get decent Anti-Tank (stormtroopers can get meltas, but stormtroopers aren't very good).

Modifying the core rules don't prevent unfairness in the game, they create it.

[MajorSoB]

After long debate ( thank you all ) a conclusion was reached.

Limits of 1 named character per army will be imposed on our event next year. This seems to work well in that armies requiring a special character will still be viable while broken combos from two or more characters are eliminated.

I am sure this will not be looked on favorably by everyone but I believe most gamers will find it fair and workable. Comp will continue to be scored as part of our event since we seek to separate ourselves from no-comp 'Ard Boyz style events.

Again thank you all for helping me to consider all possibilities and come to a conclusion that I believe everyone will be able to live with.

[Chumbalaya]

Lame.

[Abuzorg]

Grey Knights are SO COOL, they’re the only psykers allowed in our club!

What ?

[Crevab]

Well, seeing as how the poster has Marshall in his name and his avatar is a Black Templar, imma go with him referring to the BT rules about no psykers, except GKs.

[DarkLink]

After long debate ( thank you all ) a conclusion was reached.

Limits of 1 named character per army will be imposed on our event next year. This seems to work well in that armies requiring a special character will still be viable while broken combos from two or more characters are eliminated.

I am sure this will not be looked on favorably by everyone but I believe most gamers will find it fair and workable. Comp will continue to be scored as part of our event since we seek to separate ourselves from no-comp 'Ard Boyz style events.

Again thank you all for helping me to consider all possibilities and come to a conclusion that I believe everyone will be able to live with.

Well, I guess if you're going to insist on banning units, then banning taking 2 special characters isn't bad.

Including comp scores is still lame, though. Tournaments are about finding out how good of a gamer you are. Comp scores are like subtracting points from a sports team's score because they have good players on the team.

[Maine]

GW says your wrong :p
Chaos FAQ: "Models armed with a bloodfeeder can exceed 10 attacks. Is this allowed?
A: Yes, as they are bonus attacks that only apply in that combat turn, and do not permenately modify the model's attack characteristic."
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1610178_Chaos_Space_Marines_FAQ_2008-05_Edition.pdf

No FAQ even necessary; p37 of the BRB says bonus attacks can bring the number of attacks for a model above 10:



Note that bonus attacks are an exception to the rules for characteristics’ maximum modifiers and may bring a odel’s total attacks above 10!

[RocketRollRebel]

I don't really think that banning or restricting SC's is necessary. I wouldn't say that any of them are necessarily game breaking. Fateweaver and Njal are a serious pain but they still can be delt with.

[Duke]

...Tournaments are about finding out how good of a gamer you are...

I think this is the main point... Many people know what they are getting into when they enter into a tournament. I have played for a long time and everytime I enter into a tournament I do not ever expect to see 'soft/ fluffy,' lists. People come to tournies to win, people come to campaigns to have fun.

In my local area we do a tournament called "rookie fest," This is for people who are new to the game and are learning. This would be a good place to limit SC's becuase the average entrant doesn't know how to handle it (Or how to roll to wound for that matter ;) )

Duke

[MajorSoB]

Lame.

What are your suggestions oh brilliant one? Again you bailed out on our tourney cause of some LAME excuse. Need I remind you that there were over 64 paid people there and $2500 in prizes? From our surveys most everyone was very happy but some people wanted the armies toned down. This is our solution, like it or not! You really are a tool, you troll board all too willing to throw in your unwanted and unneeded opinions. Again I could give a squirt of piss as to whether or not you show up, or if you are happy. The vast majority of players will be happy with this decision and next year we will have an even bigger event with more prizes. Just looks to me like you wont be there again, and just like this year, we wont miss you.

[MajorSoB]

I don't really think that banning or restricting SC's is necessary. I wouldn't say that any of them are necessarily game breaking. Fateweaver and Njal are a serious pain but they still can be delt with.

I agree with you that none of them in and of themselves are game breaking but when you combo two or more together you get some powers that I am certain the game designers didnt count on. That is why one will still be allowed so that if you like you can play Fateweaver in your Deamons list or Njal in your Wolves list, as well as Belial to play Deathwing, etc.

