PDA

View Full Version : Got banned from a campaign!



Doppleskanger
16-03-2009, 12:05
Ok have a listen to this and tell me what you think.
I have a lot of different armies, and always try and build them to a strong theme. I'm not a super competitive player, but as i understand the rules well and put a lot of thought into army composition, my armies do tend to be effective.
Recently I've been working on a doublewing force, not so original, but I think it's an interesting army. Yesterday my games club started a new campaign and I signed up. then on the way out the guy organising it mentioned that no named characters were allowed. Oh oh I thought. So I explained that my army doesn't work without the named characters. He didn't know that, so I showed him the codex and explained that whilst the mariine codex let's non named character turn bikes into troops, the dark angels one requires Samiel. Anyway, i said would it be alright if I used Sammy and didn't take Belial, leaving the Deathwing as elites but the ravenwing as troops. He went off with the codex for 5 minutes and came back and said no. This essentially bans my army!
Now I've only had two games with this list, a draw with a tau player in an extremely tactical and interesting game, and I mullered the orgainiser of the campaigns chaos army. In the latter, it was Dawn of war, so i was all over his deployment zone before he brought anything on. Then he drove three fully loaded Rhinos on and parked them infront of my army without disembarking. in my turn the melta guns on the bikes obviously blew up the rhinos and everthing else bust up the troops as they disembarked. Had he got out of the Rhinos and fired, the game would have gone diffrently, but he didn't, so he died.
Last night I checked the points cost to bring the same army using the marine codex. A list with the same number of models and as similar as possible costs 2000pts in DA but only 1750 in SM. yes I would have some additional special rules, but I'm paying a LOT of points for them.

So sorry for the lengthy post, but what do you think?
Is the organiser being fair, or is he sulking because i hammered him?
How would you feel if you were banned from an event before it even started?

Sidstyler
16-03-2009, 12:08
I think he's being a tit. Just tell him that it's not "actually" the named character but a counts-as generic character of your own creation with the same rules.

There's really no reason not to allow it, especially considering the Dark Angels armies don't function without them.

marv335
16-03-2009, 12:15
whilst people running a tournament/campaign have the right to allow or disallow anything they like, I think he's being a bit of a prat.

Grimtuff
16-03-2009, 12:18
whilst people running a tournament/campaign have the right to allow or disallow anything they like, I think he's being a bit of a prat.

Agreed. Though I think he's more of a tool, a spanner more specifically. :p

lotrchampion
16-03-2009, 12:22
While he does seem to be acting like something from a DIY store, it does highlight a problem within GW's current direction of 40k army books-special character being the core of a list. I agree that he shouldn't ban the list on grounds of the SCs, but the fact that an SC is allowed just to make a list viable is an error in itself IMO. But hey, thats the way GW's going at the moment, and why I don't see the need to include a SC in my army unless on grounds of adding genuine character and flavour to the list-not increasing the lsits' direct abilities.

I'd advise appealing to other gamers in your group, and seeing if they agree with you-if the campaign organiser sees that the general consensus is against him, he will likely yield to popular opinion. Fingers crossed anyway!

Mojaco
16-03-2009, 12:26
That guy is a relic stuck in 3rd edition. Banned special characters is like banning heavy support these days; it makes no sense. Limiting them I can understand, as some go nuts on special characters, but banning is no longer applicable in 5th.

Then again, it's his campaign and he can do as he pleases. If this is what he prefers, well, that just one of the perks of going through the hassle of campaign organisation.

RichBlake
16-03-2009, 12:29
To be fair this is an old, old rule from days of old.

"Named Characters" used to be banned because they were relatively cheap and extremely powerful, however this was years ago. Then they put points limits on characters and the ban was lifted, however with the new SM dex people are considering using such rules again. The problem with this though is it stops some interesting builds (e.g sternguard heavy SM armies with Kantor) even if the build isn't that good (e.g sternguard heavy SM armies with Kantor :p).

To be fair the Deathwing/Ravenwing army is pretty good, and I'd have probably restricted you to just the Deathwing, as imo it's a very hard army to play well and if you want to do that then good for you.

However there is the consideration that he may say "No named characters" because as campaign organiser he may want the ability to go "OMG who's that? It's named character X arriving to beat people up!".

If he's just banned them for gameplay reasons then I'd politely disagree.

Karnstein
16-03-2009, 12:30
That's the reason why most good tournament/league organisators in germany, who disallow named characters, either allow one of the two for a DA force (and the champ for BT &ava for eldar) or allow DW/RW be fielded as troops if a HQ-model uses term-armour/bike.

So yes, I would say he's a prick. I'm not a fan of named chars either, but he is going over the top.

Rirekon
16-03-2009, 12:30
Silly hang-over from when special characters were more-awesome-than-god and required your opponents permission to use (it was actually specified in the codex).
I know a few people who still have this mentality, it's a hard thing to undo and you're going to have to work at it.

sigur
16-03-2009, 12:39
I really hate to be the relic-tool-guy ( :angel: ) but it's his tournament so his rules apply. Didn't you read the rules before entering at all? If they say no special characters, it's no special characters. Sure it can be frustrating if you travelled all the way and made up a list, painted the minis and all but weren't the rules up somewhere to check or check the rules before deciding to enter?

So need for a discussion I think. In the end it becomes a discussion about special characters anyway which isn't the topic.

ehlijen
16-03-2009, 12:39
The thing is, he may just be afraid to open the door for everyone to rush in and proclaim that their named character is not overpowered and then he'd have to make calls on every single SC. It's just easier to say no to all of them if there's some he wants to keep out, and given that 40k still has books from all the ages of SCs (from 'expensive curiosity' to super versions of normal guys to the new trait bringers) that's a fair call.

Given that there is actually the option of playing regular marines for you, I don't see that this is such a terrible case.

He's not banning your list. He's just saying 'no named characters'. You could just take FA bikes, Elite termies and minimum Tacticals, or play green ultramarines.

Although, you might have better luck convincing him to let you take Belial. Belial is just a termie captain as far as I remember whereas Sammael breaks all the rules with either a super jetbike or his land raider speeder. That kind of bizzare, norm defying thing may just be what he wanted to avoid when he said 'no named characters'.

Grimtuff
16-03-2009, 12:52
That's the reason why most good tournament/league organisators in germany, who disallow named characters, either allow one of the two for a DA force (and the champ for BT &ava for eldar) or allow DW/RW be fielded as troops if a HQ-model uses term-armour/bike.


Erm, the Avatar has not been a special character since 2nd edition. :eyebrows:

Lord Malorne
16-03-2009, 12:55
Emperors champion is not either.

PierceC
16-03-2009, 13:00
I am going to have to back ehlijen on this one.

He has said that you basically need to take the army you want with either normal characters or not at all.

I think that you need to take an opportunity and look at what you won't be facing, instead of just what you weren't allowed. The rules mean no O'Shovah Farsight Enclaves, no Wazdakka Nobz biker armies, Vulkan Melta armies, etc, etc.....

Basically you aren't the only one getting stuffed, so I would say get over it. As you said in your orgininal post, there are avenues that you can take and even get more units by playing vanilla, so take your opportunity.

I think playing without special characters may also help the organiser at it may increase the speed of gameplay in that there are less queries around special characters rules. As most will tell you, there is nothing worse then an opponent calling over a judge cause he's not heard of a rule or because you've not applied a rule the same way that they would. As an organiser, he's possibly thinking about the whole campaign, not necessarily the axe he has to grind with you.

pookie
16-03-2009, 13:00
well tbh its up to him, GrimmTuff had it wright, hes a certain kind of Tool....

but...

you dont need beliel or Sammi to use the DW/RW - instead, use Bob the terminator captain and fred the RW Captain, after all, you can use ALL SC in any force as long as you use the correct dex ( so No Siccarius leading a DA army, using the DA Dex for example ).

samiens
16-03-2009, 13:07
I'm sorry but I think this is a nonsense. What he should have done is banned special characters not actually included in the army list (so no farsight but calgar is ok) due to balance issues. He may, however, just want to avoid it from a storyline point of view.

Personally I don't like it but it is his campaign and you have to play by the rules (I don't like the setup for GWs 40k doubles but as I go I have to build an army around it) In contradiction to my signature- as this guy is being an a*** then use the marine codex and wreck his side.

Necromancer2
16-03-2009, 13:11
I think Characters are overused in 5th... Except in the DA case where you need one to play an army.

IAMNOTHERE
16-03-2009, 13:20
Vote with your feet, chat to the other players, make pointed comments about how Deathwing and Ravenwing armys are banned for some reason.

They are fun lists and take finesse to play well.

Also discuss the blanket ban with him, to me it sounds like a cop out.

Doppleskanger
16-03-2009, 13:37
Hey thanks for the comments. I'm glad most people seem to feel he's the tool and not me!
A few points.
There were no written rules for this campaign, this was just mentioned to me after i signed up.
I have just converted a lovely Belial model from the Terminator Librarian and finally built my Sammy who's been sitting in a box for 2 years. whilst i do have other options, I was looking forward to using them as themselves.
I personnaly dislike when people alter the rules. I mean if GW with all there experience in games design find correct balance so hard to obtain, why does Tool A from Club B think their rules will suddenly fix the problems? This especially applies to the BoLs tourney rules which render armies generic and dull, and often require people to spend additional money and time on their army.
As I said I like themed armies. I like taking certain elements to the extreme and neglecting others entirely. With the replacement of the trait system with the use of specific named charaters to alter FO, restricting the use of special characters limits SM players to playing very generic armies. Previously I've avoided using named characters, but with the new codexes, whether I like using them or not, I have to if I want to build the army that I want
Certain armies require named characters to function, Sammy and Belial are obvious examples, as IMO is Grimaldius for BT under 5th
Surely it's easier and fairer just to write a list of the offending overpowered SC's and ban them, perhaps C'Tan, Abbadon, Calgar etc rather than place a blanket ban on all SC
Not all SC's are even good. Inquisitor Karamazov and Aun'Va spring to mind, which are great models with dumb rules, but if you want to bring them, what's the problem

Well, what I'll probably do is write up a marine bike list using SM codex and enjoy the cheaper models. I am tempted to take one of my more competitive armies (with no SC)and spend the entire campaign pounding the organiser into dust, but that wouldn't be a very grown up response, would it?

