O'shovah & The Tau are the Reason for the Collapse of Warhammer 40,000!!!

[PinkTerror]

It's true. History proves it. And now a little background...

Up until 2001, Warhammer was gentleman's game. A rigid rule system, it may not have been always correct, or made sense, but between yearly FAQ books and White Dwarf, there was enough grey matter to fill in the missing pieces. This was important in the late nineties and early nuaghties because GW was running Grand Tournaments - spectacular weekend affairs with 6 games, food, and hotel rooms!

But something happened in October 2001 that would have dire consequences for this game that cumulated with the with the release of of 7th Edition 40k last week, May 24th 2014. 13 years - coincidence? I think not. The Tau codex was released in 2001 in a new codex format.

9016

Before the Tau codex, this was a familiar sight...

9017

Do you see it? "...he may only be used in a battle where all players have agreed beforehand to allow the use of special characters." That sentence, effectively kept special characters out of the game. Oddly, the Grand Tournaments did allow them, however, hardly anyone used them - less you get whacked for sportsmanship on your scoresheet. Like I said, a gentlemen's game.

So that Space Wolves mini'Dex was the last codex to include that sort of Special Characters. Oh, and by the way, in that last 'Dex was the last time SW players got to see their beloved Leman Russ...

9018

...so when you hear SW old-timers whining about their Leman Russes - that's what they're referring to.

Anyway, so the next codex was another mini'Dex, Craftworld Eldar, but there were no Special Characters. The next codex in February 2001 was Tyranids - it was in the last format for those lite'Dexes & mini'Dexes that were shot-gunned out by GW to make up for annihilating our 2nd Edition Codex library with the release of 3rd Edition. Tyranids was the last 3rd Edition codex to replace a Second Edition Codex before GW would introduce new armies back-to-back with Tau and Necrons (with the exception of Dark Eldar intro'd in the 3rd Edition Box Set).

9019

Now, Tyranids did have 2 Special Characters, and they did not require players permission. However, they were saddled with restrictions. You had to take 1500 or more points to include Red Terror and you had to take 1500 or less to be able to include Old One Eye. Neat huh, at exactly 1500 you could take both.

9020

And now the kicker, the beginning of the end. With the Tau Codex, they had two special characters. O'shovah and Aun'shi and they both looked like this...

9021

You see, gone is the request for permission for players privilege to use Special Characters. Here's Drazhar in the first Dark Eldar Codex...

9022

...and here he is in the Reprint of the same Codex caller DE Second Edition, after the Tau Codex...

9023

So how was this the Beginning of the End? Because it snowballed and more and more toys were added to the game for use without an opponents permission, like fliers, ForgeWorld, and special terrain, until it hit critical mass with Escalation Super-Heavies and Knights and then the Big Bang - 7th Edition Unbound. Seemingly, the biggest split in differences I've seen yet in this game. A whatever you want approach vs to players trying to cling to some rules and boundaries, laws by which to avoid anarchy.

So there it is. Damn you Farsight of the Tau. Damn you all to Hell!!!

[ChacoStylez]

There is a reason why he is considered a renegade, exiled from Tau society, and a part of their history they themselves are trying to rewrite...man I love Commander Farsight!

This made me lol by the way, thanks Pink Terror!

[Katharon]

Besides your opening comments sounding variously envious, sexist, and hostile -- I have to say "good riddance." The old 3rd ed rules concerning players asking each other if they could use special characters as a rule, sucked. Now-a-days you can just talk to each other pre-game and decide a gentlemanly/womanly agreement on what not to bring. I think when Flyers received their ability to fly, a lot of people started asking their opponents "Did you bring any flyers?" and there was even some talk of adding in this same old 3rd ed rule about both players agreeing before using a flyer.

Utter nonsense. But a good laugh.

[chicop76]

I completely forgotten about the asking permission. However I remember it did prevent people from using specials, I'll never give permission. However Tau is what got me in the game for starters, this article tells.me.how long I been playing the game.

At any rate I liked.the article and can see some truth, but I really liked 3rd and 4th. I started to hate the game in 5th.

I personally wished 3.5 with the chapter approved stuff I think actually applied to 4th. It made wiping out.units a bit harder , but no. I guess 5th they got.tired of the Tau players losing to two marines.

