Is it time to ban special characters (from matched play)?

[Wargamer]

So this is something that I've been thinking about, because it's an issue that I have disliked ever since Special Characters became the norm - the fact they are the norm.

 

When I started in 3rd, Special Characters were completely absent. Nobody used them, and the reason was simple: first, many of them had a points restriction (ie: you had to play a 2,000 point game or more to field the likes of Dante, Abaddon, etc) and all of them required your opponent's consent to field.

 

I suspect everyone here is more familiar with the time when Special Characters were not only free to use, but essential for certain army types. Various characters let you move certain units to the Troops slot, allowing you to field specialists lists like an all-Terminator list. On top of that, Special Characters became so much better over time. Gone are the days when a Special Character was essentially an existing character with a minor perk, and now a Special Character can often be a totally unique and amazingly powerful unit - like a Primarch.

 

So with matched play getting changes like removing super-factions from detachments, and the gimping of Turn 1 Deep Strike, should the next step be the removal of Special Characters from matched play?

 

Now again, this is not about banning them from the game entirely - if you want to use them, they should still be there. But the emphasis should be that bringing a Special Character is an occasion, or at least something done with the prior knowledge of your opponent. To my mind, Robute Guilliman is a character an entire scenario, or even an entire campaign should be built around, not merely someone to include in a random game because he lets you spam Command Points.

[Ishagu]

Special characters are an integral part of the game and a reason why many people chose the armies they play.

I remember when Special characters were taboo as well, but that time has long passed.

 

Some armies only have an identity because of said special characters. Look at Black Legion, Ultramarines, Blood Angels, etc - the most unique aspects of these forces are the named characters. It would lessen the armies significantly to limit or remove them.

 

Other forces are built differently - look at Guard for example, an army that thematically is about the sacrifice of the many as opposed to great heroes who battle the Dark Powers. Some armies have generic HQs who are far more powerful than named alternatives - Fling Hive Tyrants, Coldstar Commanders, etc.

I don't think we should have any limitations.

 

I do understand that Guilliman popping up in smaller games might not appear thematic (Not really viable anymore due to his points only providing a return in larger games anyways), although in the lore he personally leads small Kill Teams on multiple occasions - Know no Fear against the Word Bearers, when he teleports down to kills Alparius/Omegon, when he assaults Fulgrim's ship with his guard at the end of the Scouring, etc, etc

[Kobrakei]

Honestly - no. In matched play they're just game pieces, compared to narrative play where they are the heroes of legend.

 

Also, the above changes to matched play only affect how an army works and doesn't ban you from using anything (I'm aware of the Tau Commander limit, but you still get one per detachment). I know I'd be really disappointed if I'd brought an army only to be unable to use it because someone else decided say, Pedro Kantor, was too powerful or just because they wanted to be a pain. If conversely, a player feels that a special character is too good to be in a game or they just see them being used all the time, it boils down to that old chestnut of having a discussion with your opponent to set your game expectations

[Cpt_Reaper]

I am extremely opposed to the banning of anything from play.

 

Be it Special Characters, Forge World units or even VDR units.

 

Now, if a Tournament Organiser wanted to restrict certain things then I'd be willing to look into it. Bringing back the ye olde rule of certain special characters being restricted to points values above a certain amount (which for example meant you needed 2000 points BEFORE you could run Character X) would not be a bad idea but it's have to be on a character by character basis. As Ishagu stated, not every Named Character is a Flying Custodes Coldstar on Jetbike of Slaanesh. 

[Corswain]

It depends on if we’re talking matched play among friends or as part of a club or if we’re talking competition. Personally, I don’t think so in either case.

 

If among friends or in a club, then it should be easy enough to come to that decision amongst yourselves but given that the atmosphere is generally more relaxed, then I don’t see it being a big deal.

 

If we’re talking competition, then it seems a little more reasonable but then it’s really not going to do much for balance purposes. There are too many other parts of the rules open to abuse for Special Characters to make much difference. But again, that could be decided by the competiton or event organisers.

 

I guess my general feeling is that option is better than restriction. No matter what the rules are or what you change, someone is going to be unhappy so the fewer restrictions you place on the broader community, the happier they will generally be.

[Halandaar]

No. As Ishagu has already pointed out, there are some armies with generic HQs that are better than most of the named characters in the game. Should we ban those too?

 

I agree that the prevalence of certain named characters can be tedious, but that's about balance on individual units, not an outright problem with characters in general.

[Scammel]

I can't think of any circumstances outside of a narrative game/campaign where I feel such a ban is warranted - I echo the sentiment that they are game pieces just like any other, even though they're often pretty boring compared to homebrew characters. I certainly don't see why they would apparently never be caught dead leading smaller forces, whether as part of a larger battle, convoy ambush etc.

 

Oldschool GW had some really odd takes on sportsmanship and appropriate army composition, to the point where WD articles directly discouraged themed armies with a preponderance of any particular unit type and low-key suggested being snotty to people who built such armies. Writers berated readers for merely taking particular magic items - not combos, single items - in a game they ostensibly had control over.