Karnstein
16-03-2009, 13:40
Erm, the Avatar has not been a special character since 2nd edition. :eyebrows:


Emperors champion is not either.

That's why I said "named chars", means those who have a rather specific name. It is A farseer but it is THE avatar... Don't forget that GW started to erase the "special characters needs your opponents permission" back in ed4. Some very old codices still have those lines, while the new ones don't have it anymore.

So most times the wording in tournament rules around here is "no special or named characters allowed, including troop characters ". Which includes the avatar, who isn't special but named. Modus operandi is to disallow all those characters first and then make some exceptions (most times the avatar+champion)

EDIT: Sure some unique chars are not worth their points...but some others are overpriced. We all know that keeping the balance isn't a easy job. I'm not saying that GW utterly sucks, but I don't think their playtesting is very effective. Just look into pc-games: The amount of players participating in a beta should exceed the amount of GW playtesters 10-100:1 or even more and they still they don't get a good balance with most games right of the shelf.

So I really can understand, that some folks disallow named characters. It is far easier to ban all of them, compared to those who are broken/underpriced. But you can't compare DA with C:SM. Fielding DW/RW as troop choices (or rather field a pure DW or RW) has been a unique feature of DA for ages. Fielding pedro as a "count als Captain Blut of the infamous Wurst chapter" is something else. Stripping away the opition to field flanking bikes as troops and flanking LRC in a UM force thanks to "khan count as" isn't the same as stripping away the DAs option to play a list, which is mentioned in the fluff and was a legal choice even back in ed3.

samiens
16-03-2009, 13:46
The right way to do it, as GW do for their tournaments in the Uk, is ban characters not included in the main army list. Calgar might be powerful- but he's rather expensive...

Maarten K
16-03-2009, 13:51
because a number of the current codices still have very powerfull named special characters in them, i still have a problem with playing against them because a lot of them are undercosted for what they do (and strangely enough those whom are overcosted seldom make it to the tabletop, I wonder why). Allowing named special characters but altering their cost (a blanket double or 50% increase) makes up for the difference: those players who really want one can, but will have to pay for it.

Frontier
16-03-2009, 14:00
That's kind of odd that he did that to you. I agree with a lot of the posters here. I think you should have made a pointed, but polite set of comments on your disagreement with the decision. Obviously that guy isn't worth playing with or against.

Karnstein
16-03-2009, 14:04
The right way to do it, as GW do for their tournaments in the Uk, is ban characters not included in the main army list. Calgar might be powerful- but he's rather expensive...

?!? they do that? So eldrad would be legal (he is part of the main list), aun'va is not...both have a similar price tag but I would take eldrad of aun'va any time.

Which character from the new SM dex isn't uncluded in the main list? Afaik none, so that isn't a sign of a balanced dex..it is rather a sign of a changed layout. Or would you rate aun'va superior to Vulcan, khan or lysander?

Mouldsta
16-03-2009, 14:36
It depends on if it's a campaign or a tournament. If it's a tournament (competitive) then I think it's a bit harsh to ban your army, that's the equivalent of saying "you can't use eldar in the GT". I tend to dislike altered tournament rules, because they either make no sense, or massively penalise certain armies.

If however it's a story driven campaign where there's a good reason for these restrictions then kicking up a stink just makes you the ass. Imagine if you will a campaign set on a space hulk, where the organiser has stated no vehicles above walkers because they won't fit down the corridors, so it's going to be all about infantry sabotaging systems, and leaping out of air vents etc. If you turn up with your loving painted Land Raider, it's nice, but you still can't use it.

I've run campaigns before that concentrated on character development over time, so your hero starts off as the lowest level (if 2 or more levels are available) with 25pts maximum of wargear (they gain more later, and stat boosts). For this reason, named characters were banned as it was all about forging your own legends with unknowns.
It'd be weird (and ruin it) if you had Abbaddon turn up.

"Errmm hello. I'm Abbaddon, kinda new to this whole chaos-thing...."

evilsponge
16-03-2009, 15:07
Banning special characters these days is just silly IMO

It's his tourny and he can make as many rules as he wants, but nothing says you have play in it. Tell him why you're not participating (in a respectful way, don't be an **** about it) and he'll probably come around

Gazak Blacktoof
16-03-2009, 15:20
I have no love for special characters and I'd probably insist on something similar if I were running a campaign. Whatever the feelings of the posters in this thread though the rules for the campaign are up to the organiser.

I think allowing no special characters is a bit harsh now that the traits for altering force organisation are no longer available, in light of that it might be a good idea to come up with some house rules to allow people to field ravenwing, deathwing, etc

mughi3
16-03-2009, 15:31
Man people are realy having a hard time adapting to the changes GW has made in the game.

It's sad to see that somebody running a tournament is so hung up on the new SM characters and the way it used to be in past editions that he has missed the direction GW has gone with it. it's stinks, it's not reasonable and it is not GWs intent anymore with characters. go start your own tournament and make up your own rules....like no monsterous creatures or characters who's names start with an "E"
:D :p

Doppleskanger
16-03-2009, 15:43
Just to clarify, It's a non narrative campaign, simply about seizing territory on a map. Loads of different armies are playing, so it doesn't make sense fluff wise, that's not a consideration.
So basically it's a free for all but Deathwing/Ravenwing aries are banned.

Count de Monet
16-03-2009, 15:52
Eh.

You weren't banned, the particular army build you wanted to play wasn't allowed. And you were notified before the campaign started, not kicked out halfway through or something. Sounds like if you submitted a Dark Angels list without named characters you'd be allowed to play no problem. The named characters are being 'discriminated' against, not you.

Given how some of the armies work, a blanket ban on SCs is a bit odd, but if that's how the campaign is going, that's how it's going. Would it be fair for him to have advised everyone else they couldn't use them and then allow you to do so? If the campaign setup was going to be Eldar vs. Orks only and someone wanted to play a Tyranid army they'd be turned down too. Maybe this whole thing was set up after a lot in the group complained about always seeing Eldrad/Vulkan/Snikrot/etc.? Could be he's trying to give the group what it asked for?

I can understand your disappointment, but sounds like you have two basic choices. 1) Adapt, rewrite the list, play in the campaign and risk enjoying yourself or 2) sit it out.

Somerandomidiot
16-03-2009, 15:52
You know, I can understand the hate that special characters get in Warhammer Fantasy, where they're actually capable of being that broken, but 40k? Some people need to pull the sticks from their collective ***** and realize that despite their personal opinions, Games Workshop has decided that special characters are here to stay.

Does it hurt you that much (not to mention, doesn't it make more sense?) for him to use Commander Steve McQueen, current ranking member of the Deathwing, to allow him to field a Deathwing force as opposed to having to take Company Commander Bob of the 6th Company, who somehow convinced several squads of 1st Company Terminator Veterans to assist in his assault on *insert opponent here*?

That said, it's his tournament, so he can do what he wants. That doesn't stop him from being (as many have already mentioned) an ignorant twit.

Frontier
16-03-2009, 15:54
Just to clarify, It's a non narrative campaign, simply about seizing territory on a map. Loads of different armies are playing, so it doesn't make sense fluff wise, that's not a consideration.
So basically it's a free for all but Deathwing/Ravenwing aries are banned.

Right. It doesn't make sense though. That is a perfectly legal army build, albeit tough to play with and against. I think characters are just par for the course now, especially considering the SM 'dex. I am pretty sure IG will be exactly the same. Characters haven't really overpowered any of the games I have played with them in. They die just as much as any other model.

Mouldsta
16-03-2009, 16:00
Yeah that sounds pretty lame - does anyone else's standard army have special characters in it, or just yours? If it's just yours then it might be a case of "you can use any army, as long as it's not painted-white-and-is-owned-by-a-man-called-brian" with him trying to ban specifically you/your army.

If there are other people in the same situation (wazdakka bike army for example) then I would politely find out WHY there's a restriction on named characters - as has been said, they're not opponents permission only, and nor are they undercosted/overpowered (usual arguements aside)

Rick Blaine
16-03-2009, 16:01
There were no written rules for this campaign, this was just mentioned to me after i signed up.

Everyone trying to defend the organizer should just re-read this line here.

Gazak Blacktoof
16-03-2009, 16:06
That said, it's his tournament, so he can do what he wants.

That's the only sensible sentence in that post.

People should avoid making generally rude comments about people they've never even met. Calling the campaign organiser a twit, idiot or using expletives isn't really constructive.

People should feel free to make the game their own and are actively encouraged to do so by the games designers. The GW design studio's current take on the game (which may even alter by the end of this edition) may not be to everybody's taste and just as some people prefer 40K 2nd edition to 40K 5th edition or 40K to fantasy, its up to those involved to play whichever game they want.

EDIT:
The fact there are no written rules for the campaign deffinitely isn't great but if its a smallish group of players it might not have been necessary to write anything down. Its obviously caused some bad felling and animosity though and that's not great.

Mouldsta
16-03-2009, 16:07
Just because there are "no written rules" doesn't mean that there haven't already been rules descided. I'm designing an aeronatica imperialis campaign with vastly different missions, campaign structure, allowances, restrictions and special rules, and the people I'm inviting to play are being (loosely) informed of these, but I haven't actually written anything down yet.