[ElectricPaladin]

There's something to be said for the idea that if something isn't balanced for your game, it isn't balanced for your ******* game, and no amount of "ask permission" is going to fix that. It's kind of like how in the RPG community, people used to blast White Wolf for their Rule Zero, which basically boiled down to "if you don't like a rule we put in this book, feel free to change or ignore it." The response was alternately "yes, I know I'm the one running this damn game - you don't need to tell me that, thank you very much!" and "if the rule isn't good enough for me to follow, why the hell did you waste time writing it?" I feel similarly about these profiles (though, oddly, I always gave White Wolf a free pass - as one of the first games of the post-D&D era, they actually did have to tell a lot of their fans that the rules were there to support the story, rather than trying to model the way a world actually worked, and could be ignored... but I digress).

On the other hand, I think it gives us an interesting insight into the way the creators thought - and possibly still think. There's been a lot of pixels shed over whether or not 40k is balanced, and how important that is. But here we have what the creators think: no, it's not, and it's not supposed to be, just shut up and decide with your opponent.

I'm not necessarily defending that point of view. I think it's workable, to a point. But nevertheless, it's interesting to see how the writers used to be a lot more upfront about it.

[chicop76]

There's something to be said for the idea that if something isn't balanced for your game, it isn't balanced for your ******* game, and no amount of "ask permission" is going to fix that. It's kind of like how in the RPG community, people used to blast White Wolf for their Rule Zero, which basically boiled down to "if you don't like a rule we put in this book, feel free to change or ignore it." The response was alternately "yes, I know I'm the one running this damn game - you don't need to tell me that, thank you very much!" and "if the rule isn't good enough for me to follow, why the hell did you waste time writing it?" I feel similarly about these profiles (though, oddly, I always gave White Wolf a free pass - as one of the first games of the post-D&D era, they actually did have to tell a lot of their fans that the rules were there to support the story, rather than trying to model the way a world actually worked, and could be ignored... but I digress).

On the other hand, I think it gives us an interesting insight into the way the creators thought - and possibly still think. There's been a lot of pixels shed over whether or not 40k is balanced, and how important that is. But here we have what the creators think: no, it's not, and it's not supposed to be, just shut up and decide with your opponent.

I'm not necessarily defending that point of view. I think it's workable, to a point. But nevertheless, it's interesting to see how the writers used to be a lot more upfront about it.

I think.the vision was a table top.jpg. More.than a competitive thing. I think.the problem is the game.reach a competitive.level with supporters.wanting.it.to.stay on a rpg level. Since the game have a decent level of people who like to play the game and people who like to play due to fluff. The rules suffer since they try to.keep both camps.happy.

I think.around when Tau came out you seen more people who just wanted.to play the game over.the majority who.play due.to.fluff.

However.house rules.work.with rugs since you have a game master that runs things. The problem with 40k you have two.equal parties and no game master.

[Charon]

Actually SC are a good example where GW decided to change rules for profit.
Games where consent was given were rare due to a few factors:
1) SC run in 2 cateories. Either they are way better than every other HQ choice or they are far worse.
2) It is so silly that a selected few SC command every single small *** army in the Universe.

When the "consent" rule was dropped, SC popped up everywhere. Its rare to see an army without the average "im better than the standard HQ choice" SC.
Kairos is also so much better than any other Lord of Change for just a few points difference, why pick a standard one?
Catering to the WAAC crowd in an attempt to sell more SC. Bad for the game but money doesnt stink.

[bfmusashi]

I missed third, but I didn't remember a lot of 'ask permission' in second. For this reason I have trouble believing Special Characters RUINED 40K FOREVER, but I don't have a second ed. codex with me anymore so someone feel free to put a pic up.

[ElectricPaladin]

2) It is so silly that a selected few SC command every single small *** army in the Universe.


I have to admit that I always thought that this objection was kind of dumb. I mean we're talking about a whole world of stories. Perhaps Dante, for example, doesn't set out to lead every battle the Blood Angels fight, but there are so many other possibilities. Dante and a small bodyguard are ambushed. Dante leads a small squad of elite commandos while the rest of the army holds off the enemy elsewhere. Dante and a few Blood Angels are all that's left of a larger force after a terrible rout and now must fight their way out from behind enemy lines.

Now, if you want to say that a given special character is only balanced for use at a certain points level, that's a different story. But I think that the narrative objection doesn't hold water.

[Charon]

I missed third, but I didn't remember a lot of 'ask permission' in second. For this reason I have trouble believing Special Characters RUINED 40K FOREVER, but I don't have a second ed. codex with me anymore so someone feel free to put a pic up.


SC needed permission in 2nd ed too.


I have to admit that I always thought that this objection was kind of dumb. I mean we're talking about a whole world of stories.