[Charlo]

They're fine and usually point-costed in a balanced way.

 

Yes it's a little concerning to see a lot of imperial armies lead by the Avenging Son himself, but hey - that's all part of the fun of 40k!

[Ishagu]

I think once more Primarchs and epic heroes return, this won't be a problem.

[Noserenda]

Get back in the ground dinosaur :D 

This anti Special character bias has always been as frustrating and illogical to me as anti Forgeworld bias, sure there are a few bad eggs, but rather than some kind of blanket ban, maybe use the frequent tweaks to fix the broken examples rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater? 

Special characters can add a lot to the narrative, theme an army and generally make games more interesting because for every "Captain Helwar of the 3rd Company, Destroyer of the Infinus swarm and excellent cricket player" there are a dozen "Space Marine Captain with power Sword 130pts" helping get the younger gamers off to sleep at night. 

[Trixie]

In recent years it seems as if some characters have been designed as part and parcel of armies. Cawl in an 8th edtion Mars Admech army is a perfect example of this, as he serves as a central cog of rerolls and significantly alters the mechanics (canticles) of the army. Without Cawl I doubt many admech players would ever choose to play as the Mars forgeworld, instead taking the Stygies or Lucius dogmas instead as their benefits are not fundamentally linked to Cawls abilities.

 

Whilst I agree that legendary heros really wouldn't be leading every single skirmish over a forgotten farm or a watchtower made of pringles tubes, this is a game and games are usually played for fun even at the the competitive level. Therefore legendary characters will always be popular on the tabletop and likely remain a staple of 40k now and in the future.

[Charlo]

One thing that has really helped special characters are the restictions on key words and factions.

 

Back when you would've had Guilliman leading the Mentor chapter along with Pedro Cantor and maybe Grimaldus - now though those are locked to specific detachments at a minimum.

 

Same with the likes of Ghazgull, Eldrad etc.

[Wargamer]

Get back in the ground dinosaur  

 

This anti Special character bias has always been as frustrating and illogical to me as anti Forgeworld bias, sure there are a few bad eggs, but rather than some kind of blanket ban, maybe use the frequent tweaks to fix the broken examples rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater? 

 

Special characters can add a lot to the narrative, theme an army and generally make games more interesting because for every "Captain Helwar of the 3rd Company, Destroyer of the Infinus swarm and excellent cricket player" there are a dozen "Space Marine Captain with power Sword 130pts" helping get the younger gamers off to sleep at night. 

Forgeworld is a bad example - I was the first people in my gaming circle who began including Forgeworld units as standard in my list... and they were always objectively worse than what was in the Codex as standard. The Conqueror was a weaker version of the Russ that cost more; the Executioner was stupidly overpriced, and there was absolutely no point to the Hydra Flak Tank from a mechanics perspective... but I brought them because they looked amazing.

 

I don't buy the idea that you need special characters to have narrative. In fact, my experience is that it has the opposite effect - right out the gate I was creating characters for my army, and so were my friends. Our backstories developed precisely to establish how our characters were related, some as allies and others as enemies.

 

I have no idea why Chapter Master Dyus of the Supernovas is murdering Belisarius Cawl, save perhaps as a noble effort to save the Imperium from the biggest Mary Sue in the universe. I'm not the one fielding units that exist purely as a block of stats - that appears to be the forte of the people who bring a special character because of his almighty 12" aura and colossal boost to the faction's core gimmick.

[Scammel]

Considering some Chapter Masters are iffy about the existence of Razorbacks, I have no doubt that there are dozens who want to pull off Cawl's legs one by one.

[chapter master 454]

Back then, the game was a different beast. I never played it but I do have 3rd ed. codexes of Space Marines (the last cover with NOT ultramarines) and catachans (yep, they had a codex once). Those codexes were completely differently. Small parts of lore and a section on painting and terrain making. Kinda crazy really. There were no Captains in a single dataslate but instead you picked your flavour of Commander from 3 tiers of power (each with increasing stats). Heck, we didn't even have venerable dreadnoughts yet (game wasn't old enough yet for any dreadnought to be old enough XD).

 

To be honest, i feel the shift now has been good for the game. While Special Characters seem mundane, they are special because they can enable an entire list style or certain quirky tactics. Same with forgeworld, these units add diversity and can actually help shore up certain holes along with having some really cool models that aren't out of the park overpowered in a lot of cases (unless we go titans but that's another story which involves many being good or bad). I personally REALLY want to get some of those dreadnoughts and looking at their rules, they all provide a unique unit that we can't get anywhere else (Deredeos look amazing and fill the slot of fire support dreadnought. Leviathans are just big stompers who crush all!).

 

Feel free to test out in your own circle banning out special characters and do report to us what you find with it. I think however you will find ether no change or negative changes really but that's my theory, practice may yield surprising results!

[Panzer]

Yeah I'm really against such a stupid ban.

It annoyed me back then in fantasy (before I played 40k) but I saw the point of it since there were special characters who would easily solo whole armies and as I understood it was similar for 40k at that time. However these days special characters are MUCH more balanced with non-special units. Hell many special characters don't even get played most of the time anyway because the more customizable 'generic' characters have access to better combinations of traits, relics and wargear anyway.