If however it was an on the spot descision after seeing an army list, well that's just poor...

electricwolf
16-03-2009, 16:10
<i>Yesterday my games club started a new campaign and I signed up. then on the way out the guy organising it mentioned that no named characters were allowed. Oh oh I thought. So I explained that my army doesn't work without the named characters. He didn't know that, so I showed him the codex and explained that whilst the mariine codex let's non named character turn bikes into troops, the dark angels one requires Samiel. Anyway, i said would it be alright if I used Sammy and didn't take Belial, leaving the Deathwing as elites but the ravenwing as troops. He went off with the codex for 5 minutes and came back and said no. This essentially bans my army!

There were no written rules for this campaign, this was just mentioned to me after i signed up.</i>

So from what i'm seeing here, you did not just show up at a campaign and expect to play with your army. You were told ahead of time by the organizer that named characters were not allowed in his campaign. You could of just turned around and taken your name off the sign up sheet right then and there!

You presented your case, he thought about it, then decided that in this campaign he would not allow named characters. This is totally his right to do.

You also had every right to choose to not play in the campaign.

To me this wouldn't be as big of a deal as i think you are making it out to be. You are not being banned from anything, he just made a choice as an organizer not to have named characters. If he was to let Belial or Sammeal then in his eyes he should allow other named characters which is something he didn't want to do.

I play a Dark Angels Army and i have Belial but i use him in certain games only i don't build my list around him. If i wanted to play a Deathwing force i could but i also can adapt to circumstances and use deathwing as elites.

I understand your desire to have a themed army but there are also consequences to using a themed army.

Starchild
16-03-2009, 16:15
Man people are realy having a hard time adapting to the changes GW has made in the game.

True, but beyond that, the problem is that we have a Codex written by one designer going one direction (Johnson: use special characters to get army list bonuses), and another designer going a different direction (Ward: use generic characters to get army list bonuses.) This lack of consistency is what jerks around many 40k players. If GW had decided on one way of doing things, and stuck to it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. One Codex gets penalized, while the others can operate in this campaign with little or no changes.

Anyway, I think the campaign designer has missed the point, which is that everyone should have fun. He should recognize that DA are underdogs without Belial and Sammael, and even they aren't the most powerful characters in the game. Compare them to Calgar or Eldrad for example. Belial is just an SM captain in Terminator armour, for the most part... Sammael might have neat equipment, but he can be shot down like most other vehicles or SM bike captains.

Doppleskanger: If nothing else, I'd suggest making a generic battle-company based DA army and see how it goes. Then if you win your games, you get bragging rights because your Codex is outdated. :(

Legionary
16-03-2009, 16:17
If I was the campaign organiser, I'd say "I'm not removing the ban on named characters, but we'll play with a house rule allowing you to field Deathwing/Ravenwing armies without the prerequisite characters."

Totally understand the ban on SCs, by the way. For one-off games they're fine, but in a campaign you don't want armies to have the kind of power that some SCs can give to their armies. You can't ban only 'some' SCs either, so a blanket ban works best since it's fairest to all parties (although the effect it's had on yours is probably 'unexpected consequence' rather than 'working as intended'!)

Spyral
16-03-2009, 16:21
So from what i'm seeing here, you did not just show up at a campaign and expect to play with your army. You were told ahead of time by the organizer that named characters were not allowed in his campaign. You could of just turned around and taken your name off the sign up sheet right then and there!


He was told at the last available opportunity before it began (when leaving the club) is what I gathered. So yes while it was 'ahead of time' it sort of like how if I give you a 'warning' that I'm going to kill you two seconds before I pull the trigger. (bang you're dead now) Its not really what one would consider a fair warning in advance ya know?

And while he could have not played surely its in a campaign organisers interest to ensure that the campaign is fun for all and to try to integrate and facilitate people as best they can.


To me this wouldn't be as big of a deal as i think you are making it out to be. You are not being banned from anything, he just made a choice as an organizer not to have named characters. If he was to let Belial or Sammeal then in his eyes he should allow other named characters which is something he didn't want to do.

Well if I play say Tau and I'm told 'no tau allowed' then I'm effectively being banned. Sure they didn't say 'doppleskanger is banned' but 'doppleskangers army is'

TBH seems like bad orginisation.


I understand your desire to have a themed army but there are also consequences to using a themed army.

Like trying to heed fluff while juggling the desire not to loose every game?
:D

Somerandomidiot
16-03-2009, 16:31
That's the only sensible sentence in that post.

People should avoid making generally rude comments about people they've never even met. Calling the campaign organiser a twit, idiot or using expletives isn't really constructive.

People should feel free to make the game their own and are actively encouraged to do so by the games designers. The GW design studio's current take on the game (which may even alter by the end of this edition) may not be to everybody's taste and just as some people prefer 40K 2nd edition to 40K 5th edition or 40K to fantasy, its up to those involved to play whichever game they want.

Great! If you want to play 40k 2nd edition, just say so! If you want your house rules for a tournament, post them! That way I won't have to drive 4+ hours, pay for entry to a convention and probably at least one night in a hotel room, and spend my entire weekend visiting a tournament I can't even compete in.

I play Grey Knights and allied Imperial Guard, because I have a hard time believing that 40+ Grey Knights would gather together in the same place for anything less than a daemonic apocalypse, and you wouldn't believe the number of tournaments I've gone to only to find out my army isn't allowed because allies are prohibited, especially in 5th with Vulkan/Sisters lists.

Maybe it's just bad personal experiences, but I absolutely understand the OP here.

RichBlake
16-03-2009, 16:44
If I was the campaign organiser, I'd say "I'm not removing the ban on named characters, but we'll play with a house rule allowing you to field Deathwing/Ravenwing armies without the prerequisite characters."


But then you're allowing the Dark Angels player to simply buy the cheapest HQ choice available and not pay the extra (expensive) points for the ability to have Terminators and the Ravenwing as Troops.

The best solution would be that you have to buy the characters for the same points but they aren't called the same name or figure out roughly what the points difference is between a "normal" HQ and the special character and charge that much to have the units as troops.

jfrazell
16-03-2009, 16:47
If I can't bring Eldrad, he should not be able to bring named characters. Too bad so sad. play regular marines or don't play in the league. Coming onto a board and griping is just bellyaching as there are restrictions all the time for leagues.

Gazak Blacktoof
16-03-2009, 16:50
@Somerandomidiot

First this isn't about me or you, but presumably about the wishes of a group of players I've never met and probably never will.

Second this thread is about a campaign (not a tournament) there might not be any cost or any major travel involved. But it seems the conflict between the desires of the OP and those of the campaign organiser have been identified at an early stage so hopefully he wont have invested too much of anything at this point.

Third, its rather unfair to assume that your experiences apply to this situation.

It seems like you've had a tough time getting games which is a shame as it seems from a brief description like a perfectly characterful army, however being generally rude about somebody that's probably had nothing to do with your previous experiences is rather harsh and uncharitable of you.

If you want to play with a group of gamers you're going to have to play the game the way they want to play it and no amount of complaining on Warseer is likely to change that.

Captain Micha
16-03-2009, 16:52
Just tell the Toolbag, that he's breaking the rules of the game.

The rules say nothing about needing permission to use Special Characters.

And that he understands nothing about game balance because quite frankly Dark Angels suck without special characters now.

Ontop of this SCs and the way they change lists don't break the game like they did before (even then this is arguable) And ontop of that SCs weren't the ones that broke the FOC ...just certain "options" in Codexes (I'm looking at you Craftworld Eldar and 3.5 Chaos)

Wolf 11x
16-03-2009, 16:52
I'm not a super competitive player, but as i understand the rules well and put a lot of thought into army composition, my armies do tend to be effective.

...

Last night I checked the points cost to bring the same army using the marine codex. A list with the same number of models and as similar as possible costs 2000pts in DA but only 1750 in SM. yes I would have some additional special rules, but I'm paying a LOT of points for them.

This tickled me. It's ok to admit you're super competitive.

While it may seem unfair, as long as he's being consistent. You can hate him for banning SCs across the board but that's more GWs fault for having them alter entire lists so drastically.

Somerandomidiot
16-03-2009, 17:06
@Somerandomidiot

First this isn't about me or you, but presumably about the wishes of a group of players I've never met and probably never will.

Second this thread is about a campaign (not a tournament) there might not be any cost or any major travel involved. But it seems the conflict between the desires of the OP and those of the campaign organiser have been identified at an early stage so hopefully he wont have invested too much of anything at this point.

Third, its rather unfair to assume that your experiences apply to this situation.

It seems like you've had a tough time getting games which is a shame as it seems from a brief description like a perfectly characterful army, however being generally rude about somebody that's probably had nothing to do with your previous experiences is rather harsh and uncharitable of you.

If you want to play with a group of gamers you're going to have to play the game the way they want to play it and no amount of complaining on Warseer is likely to change that.

I think the raw hatred I've seen for things like special characters on this board (and others) is getting to me. :)

Gazak is right, there really isn't much you can do about it. Fortunately, the OP has other armies he can play, so he's not completely SOL. If I were in the same situation, I'd probably end up using the marine codex, buying a commander on a bike, and running essentially the same list, sans some special rules and with a few more models.

Orcboy_Phil
16-03-2009, 17:12
Okay, I've not read the entire thread just the first post and a couple of the suceeding ones but I have to say, no he is not a tool, YOU are the tool. You've already stated that you have other armies, so saying your banned from the tournament when its just this build is just making you into a total whinning little girlman. Use another army for gods sake and stop whinning about it. If its really so much of a problem just start you own campaign and with the Organiser being so much of a prat the rest of the club would rally to you campaign and ocastrise the prat. Or proberly not, not with you being such a whiny girlman.

