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

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.

Attachment 9016

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

Attachment 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...

Attachment 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).

Attachment 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.

Attachment 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...

Attachment 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...

Attachment 9022

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

Attachment 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!!!

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!

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

SC needed permission in 2nd ed too.

Quote:

---

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.