While this is true, I have played losts of P&P RPG and ppl come up with the most stupid storys to why they may play characters that are not intended for players. Same with SC.
Oh, Eldrad was just visiting Alaitoc in a kind of leader exchange program.
Oh I use Dante in every of my armey because... all the missions are kinda important.
Sure does the Ultramarine Chaptermaster lead a 700 points army personally... he does this all the time.
Not to mention people doing these things in campains.
In my experience these "stories" are just a sad excuse to take a more powerful model than they would usually have access to. Catering to WAAC players.

Because its NEVER <enter random overpriced and weak SC here> to do these things, its always the best SC in the codex.

[ElectricPaladin]

Because its NEVER <enter random overpriced and weak SC here> to do these things, its always the best SC in the codex.

Yeah, ok. It's true that I'm relatively new to this hobby (only a couple of years) and blessed with an FLGS with a really cool and narrative-friendly 40k community.

[Tepogue]

quoted section removed by mod: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/faq.php?faq=termsmaster#faq_termsuse

This is completely offensive. There were female players during the old Grand Tournaments. My wife was one of them. And to refer to any woman who showed up as a "whore" is so, <self censored>

[The Girl]

Next time, PinkTerror, keep your sexist comments to yourself... and if you just can't help yourself, expect a timed ban in response. We don't allow that here.

[Jstncloud]

9028

Clarification, Farsight and Shadowsun both had this restriction in their 4th edition books.

[ChosenChaos]

I'm not so sure about this - saying that SCs are the ruin of WH40K is a bit of a stretch, given that with some care and attention, you can create a generic model that's almost as good as a SC from the available wargear options in a codex. A couple of examples from the Chaos Space Marines codex:

1. Take a generic Lord, give him Terminator armour, the Mark of Tzeentch, Aura of Dark Glory, the Black Mace (or the Murder Sword if you have a particular target in mind) and Veterans of the Long War. You now have a HQ choice with almost the same stats as Abaddon, but only costing 185 points. You could throw in a Lightning Claw to get something that looks more like Abaddon and that only take the cost up to 202 points.
2. Alternately, start with a Daemon Prince and give it power armour, the Mark of Tzeentch, the Aura of Dark Glory and the Black Mace... and you now have a monster that has a number of stats that are better than Abaddon's, but still coming in cheaper at 240 points.
3. Alternately alternately, start with a Sorceror, and push his Mastery to Level 3, and give him the Mark of Tzeentch, Aura of Dark Glory, a force weapon, a spell familiar and Veterans of the Long War, and you now have a mini-Ahriman for 160 points. You could also give him Scrolls of Magnus for that extra bit of psyker goodness, which pushes the cost to 205 points - still cheaper than Ahriman.

And these are just three examples I cobbled together in 15 minutes. I'm pretty sure that if anyone wanted, they could do something similar with other codexes.

[PinkTerror]

...saying that SCs are the ruin of WH40K is a bit of a stretch...

No, no. That wasn't my point. It wasn't about the Special Characters, it was about the asking for permission. The deletion of that declaration started a chain of events that spider-webbed into a free-for-all whatever you like dancing upon anarchy; cumulating into one of the biggest differences in opinion with a new ruleset.

One of the hallmarks of a competitive system is that you not only know how to strategize with your rules, but if you've done your diligence to 'know thy enemy' then you have an idea of your opponents capabilities and worry mainly about his (or hers) strategy; and luck. But the inclusion of limitless possible opponent combinations makes it almost impossible to rely upon your knowledge of the opponents; seemingly to the chagrin of the competitive player. Not robbing the game of enjoyment, but not as easily adaptable to competitive organized events either.

It was probably inevitable anyway, the game has to grow - but then again, so do weeds.

[Charon]

I'm not so sure about this - saying that SCs are the ruin of WH40K is a bit of a stretch, given that with some care and attention, you can create a generic model that's almost as good as a SC from the available wargear options in a codex. A couple of examples from the Chaos Space Marines codex:

1. Take a generic Lord, give him Terminator armour, the Mark of Tzeentch, Aura of Dark Glory, the Black Mace (or the Murder Sword if you have a particular target in mind) and Veterans of the Long War. You now have a HQ choice with almost the same stats as Abaddon, but only costing 185 points. You could throw in a Lightning Claw to get something that looks more like Abaddon and that only take the cost up to 202 points.
2. Alternately, start with a Daemon Prince and give it power armour, the Mark of Tzeentch, the Aura of Dark Glory and the Black Mace... and you now have a monster that has a number of stats that are better than Abaddon's, but still coming in cheaper at 240 points.
3. Alternately alternately, start with a Sorceror, and push his Mastery to Level 3, and give him the Mark of Tzeentch, Aura of Dark Glory, a force weapon, a spell familiar and Veterans of the Long War, and you now have a mini-Ahriman for 160 points. You could also give him Scrolls of Magnus for that extra bit of psyker goodness, which pushes the cost to 205 points - still cheaper than Ahriman.