EVIL INC
16-03-2009, 17:17
Extra rules that are not covered by GW in an event using a GW game should have posted ahead of time such rules. It is only courtesy.
That being said, it IS his event so he can do as he likes. If he wants to wait till the last second and suddenly say "No eldar armies allowed" he can do that.
Of course, being a jerk does indeed get yourself remembered in a negative way and if he owns or represents the shop hosting the event, it can affect return customers, future tourny goers ect.
If it is an outside person doing the tourny, you can always offer to run one yourself.

Latro_
16-03-2009, 18:05
I dont think the term 'special' characters even gets used anymore.
Its a bit silly these days as every new codex has them as normal unit entries and encourages their use by the fact they open up themed armies.

Perhaps a more fair rulng would be to disallow named characters that do not change an army's options. Why should you spend time and money on a army for it not to be allowed?!

I guess its the tournament organiser's call at the end of the day, just as they could put in rules like '50% troops' or something.

I'd just take a nob biker army or lash prince obliterator spam list to spite him and slap him again in one turn.

Doppleskanger
16-03-2009, 18:19
Way to go Orcboy Phil. Really very helpful there, I appreciate the time and effort you have put into that response, gosh I must have you round for dinner some time, you sound like such an intersting and amusing person!

Ok does seem to be some confusion here, I have not been banned, I have not even fallen out with the guy organising this thing (yet), it is the particular army I wanted to use, which despite being totally legal and bang on fluff, has been banned.
Now one difference between the frequently mentioned Eldrad (and others) and my SC's, and it really is THE POINT, is that Eldrad doesn't effect the FO, but my characters do, because of a radical shiift in the way that GW has done recent codexes. Not only that but the points costs for a Ravenwing bike squad or a Deathwing Terminator squad is significantly increased to factor in the special rules these have when used in concert with the SC's, totally unlike Eldrad then, who is simply a very powerful stand alone SC.
Anyway, as others have mentioned I do have the options of taking other builds or other armies entirely, some of which are far more powerful on the table top than my Doublewing Force, which kind of highlights how silly and arbritary this ruling is! It's just a shame because I've been working hard on getting this army ready, and was looking forward to using it. Unfortunately I've been caught out by a blanket ban which doesn't seem to take into account GW's new love of SC's and the necessity for these to be availible for certain, quite legitimate, armies.

jfrazell
16-03-2009, 18:32
Can the Ork player play with special characters? If not then you have nothing to complain about. They are in the same boat.

Play them as marines. They can keep their green and their dresses.

The orks, Nids, and guard players won't care. All you MEQs look the same to us hordeys.

Cythus
16-03-2009, 18:47
GW policy now means that SC are now fairly common place (for SM at least), therefore banning them seems to be limiting creativity hugely. I have a SM chapter of my own design, and to fit the background they need to be stubborn or some equivilant. The only way I can get this a SC and therefore without it my army really doesn't much the fluff.

However, I'm reserving judgement as I'm hopeful this guy has a reason, and I'm not going to assume anything.

BigBadBull
16-03-2009, 18:57
Play themas " un-named vet commander that counts as ..."

He is also going to have a hard time enforcing the new marine codex and Ig codex... and for that matter every 5th ed dex for the for foreseeable time to come.

Brother Drakist
16-03-2009, 19:54
Special Characters have become a part of the game and are priced to represent this. Heck the new Space Marine codex relies on Special Characters to make armies unique......they took the place of traits! Would he have banned traits from the 4th edition codex? GW has made special characters a part of the game whether people like it or not. People need to get over their special character nerd rage and just play the game.

Gazak Blacktoof
16-03-2009, 19:59
People need to get over their special character nerd rage and just play the game.

I see a lot of "nerd rage" in this thread but its mostly in the opposite direction.

Marneus Calgar
16-03-2009, 20:12
I do not agree with the option of "renaming" the special character to make him a regular character. If this was the case there would be no need for "no special characters" rule in any tournaments or campaigns. All you would see is Carneus Magar, Eldreed, Aboodan, and ect.. There is a reason why these characters are special characters.

boogle
16-03-2009, 20:23
Ask him his rationale for the blanket ban, that will most likely give you a good idea of whether he's being a git (an answer like 'because i don't like them') or reasonable ('i feel that special characters have a place in the game and this campaign doesn't fit them')

Somerandomidiot
16-03-2009, 20:30
I do not agree with the option of "renaming" the special character to make him a regular character. If this was the case there would be no need for "no special characters" rule in any tournaments or campaigns. All you would see is Carneus Magar, Eldreed, Aboodan, and ect.. There is a reason why these characters are special characters.

Aside from one or two exceptions (Eldrad, I'm looking at you!) do people use named HQs regularly that aren't the "force organization modifying" ones? I've never seen Marneus Calgar or Abaddon in a normal game, much less a tournament- they're just too expensive to ever make their points back. I think people run Kairos Fateweaver in tournaments too, but I can't think of any other named HQs that show up in the power lists.

And Gazak, I know you've been watching that fantasy thread as well- there's so much "nerd rage" on both sides that I'm sure Khorne is watching right now, waiting for the bloodbath to begin. :P

Brother Drakist
16-03-2009, 20:33
I see a lot of "nerd rage" in this thread but its mostly in the opposite direction.

Touche Gazak Blacktoof.....touche.

Doppleskanger
16-03-2009, 20:34
Woah, who's angry with who now? I've got a little lost :)
Didn't think anyone was raging at anyone apart from my friend Phil there, who was, in all fairness, fairly obnoxious.

I don't think renaming a special character and then saying he's not a named charater is at all the same thing as renaming a special character to fit your fluff but using his rules. The latter is fine but the former wouldn't solve this issue.

As for the why's of it all, as I said originally, he went off and considered the matter and came back with a no. i do suspect this has something to do with the game we had a few weeks back, but who's to say. the guy isn't going to budge on this, and i won't be making a show of myself by getting into a row over it. I will do as suggested by Count de Monet

Adapt, rewrite the list, play in the campaign and risk enjoying yourself

Anyways thanks for the replies, it's made interesting reading. This special character problem really is something people are going to have to get over. A specific change in policy was introduced from 'need permission' to 'don't need permission' the reasons for which were given at length in WD by Jervis. Following that they have become very prominant in recent codexes, being used in replacement for traits etc. If it's legal, if it's what was intended by the developers, and if it's an essential part of an army, it has to be allowed.

Nexus Trimean
16-03-2009, 20:53
So, Read the Entire thread, and you are being a bit of a tool. He banned All, SC, you have already said that you can build the same force out of the nilla Dex, for cheaper even, So it not that you want to do double wing, its that you want your SC's, which is clearly not allowed FOR EVERYONE. You already countered your own argument. Make a Ravenwing list out of the nilla codex and have fun.

Play your nicely converted models in the next one. they aren't going anywhere.

Its acceptable to house rule for a campign that you are running, you were informed before it started, even if the rule wasn't posted, it was stated, you recieved this information.

Doppleskanger
16-03-2009, 21:08
Ah but it's funny Mister Nexus,

when I used to run my Dark Angels stuff with the marine codex, people used to moan I should be using the DA codex. Same club different day!
In the 41st millenium, there is only complaining.

Kalec
16-03-2009, 21:55
1. Talk with the other players. It shouldn't be too hard to convince most of them that an exception to the rule to allow for Ravenwing and Deathwing would be fine.

2. Use the Vanilla codex.

3. Bring one of the many absurdly powerful lists that don't use SC's and show the organizer whats what.

jfrazell
16-03-2009, 21:57
Play Kroot Mercs. No one will complain...:)

sabre4190
16-03-2009, 22:24
I havnt read all the forum so far, but heres my take.

If this guy wants to run a campaign and so no special characters at all, then he can do that. Its his campaign. He can choose not to let you play if he wants to, since it is structure.

But, I think this is not a smart way to go about things because of the way special characters are structured. They are now fully part of the army list, and are not distinguishable in any way from any other part of the list. So while I do like limiting special characters for my campaigns (ex. Eldrad appearing in every Eldar army), sometimes you do need those characters as part of the army build. Another case is the avatar. IIRC, he is a unique unit, just like other special characters. So, is anything that is unique not allowed, because then a player wouldnt be able to use something none of use would consider a special character. You should be allowed to play a ravenwing army if you want to, and I think hes being obnoxious for not adjusting his own rules to fit your need. Limiting to only ravenwing instead of a doublewing is incredibly reasonable. You shouldnt have to use a different list, and as such a completely different army. This is exactly the same as someone demanding me to use my Space wolves as normal marines. Sure, both lists have infantry in power armor, but they are simply not the same list. Ravenwing plays differently than a bike-marine list, and its special rules make it unique. You should be allowed to use that list.

So basically, as someone who is against using special characters in campaigns for background and gaming reasons, I think your complaints are justified and you are not a tool. But it is his campaign, and if he says no, then you cant force him to change.

boogle
16-03-2009, 22:35
Actually here's a question:

What if you as a DA player, only owned the DA Codex and had put a lot of work into your army, how would you feel about this ruling?

jfrazell
16-03-2009, 22:37
Annoyed. Next question.

boogle
16-03-2009, 22:38
How would you deal with it?

Orcboy_Phil
16-03-2009, 22:40
Woah, who's angry with who now? I've got a little lost :)
Didn't think anyone was raging at anyone apart from my friend Phil there, who was, in all fairness, fairly obnoxious.