[Chumbalaya]

Guess I can't bring my IG army with Nork Deddog and Yarrick. It's a good thing cuz that army is so broken, right?

Restricting options is a bad thing, always has been, always will be. By limiting SCs you are giving your player base fewer options to play with, fewer lists to build. It doesn't even effect them equally. SM, IG, and Eldar players suffer the most while Tyranids, Tau, and Dark Eldar actually benefit because their opposition gets weakened at no cost to them.

What broken combos are you talking about? It'll be hard to find them because they don't exist. Do you seriously think dropping 400 points on 2 ICs is even remotely powerful, let alone broken? I see Eldrad and Maugan Ra tossed out a lot, are you kidding me? Take 2 of them in a unit of 10 WG and you have an unkillable super unit? Get real. That's close to 700 points in footslogging Troops with a 12" range gun. Maugan Ra isn't going to do that much damage by himself, neither will Eldrad. They can't move, can't fight in assault, and exist purely to suck up points in an obvious RPS noobcatcher formation. TH/SS Termies, for 1/4 the cost, eat them for lunch. Nothing that can be so reliably put down by something that cheap is even remotely competitive.

What else you got? Shrike and Calgar? Abaddon and Kharne? Ghazgkhull and Grotsnik? Barharroth and Asurmen? Farsight and Aun'Va? Belial and Sammael? Any DA character? Karamazov and Chenkov? Get out. None of these are broken, they aren't even that good. Sucks to be the player who likes them for their looks or plays Blood Angels (unplayable under these rules) or plays Deathwing/Ravenwing mixes. People who bring 2 SCs under the false assumption that they are good will figure it out when they get rofltstomped by a good player. People who think they are broken will figure it out when they realize how easy it is to stop such an army. I'm more than willing to help people overcome this hump, just holler.

It's unfair, unjustified, and, frankly, stupid.

It's a freakin' tournament man, what else are you there for? I'd rather fall off my bike and learn something than be stuck with training wheels all the time. If we're going to restrict armies, we should also restrict painting. Somebody can't show up with a crappy army, lose every game, then win best appearance. There should be a minimum of battle points to win best appearance, or only people with blue shirts can win best appearance. Let's ban the color green, or make it so people can't use more than 3 colors on their army. Sounds stupid right? Same principle.

You are, of course, free to do as you like, but I hope you can understand how fundamentally wrong it is. I don't even play with SCs outside of my Deathwing and I disagree with it.



What are your suggestions oh brilliant one? Again you bailed out on our tourney cause of some LAME excuse. Need I remind you that there were over 64 paid people there and $2500 in prizes? From our surveys most everyone was very happy but some people wanted the armies toned down. This is our solution, like it or not! You really are a tool, you troll board all too willing to throw in your unwanted and unneeded opinions. Again I could give a squirt of piss as to whether or not you show up, or if you are happy. The vast majority of players will be happy with this decision and next year we will have an even bigger event with more prizes. Just looks to me like you wont be there again, and just like this year, we wont miss you.

Look, I don't know why you're getting all defensive here. You put up your ideas and people will comment on them, critique and so on. Instead of getting all big and bad you could, I dunno, discuss it and figure out what people are telling you.

I really like our community and the people in it, but we limit ourselves way too much. Instead of throwing your hands up and calling something broken or unfun or whatever, why not try and approach it a new way? I used to be like that, anything outside my comfort zone was bad and comp scores were the only way to protect us from the "evil powergamers". Then I wised up. People enjoy this hobby for a million different reasons, taking one over the rest and declaring it the one true way is not only selfish and ignorant, but also alienates people.

You guys love to trash the guys from Canada or whatever that pulled Best General, but what about them? They came to a tourney expecting to test their mettle against hard lists and good players, but all they got was grief, either to their face or behind their backs. Are they wrong for wanting a competitive game? No. Are you wrong for wanting a fluffy bunny game? Nope. Are you wrong for imposing your view on people? Hell yeah!