It's a very different game compared to back then and special characters have as much a place in armies as any other unit. Deal with it. If some are too strong then they can get balanced seperately but a strict ban is the kind of heavy handed 'balancing' we condemn GW for all the time. 

[Captain Idaho]

I'd let not mind a ban in matched play, or at least opponent's permission. Take special characters out of the expected and into the fun and theme.

 

There's little as boring as seeing every Adeptus Mechanicus army with Cawl, or Guilliman in every Ultramarines army, or whatever...

[Ishagu]

A ban in matched play? Isn't it easier to propose limitations in narrative? After all, people seem to have a narrative problem with seeing characters everywhere.

 

Honestly, when I see topics like this it always seems like a few people are trying to dictate the hobby for others.

 

If your local meta is getting stale because people are running the same thing, its up to you to change that. Ask your opponent not to run the same tings over and over.

[Captain Idaho]

None of the reasons I posted about were narrative. People use "narrative" as the excuse why they don't like Special Characters but the bottom line is they're either super powerful and therefore in every list or they're "narrative" and no one takes them.

 

It's funny how the people who defend taking special characters always take the most powerful ones and defend their right to do so, but you never see them taking Sicarius...

[Brother Tyler]

Special characters and their use in the game are a very complex issue, and I have to admit to being somewhat conflicted.

 

Overall, though, I think that the key element of keeping special characters from being spammed is in designing them so that they don't have to be essential to a faction's appeal and competitiveness. A faction's appeal and competitiveness should derive from its baseline rules; special characters should be an interesting cherry on top.

 

As for whether or not they should be banned/restricted from any style of play, I think that should be on a case-by-case basis. If a group is playing a competitive campaign with a certain storyline/event in mind, they might impose any reasonable restrictions there are that accurately reflect the lore. One tournament might decide that anything goes, while another might impose a blanket prohibition on special characters, and yet another might allow each army to include only one special character, and yet another might only allow special characters when they are mandatory for a formation. Prohibitions can really only work where a special character isn't essential to an army.

 

Ultimately, though, I wouldn't expect Games Workshop to do anything that will negatively impact the sales of what are often expensive models.

[phoenix01]

Maybe your opponent's Guilliman is a warp-spawned clone of the true Avenging Son who is in your army. Perhaps Belisarius Cawl has an evil twin complete with goatee and waxed handlebar mustache who secretly works for the Dark Mechanicum. And that Celestine? Well maybe Katarina Greyfax was right about all this nonsense regarding "Living Saints". Fluff-wise, there can be lots of explanations. Also fluff-wise, a Space Marine is a rare sight and the equal of ten regular men and you might be lucky to see a squad of five in your deployment zone, but in the game, you have access to a Battle Company plus auxiliaries. How rare is it for an entire Battle Company to assemble on a battlefield to fight Genestealer Cultists?

 

The reality is that if you play fluffy games, you expect your army to be epic. So what if Guilliman is in your list? This week, he's charging with your army against the Death Korps of Krieg. Maybe he remembers how Krieg failed the Emperor and wants a little payback. Maybe the Death Korps got bad intel on where the Chaos forces are deploying and accidently attack your Black Templars with Guilliman (hey maybe the Lord Commander is slumming). If all you play is tournament lists, then multiple Guillimans and Cawls on the battlefield seems jarring. However you play, there are others who play differently, and bias against that play style isn't the right answer. If you don't want your army to have a special character, that's your prerogative, but you shouldn't get bent out of shape because little Timmy has the Triumvirate of the Primarch with his Space Wolves.

[Xwingt65]

I think once more Primarchs and epic heroes return, this won't be a problem.

Wouldn’t that be “if”...

[Scammel]

'Characters are dull and overpowered' isn't an argument against characters, it's an argument against poor unit design generally. I'm not keen on arbitrating what is 'proper fluff', especially given that matched play is often a tacit acceptance of all kinds of in-universe contradictions.

[Ishagu]

I'm not convinced any of the named characters are actually a problem at the moment.

 

Guilliman isn't overpowered or dominating, neither is Cawl, or Swarmlord, Abaddon, etc, etc.

Celestine might be the best of the bunch at the moment but she's not at the forefront of people's minds? Yvraine probably caused the most grief on the competitive scene over the last few months.

 

If you're seeing them too much at your local, as I said earlier, you should speak to your opponents.

[Finkmilkana]

Special characters seem to be created and balanced by GW pretty much the same as any other unit. Some are overpowered and taken when possible, some are weak and never taken. Some even seem to play a part in balancing army/subfaction special rules. Exactly the same as other units. There literally seems to be no reason to ban them all from a mechanical point of view. Banning some of them on the other hand would be the same banning any normal overpowered unit, something that I don’t see happening now that Gw actually tries to balance things.

 

Now from a narrative point of view (Robute again?...) I could see the point, but that should only matter for friendly narrative games where you can discuss it with your opponent.