Sorry, I was being very obnoxious there but when I read you complainet and the succedding posts calling him a prat and a tool and a tit I couldn't help myself. I am starting to get fed up with people basically playing power lists because of special charecters such as your list. Yes Belial and Sammiel are necessary for Death Wing and Raven Wing lists but why do you need to take both if it isan't so you can WAAC yoursef off?

MrMojoZ
16-03-2009, 22:40
I think BANNED and "couldn't use the army I wanted to due to a rule I disagree with" aren't really the same thing.

boogle
16-03-2009, 22:43
Sorry, I was being very obnoxious there but when I read you complainet and the succedding posts calling him a prat and a tool and a tit I couldn't help myself. I am starting to get fed up with people basically playing power lists because of special charecters such as your list. Yes Belial and Sammiel are necessary for Death Wing and Raven Wing lists but why do you need to take both if it isan't so you can WAAC yoursef off?

Is it a power list? It's actually a 'Win Big/Lose Big list' it doesn't have the manpower to be totally effective to be honest in 2/3 of games, where it does win out is the low Kill Point factor.

Actually the Doublewing is only decent build in the DA book, everything else is overpriced and underpowered compared to the new SM Codex

zeep
16-03-2009, 22:49
The question becomes if he makes an exception on an agreed upon rule then will he have to make more?

Will the necron player use your ruling as an argument for why he should get the deceiver? Is brother captian stern now a justifiable?

A rule was agreed on. Exceptions are the worst kind of gamesmanship. Frankly this comes down to the imperical line "and never breathe a word of you loss".

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
16-03-2009, 22:58
He is fine. No named characters means no named characters. In any other cases, other people will demand their special characters too.

So, he is fine, unlike you. Now better play space marine army with the same models.

scopedog91
16-03-2009, 23:36
<----Comment deleted. WarSeer Inquisition---->
DA cannot run half of their configurations without special characters.
I have some serious problems with this, just ban the DA codex then for this campaign, make it easier for us DA players.
And lets have no more of this "just use X codex instead".
Why not just use Eldar, not Dark Eldar?
Just use Marines, no "Chaos Marines"...etc etc etc...

stroller
16-03-2009, 23:41
He's being fair. He told you as soon as you signed what the rules were.

Lame Duck
16-03-2009, 23:48
If you would be fine with counting terminators as elites then why not use the space marine codex and be done with it?

sabre4190
16-03-2009, 23:51
I guess it does depend a bit on what the purpose of the campaign. If this is a campaign with a strong narrative(which are the only ones Ill do), then there should be exceptions if it helps set the feel. Special characters might not be allowed if they have nothing to do with the setting (or the setting might be adjusted), but allowed if they help the fluff. Example: The guy playing ultramarines 2nd co decides to use sicarius. This makes perfect sense.

But if youre going to play for the sheer sake of playing, where there is only limited narrative (planetary invasion or something), then I see it as unbalanced to just get rid of special characters even. They have been factored into the lists for balance. Tell a Tau player no SCs and his list will most likely not change at all. Tell this to a marine player and he has just lost a bunch of effective tools that were built in to make his army fair. Getting rid of special characters does different things for different armies, and is clearly not balanced.

So, the argument for no special characters in a campaign comes down to them being too powerful. At this point, its just as viable to say no Nobz bikers, because they are broken. Or no Fire prisms, because they are broken. Saying no special characters in order to create balance is arbitrary, and is not a way to create a fair game. Regardless, a blanket restriction on a viable rules option is not going to create balance, is not going to help the fluff of the campaign, and will serve no real purpose.

Still, if thats the way this guy wants to run his campaign, he sounds like an awful campaign organizer and I would never play in a campaign of his anyway.

The_Outsider
16-03-2009, 23:58
Little known fact: special characters (as a whole, goddamn 3rd ed codex *grumble*) haven't existed for about 2 editions.

In addition, if one is banning "named" characters, does that also translate to my captain with powerfist and storm bolter? I mean he is captain of the ultramariens 4th company during the 13th black crusade with his own personal backstory and heraldry (I just suck at creating UM names).

The only real difference between him and say, belial is belial has his name in the codex while my guy doesn't.

Next up: banning guardsmen because the organiser gets fed up with "looking at 200 rambo wannabes on the table at the same time".

sabre4190
17-03-2009, 00:04
Little known fact: special characters (as a whole, goddamn 3rd ed codex *grumble*) haven't existed for about 2 editions.

In addition, if one is banning "named" characters, does that also translate to my captain with powerfist and storm bolter? I mean he is captain of the ultramariens 4th company during the 13th black crusade with his own personal backstory and heraldry (I just suck at creating UM names).

The only real difference between him and say, belial is belial has his name in the codex while my guy doesn't.

Next up: banning guardsmen because the organiser gets fed up with "looking at 200 rambo wannabes on the table at the same time".

This is also true.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
17-03-2009, 00:26
Little known fact: special characters (as a whole, goddamn 3rd ed codex *grumble*) haven't existed for about 2 editions.

In addition, if one is banning "named" characters, does that also translate to my captain with powerfist and storm bolter? I mean he is captain of the ultramariens 4th company during the 13th black crusade with his own personal backstory and heraldry (I just suck at creating UM names).

The only real difference between him and say, belial is belial has his name in the codex while my guy doesn't.

Next up: banning guardsmen because the organiser gets fed up with "looking at 200 rambo wannabes on the table at the same time".

untrue. there is serious difference between unique characters and generic characters. and banning unique characters [named, special - whatever] is fair.

Heimlich
17-03-2009, 00:27
If I can't bring Eldrad, he should not be able to bring named characters. Too bad so sad. play regular marines or don't play in the league. Coming onto a board and griping is just bellyaching as there are restrictions all the time for leagues.

If the individual in question has spent hundreds of dollars, and hours upon hours of time on his own army. He should be able to do whatever the hell floats his boat. One thing I hate about warseer, everyone has an opinion.....

I don't know when the last time you read the Dark Angels book was, but Sammiel and Belial are far from game breaking. I'd also give him 10/10 for sportsmanship for using a Double Wing army in the first place.

Ozybonza
17-03-2009, 00:32
I played a tourney using doublewing recently, and although SCs were allowed, it inspired more bitching and moaning than a stuck up chick on PMS.

They said it's unfluffy, even thought the DA codex goes on for many pages about how the DW and RW work together.

They say it's too powerful, even though I finished middle of the road and even got tabled one game. (it should also be noted the most vocal whiner was using Orks!)

I even rocked up to one table and when I told him I was using doublewing, he said "Oh... your THAT guy". What a dousche.

If it' in the codex, it should be fine to use. The whole only troops can score thing has really limited stupid power builds, and I think the core rules are fine as they are.
/rant

EDIT: Also to you people who say just use the marine dex, some of us don't have access to one because, you know, we play DA not marines!!! There are a bunch of units you just can't take under the marine dex, not just SCs (Terminator Apothacary - Never leave home without one!)

sabre4190
17-03-2009, 00:36
untrue. there is serious difference between unique characters and generic characters. and banning unique characters [named, special - whatever] is fair.

Not in the new rules there isnt. I actually dont see where this conclusion coming from. A special character is just another unit selection that has been balanced into the list. There is no difference between banning a special character and banning a generic slot (except that you might be getting rid of two captains in an army, but thats a seperate issue). In many cases, special characters have been weaker than generic characters. Take aunva, who is almost worthless and rarely appears in any armies. Now take one of the old daemon princes, one that used to be almost unstoppable. Or hell, lets just say a current slaanesh demon with a lash. The special character is completely ineffective, while the generic slot is deadly and could be considered broken.

The only difference between the two choices is fluff based. One character has a history and one does not. From a gaming perspective, to determine what is "fair", this is completely irrelevent. So, I actually dont think there is a difference between a generic and unique character. Both are options in the army.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
17-03-2009, 00:52
Not in the new rules there isnt. I actually dont see where this conclusion coming from. A special character is just another unit selection that has been balanced into the list. There is no difference between banning a special character and banning a generic slot (except that you might be getting rid of two captains in an army, but thats a seperate issue). In many cases, special characters have been weaker than generic characters. Take aunva, who is almost worthless and rarely appears in any armies. Now take one of the old daemon princes, one that used to be almost unstoppable. Or hell, lets just say a current slaanesh demon with a lash. The special character is completely ineffective, while the generic slot is deadly and could be considered broken.

The only difference between the two choices is fluff based. One character has a history and one does not. From a gaming perspective, to determine what is "fair", this is completely irrelevent. So, I actually dont think there is a difference between a generic and unique character. Both are options in the army.

it doesnt matter if they are more effective or less effective. those are unique individuals from 40k fiction, and allowing them would lead to 'clone' issue (when two abbadons meet each other). Are even labeled unique.

It is fair to ban them.

It's up to the person who organize the event to allow it or not, and not even OP whining (and other people outrage) will help. And it's good. He made some rules, follow those rules, and is worth respect.

OP may create his own campaign, and allow all special characters. And no cryboy (SC are imba! type) would change it.

Campaign is not only gameplay, but also story for some people.

Why are you contradict your own words dude ? You said there is difference, so stop 'there is no difference bullcrap'.

@Heimlich: he can do whatever he want. except playing the campaign.

Somerandomidiot
17-03-2009, 00:56
untrue. there is serious difference between unique characters and generic characters. and banning unique characters [named, special - whatever] is fair.

I think it's probably best to refer to them as "named HQ choices", as the term 'special' indicates that there may be something special about them. At this point in the game, as others have stated, it makes about as much sense to ban named HQ choices as it does to ban non-infantry heavy support choices. Sure, depending on the scenario it might make sense, but it's certainly going to unbalance different armies.




It's up to the person who organize the event to allow it or not, and not even OP whining (and other people outrage) will help. And it's good. He made some rules, follow those rules, and is worth respect.