That's what bugs me the most. People bring substandard lists to a tourney and get surprised and/or pissed when the better list and better player wins out. You came in knowing you were handicapping yourself, why be indignant when somebody doesn't? If you want a compy tourney then people stop playing the game and play the system. I'd rather not have to worry about stupid drama like nuking somebody's sports because they beat you or trying to build an army to sneak past the arbitrary comp system while still being powerful. I just want to play a challenging game against a good opponent.

You can have awards for painting, sportsmanship, overall, and whatever, but where's the consistency? Why isn't painting modified by battle points or comp? It makes it "fair" for somebody who can't paint as well but is a better player. An event like this should encourage everyone to come and enjoy the hobby their own way. Once you start discriminating against a particular subset of players out of some misguided sense of moral superiority you lose it. I'll probably go anyway to have a day of nerdy fun with my friends, but I wouldn't be as excited since I know that I'm not welcome. That's what you're doing, telling people that their fun is wrong and you don't want them or their money.

I have thought of a tourney system fair and fun for everyone, but it's still in its infancy, bits and pieces coming from online and my depraved mind. Something as simple as separate scores for Battle Points, Painting and Comp/Sports. Prizes are available for all three of equivalent value, with Overall as the total of all three and worth the most. No one person could claim more than one prize. Composition/Sportsmanship is subjective based on both judge and player scores before the games so revenge is limited. Sportsmanship is not so much an arbitrary score as a simple "Did you enjoy this game? Yes, No, Best of the day" If one or both players put no, they have to explain to the judge why. Judges also walk the floor during games to minimize asshattery like slow play and collusion. Missions are fair, with arbitrary wackiness and general supidity thrown out in favor of a balanced game that puts focus on player skill instead of using those zany special rules to do something stupid.

Everyone gets to enjoy the hobby their own way and nobody gets excluded or screwed over (hopefully).

I'm not doing this just to drag people down and piss them off. I like our community and I want to help it get better. We can always improve in some way, be it gameplay, army lists, painting, modelling, social interactions (giving and receiving criticism for example), or just accepting people who do things differently without judging or making them feel unwelcome. I know I'm not the best out there, I know I can improve in many ways. Talking about it, getting it out there, and actively working on it is the best way to do it.

[MarshalAdamar]

What ?

Sorry, Black Templars may not fight along side ANY psykers with one exception and thats the Grey Knights.

[Duke]

@ Chumb & Major: Ok guys, put down the bats, lol.

There was a great article on this Web site that was call "My hobby, your hobby, the hobby." It talked about how sometimes a local area can pigeon hole themselves into 'their hobby,' while forgetting about "the hobby,"

Not to pick on you Major cause I like what your trying to do in some ways, but I think that it feels like your taking 'your hobby,' and imposing it on 'the hobby.' (Granted, I don't know your local areas' meta game feel) Whether we like it or not, 'power game,' lists are a part of 'the hobby,' especially at tournaments.

I do think that limiting army builds and such can be done, but I would keep it to 'friendly events,' like a horus heresy event or something like that (Like I mentioned in our rookiefest)

It is always difficult to balance 'My hobby, your hobby, the hobby.' But like I said limiting characters that are legal in the codex stinks of limiting 'the hobby'


All in all I think that limiting two SC's is a great attempt at meeting in the middle, but I don't think it solves the original issue of preventing power gaming.

In my simple opinion, if a person wants to spend 500 points on special characters then let them have at it, they don't score and can only be in one place at a time.

A simple way to limit multiple characters is to lower the points limits at the tournie. It is a lot harder to spend 500 points on SC's in a 1750 pt list than it is in a 2000 point one.

Just my thoughts, hope it helps :)

Duke

[Lerra]

A couple of questions about "Rookie Fest": how does it work? how do you keep the old vets out? (unfortunately I know a lot of guys who would try to show up to a tournament like this and roll over all the new players >_<)

Seems like a very interesting idea. Most of the new players that show up to local tournaments don't come back, sadly.

[Duke]

well, to put it simply we don't allow vets to play in the tournament. If one sneaks by then we give his opponent the "win." We also do other tournies that are open to everyone and also others that are vets only (power game to your hearts desire!)