And these are just three examples I cobbled together in 15 minutes. I'm pretty sure that if anyone wanted, they could do something similar with other codexes.

None of your examples are even close.
You "abbadon" has no Ap2 in melee, no T5, no fearless, no rage, no WS7, no A4, no counterstrike, no eternal warrior....
In short he isnt even CLOSE to Abaddon.
Same with the daemon prince.
Abaddon is not a good example anyways because he is not really good.
Same goes for Ahriman. You dont get ML4 and fearless or casting the same wichfire multiple times out of ANY other codex entry.

You keep ignoring that a SC has a PACKAGE of things you re normally not allowed to combine (mutliple marks for example).

Kairos is not just a Lord of change with one or two rewards. He allows you to do thing no other codex entry will allow you (picking all powers of certain schools, rerolling a single dice no matter what this dice was)

[Jan Wiklo]

In 2nd ed there was no permission to ask if someone could use x y z SC. The only time you needed permission to use something was if it was from citadel journal. I remember cause I used to run with every single BA character in a 2000 pt game and it was quite silly to see Mephiston / Dante Frenzied.

[Power Klawz]

I think when they removed the opponent approval fiat from special characters they were taking a big step away from competitive play support. They stopped promoting their big tournaments so much and really started to shrink the tournament aspect of the game to the point where it is now, which is basically nonexistent but for a few third party sponsored events. I think any emphasis that was once placed on competitive play was more a byproduct of simplicity. Back in the day they simply didn't have the ability to churn out something like a riptide or plastic baneblade. It was inherently more balanced simply because it was inherently more limited.

But this was never the vision of the design team or the creators I believe. All their source artwork depicts apocalyptic war scenes with super heavy vehicles and titans strewn about the background. They always wanted a spectacle more than a tight rules set.

It always kind of irked me when they let special characters roam freely though. I think I always had a vision of the game in my head that you were creating your own stories and characters. I started playing when I was around 12 years old and always named my characters and tried to devise a history for them, that would then entwine with whatever battles they fought. To me special characters were too jarring to the narrative, they came replete with their own premade histories and, in a lot of ways, would overshadow the conflict at hand. Its one thing for brother-captain Terrenus to battle off an incursion of orks from a far flung outpost, but its entirely less when commander Dante does it. Why would he even bother? Doesn't he have a galactic threat somewhere to handle?

So I am sort of torn with the current state of affairs. On the one hand I love that themed lists can now fit neatly into a very open framework. I like that there are whole new layers to the game with flyers and super heavies and I appreciate the variety and most importantly the sheer volume of great models. However, I can't help but feel that they do it all just to sling plastic crack and have since stopped caring, even a little bit, about rules functionality, and balance went out the window long ago when space commies flew in on jetpacks.

[Jose A. Fabian]

I don't get why people argue balance in 40k. The game and armies are unbalanced, yes, but it's a moot point to argue that when the game uses dice to determine results. I'm not saying go play chess, but what I am saying is that chess doesn't use random determinators for a reason. Playing 40k is closer to gambling, and hey there's nothing wrong with that, there are competitive gamblers out there and they have fun.

[Brettila]

In 2nd ed there was no permission to ask if someone could use x y z SC. The only time you needed permission to use something was if it was from citadel journal. I remember cause I used to run with every single BA character in a 2000 pt game and it was quite silly to see Mephiston / Dante Frenzied.

No, there were some things you needed permission to play. Named characters was one. Another were certain army lists such as the Genestealer Cult and the Demon World lists in the back of the Chaos Codex.

[DaveTycho]

9028

Clarification, Farsight and Shadowsun both had this restriction in their 4th edition books.

I was wondering when someone would pick up on this. +1 to you. -1 to this thread.

[Psychosplodge]

SC needed permission in 2nd ed too.


I don't remember ever asking for permission to use a character in 2nd. :confused:

[Lord-Boofhead]

9622

[Finnegan]

I hardly ever use special characters in my games. In my opinion using them in battles under 3000pts is insult to them :P
On the other hand, when we play bigger battles, they always have narrative background and we always settle in advance which (and if) special characters can be used.

[PinkTerror]

I was wondering when someone would pick up on this. +1 to you. -1 to this thread.

That's incorrect.

That example comes from the 2nd Codex, Tau Empire, not the first I was referring to, called just TAU.

[Katharon]

Dude. Thread is dead. Leave it.

[The Girl]

Agreed.