I'd actually respect a tournament organizer more if he took the time to make sure that all the prospective players were able to participate evenly, but perhaps that's just me. Sure it's his campaign, but that doesn't make him above suggestions and criticism.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
17-03-2009, 01:00
I think it's probably best to refer to them as "named HQ choices", as the term 'special' indicates that there may be something special about them. At this point in the game, as others have stated, it makes about as much sense to ban named HQ choices as it does to ban non-infantry heavy support choices. Sure, depending on the scenario it might make sense, but it's certainly going to unbalance different armies.

Do you bother to even read OP post. It's all about campaign. Did you know words like storyline, plot or fluff ?

So named character ban is fair. Non-infantry HS ban is also fine, but it's harder to justify it.

Lord Dan
17-03-2009, 01:04
If the individual in question has spent hundreds of dollars, and hours upon hours of time on his own army. He should be able to do whatever the hell floats his boat. One thing I hate about warseer, everyone has an opinion.....

It's odd you would tag this comment on after voicing such a strong opinion.

sabre4190
17-03-2009, 01:14
it doesnt matter if they are more effective or less effective. those are unique individuals from 40k fiction, and allowing them would lead to 'clone' issue (when two abbadons meet each other). Are even labeled unique.

It is fair to ban them.

It's up to the person who organize the event to allow it or not, and not even OP whining (and other people outrage) will help. And it's good. He made some rules, follow those rules, and is worth respect.

OP may create his own campaign, and allow all special characters. And no cryboy (SC are imba! type) would change it.

Campaign is not only gameplay, but also story for some people.

Why are you contradict your own words dude ? You said there is difference, so stop 'there is no difference bullcrap'.

@Heimlich: he can do whatever he want. except playing the campaign.

Alright, so lets get one thing out of the way. You do admit that "it doesnt matter" if one is better than the other. So that means it is not a viable way to create game balance if those difference don't matter. When you said "fair" I assumed you were talking about "fair" in terms of game balance. Since youre not, this is just about background and narrative then.

First of all, I never recall saying there was a difference between special characters and generic characters (other than unique). I just didnt say that. I said there was no difference in the sense that they are both parts of the army list, and are balanced in the same way. A special character may be stronger or weaker than a generic slot, which is what I attempted to illustrate, in an attempt to show that getting rid of special characters would not create balance. I merely attempted to show how it would not be "fair", in a purely game balance sense, to remove a balanced part of the list.

Also, if you read my other posts, I really tried to show that fluff can actually warrant the use of special characters. Again, in the example of ultramarines 2nd company, it would be fluffy to include captain sicarius. It would actually be much more fluffy than using a generic captain, who is not the company commander in the background. I do think that it is perfectly reasonable to have some limits on special characters in a narrative based game because it can help the story for exactly the same reasons you mentioned before. It would also be unfluffy to remove a character altogether. In the case of OP, Ravenwing cant be used in any way. There is no way of representing the Dark Angels 1st and 2nd companies as they are described in the fluff if there are no special characters. Denying the ability to use an important army in the game does not feel right when it comes to narrative. Forcing his to use them as normal space marines, and taking away all those special rules, does not feel right either (for the same reasons using space wolves as vanilla marines feels weird too).

So all in all, my disagreement with your post was that I thought you were saying it was fair to get rid of special characters on the basis of game balance exclusively. That was my misinterpretation, and my mistake. I partially agree with your analysis on SCs on the merits of fluff, I just think that a blanket, complete restriction might impede the background in some cases. I am simply trying to state that I dont think the rules that the guy who organized the campaign is using are fair in a game balance sense, and also do not help the background either. Its his campaign, but i dont think hes going about it in the best way.

yabbadabba
17-03-2009, 01:33
From a campaign perspective, restricting armies seems entirely reasonable. Restricting an aspect of an army seems a lot harder to justify. Restricting named characters from an army, in the current edition, but not the army definitely doesn't seem right.

Still, it's his campaign.

sabre4190
17-03-2009, 01:39
From a campaign perspective, restricting armies seems entirely reasonable. Restricting an aspect of an army seems a lot harder to justify. Restricting named characters from an army, in the current edition, but not the army definitely doesn't seem right.

Still, it's his campaign.

Yeah, I agree. It is reasonable to restict some aspects of an army, i just think that when you restrict too much you can hurt the spirit of the game. So, things like demanding the SCs must have a reason to be in the army make sense (so we wont see any Kharns in a Emperor's children based list), but if youre going to do something like remove Sammael, and the entire ravenwing, then thats a mistake in my mind. The point of a campaign is to have fun, and the GM should have to make some judgment calls every once in a while to create a proper campaign.

ehlijen
17-03-2009, 01:47
Yes, I think we can agree that banning all Unique characters (or special or named or whatever word you want. You know what's meant) isn't necessarily the best choice he could have made.

However, it is the choice he made and he informed the OP at least a day before the event as far as I can tell (he said just before he left, so I'd assume this was a different day). As the organiser of the campaign, that's his right. Yes, it breaks the 40k base rules, but so do any homemade campaign rules.

As for SCs being generally allowed these days: Don't forget that not all codices have been updated to that level yet. Dark Eldar, Space wolves and the Inquisition Codices are still hailing from 3rd ed where the concept of SCs was very unlike what they are today.

edit: I can actually understand why he'd remove Sammael, given that, as he rides either a flying plasma cannon or an AV14 super speeder, he is the most unusual of all SCs to be included in recent books (bar perhaps Chronus). As I said before, I think the OP would have had better luck trying to get Belial approved.

Lord Humongous
17-03-2009, 02:02
If the individual in question has spent hundreds of dollars, and hours upon hours of time on his own army. He should be able to do whatever the hell floats his boat.

Does that mean he can he come over your house and stick them up your nose? Somebody else organized this campaign; its their house.

Simply buying models does NOT force other people to play with you. Unless he paid money to join the campaign, and is being denied a refund- well, sure, he's not having as much fun as he could, but nobody has wronged him.

He bought the models and he's free to play any games he likes with them outside the campaign, or use them in the campaign under a suitable rules set, yes?

Spyral
17-03-2009, 02:02
play regular marines or don't play in the league. Coming onto a board and griping is just bellyaching as there are restrictions all the time for leagues.

League? People do play things that are other types of game than WAAC tourney style things. A Campaign is supposed to be about the story as I understand campaigns. The bigger objective and larger scale tactics. Not just kill everything.


This tickled me. It's ok to admit you're super competitive.

If the OP is who I think he is his club is not competitive however has its fair of high tier players in its area. If its also the guy who I think it is then he's fairly sound and balanced using strong army lists but in a non cheese ballery way. I don't think its fair to assume that anyone who disagrees wants an advantage over others as some people seem to think.


Unfortunately I've been caught out by a blanket ban which doesn't seem to take into account GW's new love of SC's and the necessity for these to be availible for certain, quite legitimate, armies.

Take your Adeptus Mechanicus army and cheeseify it. If they punish your chosen fluff then use your fluff to punish them? Not mature but hey when you're given apples make cider and apple tarts!

You need SC now if you have a themed army. I have salamander marines in last edition they weren't as viable as they are now with He'Stan. However to get that ability I need to Take Captain Billy Bob of the 3rd company who happens to try to emulate his chapter leading idol He'Stan. So billy bob is a He'Stan not the He'Stan. Fluff wise I dont see why you cannot have Biker Bob who is a samiel model but isn't actually samiel.


I see a lot of "nerd rage" in this thread but its mostly in the opposite direction.

if you think this is nerd rage you live a sheltered existance. :evilgrin:


I think BANNED and "couldn't use the army I wanted to due to a rule I disagree with" aren't really the same thing.

Banning the SC that has to be in his army is effectively banning his army though innit?

Occulto
17-03-2009, 03:07
...and to think this all would've been a moot issue if, the codex had been written this way instead:

Azrael Chapter Master
Ezekiel Chief Librarian
Belial Master of the Deathwing
Sammael Master of the Ravenwing.

The hilarious thing is, I've read people say that the DA codex would have been much better if it'd been written that way.

It's funny how semantics makes all the difference. :rolleyes:

Ganymene
17-03-2009, 03:23
...and to think this all would've been a moot issue if, the codex had been written this way instead:

Azrael Chapter Master
Ezekiel Chief Librarian
Belial Master of the Deathwing
Sammael Master of the Ravenwing.

The hilarious thing is, I've read people say that the DA codex would have been much better if it'd been written that way.

It's funny how semantics makes all the difference. :rolleyes:


This is an excellent point.

I believe that this was GW intention for all the newer codeci. They just added the names to give an example for the most well known armies. So, instead of just 'Master of the Deathwing', we got 'Belial, Master of the Deathwing'.

This was poor execution on GW's part.

Intention > , Master of the Deathwing > Unique chapter, no one even cares.

[I]Reality > Belial, Master of the Deathwing > ZOMG!! speshiul karuckturs ar teh BroKKenZoRz!!!!1one!!!2

sabre4190
17-03-2009, 03:41
...and to think this all would've been a moot issue if, the codex had been written this way instead:

Azrael Chapter Master
Ezekiel Chief Librarian
Belial Master of the Deathwing
Sammael Master of the Ravenwing.

The hilarious thing is, I've read people say that the DA codex would have been much better if it'd been written that way.

It's funny how semantics makes all the difference. :rolleyes:

Well, rules wise, its all the exact same thing. And that is what they were going for. Belial is just the master of deathwing, sammael master of the ravenwing and all that stuff. They even emphasized how Belial could be any master of the deathwing, for any secondary chapter. To a degree, naming the character makes sense, since the DA do have one and only one master of the deathwing, so he would get a name. Its just kind of weird. Great point thought.