We have done rookiefest/ rookiepalloza a few times now and honestly the vets like helping with judging and the like. Often we will do a vet painting day/ competition while the rookie fest is going on, good times for everyone.

Duke

[Chumbalaya]

That sounds like a sweet idea, helps new players get better without people crushing them all the way.

[MajorSoB]

Nice call Duke. Let me back my tone down so as to not hurt anyone feelings.

1) I like the idea that you said about the Rookiefeast etc. This is done in our community as well but in a more subtle way. Most vets will bring soft list to local, store run tourneys in a effort to make contact with newer gamers and also to make themselves think. There is not a hard cap on vets but most experienced gamers do so on the honor system. yes in some places honor still exists. While I fully acknowledge that power list exists, there is some restraint in our community believe it or not. The last tournament was won by a "one of everything" necron list that was designed to be underpowered. the player who won did so on skill and luck alone. I have played in many local events where winning is far from the main reason I am playing. With newer players I have often discussed strategy and rules openly while playing them in an effort to educate them. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose it is never that important. It is far easier to encourage a new player when they feel they have a chance rather than beating them with your uber death list just to show them how great of a player you are.

2) Like it or not broken character combos do exist period. This exact point was discussed by the members of our club in at our turnamnet debriefing (12-14 in attandence last sunday, that's right Chumby you had to work...) and agreed upon universally. One character was the solution offered and its too bad you dont like it or agree. Oh yeah, and both Ork player in attendence would love to play their "non- competitive" lists against you.

3) Chumby, while sportsmanship, painting and comp cannot be specifically quantified they are important in a handicapped event. Yes that is what our event is, a tournament that rewards all aspects of the hobby not just battle and uber builds. I know full well this does not appeal to everyone and you have the choice to participate in it or not. The issue that arose was that comp was not weighted enough to dissuade power builds. Most people did not feel they were handicapping themselves by playing a moderate list when comp was being score. This will be corrected next year in the comp scoring. Again, there are alternatives to our tourney and anyone who does not like them are free to choose them, but please have a bit more respect than you have shown for the people who do not agree with you. Calling things that you disagree with "lame" and "stupid" is not a way to participate in an intelligent debate.

4) Get your facts straight before you make any false accusations. I personally never once complained about any of the Canadian competitors who came to our event nor did I complain about their lists. Yes the person who won had an Ork army, was Canadian, and was overall a very decent person who I hope to see again. He had a balanced list that featured KillaKans and solid blocks of troops. It was fair, balanced and fluffy. I also had the privilege of playing the former GT organizer of the Canadian GTs my last game and had a great time doing so. He was given great scores by me even though he beat me in a close game. I also voted for him for best opponent and guess what, he won! Imagine that?

5) As for the guy who won best general.... He is a good guy but many of use hated his list since it hinged on a gimmick. It was boring and very one dimensional but rock solid against most lists. We as a group expect more from a veteran gamer like him who doesnt have to rely on cheap tricks to win. You did see some complaining about his list and why we allowed a gimmick like that to sneak through. It will be corrected in next years comp scoring. Hopefully he will come back with a more moderate list and beat everyone down with his skills and tactics like I know he can. BTW we all went out drinking that saturday night together. Its OK to disagree on some things and still enjoy the person! Its only a freaking game!

6) No one is attacking you because you like powergamming. People play for a wide variety of reasons I get that and have respected that for a long, long time. I see why you play and you have your right but dont expect everyone to agree with your style. Most people in our area want to bring something they like and own and have fun with it. Yes there are those who cannot enjoy themselves unless they are winning and that is sad. How many prepubescent teens with "underpowered" lists do you have to beat before you feel good about yourself? I have offered you several games and opportunities outside of these public post against better gamers and to date I have seen no interest on your part. You seem happy playing your game with your friends without any outside competition. That is fine do as you wish but dont get all righteous about the area community when you seem hardly a part of it.

7) As for your scoring system, I would seriously like to see what you have in mind. From the sounds of what you posted it seems very similar to what actually occurred at our event. Again the feedback we got from the event was overwhelmingly positive. This post was started in efforts to correct some concerns that the participants had. I feel that has been accomplished somewhat regardless of your approval.