TheOverlord
17-03-2009, 04:05
Does this campaign include experience and levelling up?

In that case, Special Characters inherently have an advantage, as they normally start out with gear and stats beyond that of your average bear... I mean commander. So he would have a point and he is right in banning special characters.

If there isn't, there really is not much point banning special characters other than a deep seated and lingering hate for them from a throwback of 4th edition.

sabre4190
17-03-2009, 04:40
Does this campaign include experience and levelling up?

In that case, Special Characters inherently have an advantage, as they normally start out with gear and stats beyond that of your average bear... I mean commander. So he would have a point and he is right in banning special characters.

If there isn't, there really is not much point banning special characters other than a deep seated and lingering hate for them from a throwback of 4th edition.


This is true, but I didnt get the impression that this was a factor in this campaign.

On a similar note, I never really was a big fan of leveling up or experience in a 40k campaign. We see few departures from statlines, other than the old chaos stuff (which was basically an RPG hero for an HQ). I always like Fantasy levelling up much more, where you could do things like make them into lords, give them magic weapons, or small bumps in stats that are fairly commonplace. Never saw that working as much in 40k, but I have seen it work.

omgadinosaur
17-03-2009, 04:53
Ok i've shuffled through this thread and have come to the be all end all post that will make everyone in the world happy. (At least I hope)

I feel that there are a few different arguments going on and that the answers to them are all somewhat gray.

The OP has a legitimate gripe that he can't use his doublewing force. GW has been trying to balance SC for a while and I hardly doubt that Belial will cause more problems then Double Lash Demon Prince.

That said, under the circumstances if i was the OP i would realize that it doesn't really matter. Sure you wanted to play your army some more, but there still is plenty of opportunities and you can field a DA force with RW and DW as FA and Elites respectively or use Regular Marines. You also still have other armies you can play.

The organizer can say anything he wants. I play fantasy for the most part and one time in a campaign I was told I wouldn't be allowed to use my HE as it was supposed to be a chaos warlord invading Dwarven territories. This also stopped the LM player from participating, but it meant we wouldn't be able to play with around 4 or 5 guys for about a month. I didn't spill tears.

Organize your own campaign if you want to. If you want SC then allow them.

It sucks that you can't use the doublewing but it's only a game. It stinks for Salamander and Raven Guard armies as well, but live and let live and just do something else.

Occulto
17-03-2009, 05:13
This was poor execution on GW's part.

I don't think GW not anticipating that people would get their collective panties in a wad because an option was given a specific name instead of remaining generic, can hardly be described as "poor execution." :eyebrows:

ehlijen
17-03-2009, 05:26
A problem I see (which may or may not be related, sorry if it isn't) is that GW isn't treating SCs equally even now. Take belial and sammael. Belial is little more than a terminator captain that makes termies troops. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing 'special' about him apart from the deathwing, is there?
Sammael on the other hand must pick one of two highly customised, powerful and unique rides, both of which add abilities that no SM army otherwise has. I'm not saying its broken (I don't think it is) but it is actually 'special' compared to what belial does.

Miggidy Mack
17-03-2009, 05:33
A campaign I'm playing in right now has the same issue. No special characters. We pointed out how some armies need them, but they feel that these are "special armies". Basically anybody who wants to play them is tacitly accused of being a power gamer.

They also require that every army have 3 troop choices at 1000 points, 4 at 1500 ect. So if you play... say GK's where a 10 man squad is 275 points... well you're going to have very little other stuff in the army. They don't seem to see a balance issue with it either, to them it's the only way TOO balance the game! GK armies who don't want to run minimum squads of storm troopers just to fulfill the requirement should have 4 units of 5 instead of 2 units of 10.

I tried pointing out how Orks can field whatever they want but someone trying to field a specific chaos legion is really hampered. Goes no where. I'm trying hard to be psyked about the campaign now cus of it... and it's not easy.

Doppleskanger
17-03-2009, 05:51
Well, again thanks for your comment, and thanks Phill, apology excepted.

Some people are either forgetting what has been said, or deliberately ignoring it to get there own point across.
For the record, I didn't say I was banned, I said my army had been banned.
The campaign has NO narrative structure it is a free for all, based on the risk board and is simply about gaining teritories. The ban has not been done for fluff reasons but to stop power gaming.
For those who have called me a tool, I haven't actually done anything yet. This thing happened, I came on a 40k forum to discuss it, to see what other gamers feelings were. how does this make me a tool?
I did offer to only take one SC just so some of my models counted as troops (THE POINT), but this was also rejected. It does seem harsh to me, and apparently many others. I still fail to see how this makes me a tool.
When GW changed it's policy towards SC's they explained it at length in WD. Whilst there may be some issues with older codex, DA was released after this change, as was the marine dex, so I thing certainly having aan issue with new lists using SC makes little sense.
Whilst some see Double Wing as cheese, I think it's a very difficult list. Normal measure, how often do you see something? Sure a lot of DA players choose to use it, but it's still a rare choice over all. That has to mean something, yes? Of the two games I played with the list, one was a wipeout (because the campaign organiser did something daft) the other was one of the most tense, interesting and tactical games of 40k I have had the pleasure of playing (thanks Joe!). I was looking forward to using this list over the summer and getting used to it's nuances. As I work 4 and a half hours from my home base and the gaming club, I had actually made arrangements with work to allow me to play at the club this summer. Now I don't really think I can be bothered, especially with the temptation to turn up with a very powerful but legal list, just to make a point.

Said tournement organiser is a good friend of mine. I have no desire to cause him offence or start grief at our club. I have said all along I have various options, none of which are a particular problem. I can not play, I can take a different army etc.
I just think it's a silly situation and wanted to see what you guys thought about it.

Oh final point. Our club does have a very strong anti power gamer attitude. This is all good but does occasionally lead to daft situations like this one. Take as an example my mechanicus list (gone on take a look at the links in my sig, it's very pretty!). Right that is a hardcore army, built around fluff and the hardcoreness was somewhat accidental (though see earlier comment about understanding how to build an army) Now I've played loads of games at home with it but only took it to the club once or twice, just to show my mates what it looked like as I'm hoping to rank in the Irish GT best army with it. Then I banned it from the club, it's too hardcore for there, but I'm aware of that and made my own decision to do that.

ehlijen
17-03-2009, 06:30
Yes, GW changed it's mind about SCs fairly recently. But a lot of codices still hail from before that time and banning their SCs but not newer ones is no more fair than banning just the new ones. Seeing as he apparently feels the need to ban at least some of them (otherwise why would he bother banning any?) banning them all is simply just what he probably sees as the 'fairest overall' approach.

It's unfortunate that you feel the way you do, but I don't actually see anyone at fault here (except possibly GW for letting out a few broken SCs in the past).

Oathwarden
17-03-2009, 08:14
Being a DW player I find the organizer's ruling stupid, I would not have been able to join in a capaign like this till I had picked up my second army, because of the fact he is needed to bring the full force of the DW to the field. I did not want a black/white, black/white/green list at that time. I played pure white when I started, and if someone told me that my army can't play because named character's weren't allowed I'd have been steaming mad. If the OP had written a good background as to why both Masters were on the planet(Guessing rumors/proof of Cypher's or some other high ranking fallen's presence) its a legitmate force with a reason to be there. With the fact that many new named IC's change the FOC and a few non named IC's do as well I'd ask that the ban applies to all things that could alter Force Org. So no biker captains for making bike's troops, etc. If one person can't change their FOC but another can, is that fair?

That being said its his campaign his rules and the Op said he's got other options for armies to bring, this whole argument's moot.

Ganymene
17-03-2009, 08:40
I don't think GW not anticipating that people would get their collective panties in a wad because an option was given a specific name instead of remaining generic, can hardly be described as "poor execution." :eyebrows:

Okay, I agree that it is mostly the players' faults for having this animosity for named characters, but it is GW fault for making an army (a fairly popular army at that) dependent on a named character to field properly.

Finn
17-03-2009, 09:32
I think you should have pointed out the rule on the page (60, is it? 60-something) that states you can call your Masters of the Deathwing/Ravenwing by whatever name you want. Something about that just screams "these guys aren't special characters" to me... Master **** Ferguson of the Ravenwing is a special character? Please.

And as stated before, Belial is warmed over vomit as a "special" choice - I'm fairly certain nobody would ever take him if he didn't have a master-crafted power weapon and Deathwing as Troops.

shin'keiro
17-03-2009, 10:25
Thats a 3rd Ed. hangover from the 80's

yabbadabba
17-03-2009, 10:29
Okay, I agree that it is mostly the players' faults for having this animosity for named characters, but it is GW fault for making an army (a fairly popular army at that) dependent on a named character to field properly.

Not really. Something nobody has mentioned yet, but these characters could be balanced in terms of the respective needs of the armies. It could be that a Deathwing army with Belial is fine, but a Ravenwing army with Sammael needed a bit of a boost.

If you think about it, under the editions when special characters were frowned upon (stupid idea really, and doesn't do much for sales either), there were so many options for non-named characters that I always thought that SC's were a disadvantage. Once you saw Abaddon, you knew straight away what he could do and what you needed to take him out. Not the same for a Chaos Lord of Nurgle.

Named Characters, Special Characters - all a storm in a teac up if you ask me.

The_Outsider
17-03-2009, 12:58
Let us not forget why GW has changed their policy on special characters in the last 2 editions.

In 3rd they were opponents permission and noone ever bothered to give it just to be awkward (oh the days when a SM captain was better than calgar in nearly every way).

4th removed the opponents permission, but people liked to ban them from various events for soem reason or another, but it basically boiled down to the same reason as why people banned them in 3rd.