I am tired of this debate. I would like to thank the members here at BoLS for their great ideas that helped use come to some sort of resolution on this matter. I am sorry that I got sidetracked but the issues I wanted to address seem to be resolved. Again thank you.

[BuFFo]

Is this just my opinion or does anyone else see it like this? What are your thoughts?

If it isn't a named character, its a tooled out HQ.

Same thing, different name.

[Chumbalaya]

I have no interest in starting some kind of feud or fueling some kinda of drama. You asked for opinions and I offered them, apologies if it came across as harsh. Blame the medium of type or just me being bored ;)

1) Agreed. Having a fun time is the key, and showing new players all their options helps them get a good feel for the hobby. Not everyone likes competitive games, I like the occasional casual dicefest to unwind, but they're just as valid as any. It's not about stomping on people, it's about showing them how they can understand the game better and improve for it.

2) I disagree. Anything can be countered, anything can be beaten by good play and a balanced list. Throwing your hands up is a self imposed limitation that restricts your improvement. I'd love to come and play, but I have to work, I don't have a choice. My schedule is pretty much locked up unless I swap my days off or something. I like going to Millennium on Tuesday and Saturday and if I had Sunday off I probably end up watching football.

3) Why can't all facets of the hobby be embraced? Gameplay too. It really isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Half the fun is the challenge of a strong army list and a good play, at least for me anyway. What's the point of playing if best general is so heavily influenced by comp?

4) Forgive me, I wasn't looking to call anybody out. I had heard whispers around and it irked me so. It's all about fun in the end, but people can enjoy their hobby many different ways. Embrace it, let everyone have their good time.

5) Refresh my memory, which gimmick was it? A one dimensional army is the easiest to beat with a balanced force.

6) It's not about stomping on noobs, it's about a fun and challenging game. I can respect that people don't have the same philosophy, but I won't try to impose my way on people out of some sense of moral superiority. I would be happy to come and throw down with y'all, but my work and school schedule is a nightmare to get anything done outside of Tuesdays and Saturdays. I'm late to getting back in the swing of things after my hobby hiatus, but I do so earnestly want to contribute to the community.

7) You can't please everyone, but I find the best way to get people to think is to offer a different perspective and make them really think about not just what they're doing, but why.

[MajorSoB]

I'm late to getting back in the swing of things after my hobby hiatus, but I do so earnestly want to contribute to the community.

Well said, and I do hope you get back to it real soon. While I may have strong opinions I really try to embrace that of every player that I come in contact with as well. I look forward to seeing you around to when your schedule allows. Be prepared to win some games, lose some but always have fun doing both!

[Abuzorg]

Sorry, Black Templars may not fight along side ANY psykers with one exception and thats the Grey Knights.

I'm sorry if I'm kind of getting off topic with this, but are you saying that since you are playing Black Templars , no one in your club can field, say a Farseer or hell, a squad of Thousand Sons ?

[Lerra]

I'm sorry if I'm kind of getting off topic with this, but are you saying that since you are playing Black Templars , no one in your club can field, say a Farseer or hell, a squad of Thousand Sons ?

I think when he said "my club", he meant the Black Templars, not a real-world gaming club.

[TibiaFever]

I'm sure GW dungeon fighter gold (http://www.4gamefight.com/dfo-gold.htm) would have made up a "Build your own HQ" system by now if they could stop the min/max-ers from raping it. dungeon fighter gold (http://www.10minget.com/dfo-gold.html) That's why the traits system is gone, you could take drawbacks that guild wars gold (http://www.gamezmoney.com/guildwars-gold.htm) were irrelevant to your army build. Now the drawback is 'lose combat tactics', which hurts more often than you think it would.

[MarshalAdamar]

I think when he said "my club", he meant the Black Templars, not a real-world gaming club.

Sorry for all the confusion

Lerra is correct I was being funny (and confusing) I meant that Black Templar armies cannot have any allied psykers EXCEPT Grey knights.

I meant the Army as "My" club the Black Templars club. Not a real world club!