So 5th ed rolls around and GW gives the finger to everyone by including them into the army list, rather than having a "special characters" section after the main list. Now with no real excuse to ban them (especially considering how characters like belial work) banning them from a campaign without a real reason certain forces are getting pretty screwed by a decade old mentality.

Sometimes I do wish SC were banned (goddamn telion....), but overall it does make the game more interesting.

Captain Micha
17-03-2009, 13:43
Yeah, I agree. It is reasonable to restict some aspects of an army, i just think that when you restrict too much you can hurt the spirit of the game. So, things like demanding the SCs must have a reason to be in the army make sense (so we wont see any Kharns in a Emperor's children based list), but if youre going to do something like remove Sammael, and the entire ravenwing, then thats a mistake in my mind. The point of a campaign is to have fun, and the GM should have to make some judgment calls every once in a while to create a proper campaign.

Campaigns aren't D&D Campaigns furthermore there is no "GM/DM/ST" cause everyone is one in a 40k Campaign everyone that participates input is -equal-. (I also believe this to be a truth in D&D campaigns but that's neither here nor there). Furthermore, what if he was playing a spawn of the Dark Angels? They out right say in the rule book that you can use Sammael or Belial's rules for masters of the Death and Ravenwings of their chapter same with the third Named Hq.

ehlijen
17-03-2009, 13:50
Calling your special character something else and still using his rules is not going to help if they are banned because of rules concerns. It might help if they were upsetting the story elements, but the OP has assured us that that is not the reason.

Gazak Blacktoof
17-03-2009, 14:45
Campaigns aren't D&D Campaigns furthermore there is no "GM/DM/ST" cause everyone is one in a 40k Campaign everyone that participates input is -equal-.

Only if that's the rules for the campaign.

There are a limitless number of ways you can play a campaign and some of them involve a GM.

Captain Micha
17-03-2009, 14:51
Calling your special character something else and still using his rules is not going to help if they are banned because of rules concerns. It might help if they were upsetting the story elements, but the OP has assured us that that is not the reason.

Oh I know. I'm just saying that "fluff" is not a justification here at all. You can't even delude yourself into pretending that it is. They leave no room for "Fluff being a No" for an answer here not even ambiguously. It's just a ***** that has no business making rules, making rules that are clearly beyond his understanding of game mechanics.


Only if that's the rules for the campaign.

There are a limitless number of ways you can play a campaign and some of them involve a GM.

Yes, I'm sure there are. And those type of campaigns should be reserved for mentally competent Gms/Dms.

Gazak Blacktoof
17-03-2009, 15:02
Yes, I'm sure there are. And those type of campaigns should be reserved for mentally competent Gms/Dms.

I think we're veering back into the realm of unreasonable and unfounded assumptions about people we don't even know.

Captain Micha
17-03-2009, 15:59
I think we're veering back into the realm of unreasonable and unfounded assumptions about people we don't even know.

He's already demonstrated his competence by making that rule.

jfrazell
17-03-2009, 16:17
If the individual in question has spent hundreds of dollars, and hours upon hours of time on his own army. He should be able to do whatever the hell floats his boat. One thing I hate about warseer, everyone has an opinion.....

I don't know when the last time you read the Dark Angels book was, but Sammiel and Belial are far from game breaking. I'd also give him 10/10 for sportsmanship for using a Double Wing army in the first place.

Dem's de Rulz. If you don't like it, don't play. I've avoided some leagues in the past for just that reason.

Personally I'm all for special characters as the codexes have changed. But if he gets DA special characters, then so do Orks, Necrons get their Ctan, Guard, Chaos, everyone else.

The_Outsider
17-03-2009, 16:20
Necrons get their Ctan, Guard,

You could argue banning SC does apply to IG and necrons (as well as several other codices) because they do actually have "special characters" in their respective codices.

a squig
17-03-2009, 16:32
i think that guy is a (rhymes with clucking tanker) ;)

i think maybe not allowing people to populate there lists with SC is ok but i would think it would be fine for each army to have one SC to lead there force. how do the other people campain feel about this rule?

O&G'sRule
17-03-2009, 16:41
If you're allowed special charaters at the GT what make this guy think his tournament is so special? The guys out of date.

The_Outsider
17-03-2009, 16:50
If you're allowed special charaters at the GT what make this guy think his tournament is so special? The guys out of date.

GT =/= official ruling.

Doesn't change the end result though.

Cane
17-03-2009, 17:03
As a player who made the jump from third edition to fifth, having special characters in an army without the need of player consent has been one of the bigger obstacles for my third edition brain to adapt to.

In this situation one could place fault on all parties involved including GW. The head of the tournament more than likely does not have a grasp of the Dark Angel army lists but to his credit he "banned" all special characters from HIS campaign. The OP failed to deliver an explanation for his side to the campaign owner and the biggest culprit would be GW and their lack of quality customer service by having outdated mini rulebooks.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
17-03-2009, 17:07
i think that guy is a (rhymes with clucking tanker) ;)

i think maybe not allowing people to populate there lists with SC is ok but i would think it would be fine for each army to have one SC to lead there force. how do the other people campain feel about this rule?

yeah, insulting person you dont know in teh interweb is mature ... :rolleyes:

Even without special characters, there are many choices for leader.

It is HIS campaign. He can allow SQUATS. It is suprising how many people want to control other people. Nobody is forcing you to play his campaign. Hell, most of you dont even know the guy.

@ the one who know how to discuss - sabre4190: Named Characters are treated differently in some current codices. When it will be no longer the case, there will be less arguments about using nc. but yes, i was mostly talking about background aspect (two people choose the same army, and cloning issue arise - there is no way to avoid it. Also, there is problem with campaign outcome, and changing the fate of gw characters. Those are serious problems that cannot be avoided).

Captain Micha
17-03-2009, 17:19
Except of course that in the case of DA it specifically tells you to clone them for successor chapters.

Ontop of that I doubt Eldrad was the only Farseer who was Awesome and Win beyond Compare (Tm).

Furthermore if Gw didn't want you altering the fate of their characters they wouldn't be letting you use them in the first place.

According to your logic, it would be fine if I disallowed the Assault Phase? Because it is my campaign?

Doppleskanger
17-03-2009, 17:37
I should mention I do use a sucessor chapter, of my own devising. This keeps coming up, its the same rules so same problem, despite how they're painted, despite what they're called.
@Cane: I did of course explain my point to the organiser. We had a polite chat about it for about five minutes. that was when I offered just to bring one SC so i could still field the army. Then he went off with my codex and came back and said no. I left. I bitched on Warseer.
There are now two very different types of SC's now. ones that are stand alone individuals like Eldrad, and ones that effect the FO, act as a replacement for Traits, doctrines etc, and are essentila to build some armies. Eldrad could be banned and a player could still use his whole army and just use the Eldrad model as a normal well tooled up Farseer. Ban the other sort and whole armies become redundant. Banning the first type is IMO silly and out of date, banning the second is plain harsh.

Rirekon
17-03-2009, 17:53
According to your logic, it would be fine if I disallowed the Assault Phase? Because it is my campaign?

Sure why not, just don't expect many people to sign up for it.

Seriously people, rules are not invioble, if you're running a campaign/tournament/random-battle then you can change/add/remove rules however you want.
You just can't force people to play in you campaign/tournament/random-battle ;)

Now I'm not agreeing with how the organiser has gone about this, I think it's a product of archaic thinking, but he is organising it so if you want to take part then you play by whatever rules he dictates.

Captain Micha
17-03-2009, 17:55
I'm sorry but the basic rules of the game shouldn't be removed because of one person's personal preferences.

itcamefromthedeep
17-03-2009, 18:03
Actually here's a question:

What if you as a DA player, only owned the DA Codex and had put a lot of work into your army, how would you feel about this ruling?
I'd be angry with GW that I needed a Special Character to field the army the way I want to.

I have a buddy who plays Salamanders. He'd like to play them without Vulkan, but he feels that the He'Stan is the closest thing to character for his force.

Would he field Vulkan without that Chapter Tactics rule? Once in a while.

Would he use Chapter Tactics if it didn't require Vulkan? Always, because Salamanders are awesome (I actually believe him here, the rest of his list shows he's not doing it to power game).

------

The case has been made that special character hate is a holdover from 2nd edition. That's bunk. Many of the players here weren't around for 2nd edition, and I have trouble buying that the newer players just picked up that feeling by osmosis.

Special characters are problematic for gameplay reasons because GW does a very poor job of balancing them, and just about any player can see that. They tend to be either overpowered or quite underpowered. If overpowered, you see them occasionally. If not, you never see them. I have never seen or heard of Aun'va being fielded. I have never seen Tigurius hit the field. Not a whisper of Ursakar Creed.

I have only ever heard of special characters being fielded if they're at least seen to be overpowered. When they're seen to be underpowered, people find ways of avoiding them, despite what they might add to an army's character.

Sorry, that's not true, I field special characters occasionally. I field Tyrion once in a blue moon because I like how I painted it. I field Korhil because I like the mini and because he's cool. I field an Avatar of Khaine first because it's cool, and second because I don't have any other dedicated close combat troops in my Eldar army.

My impression of special characters is that, generally speaking, they aren't cool enough to field unless they also help you to win games. Consequently, most never see the gaming table.

------

I'm fine with a ban on named characters. For DA, that means you might as well play them with C:SM, like all the other codex chapters.

Cane
17-03-2009, 18:05
@Cane: I did of course explain my point to the organiser. We had a polite chat about it for about five minutes. that was when I offered just to bring one SC so i could still field the army. Then he went off with my codex and came back and said no. I left. I bitched on Warseer.
There are now two very different types of SC's now. ones that are stand alone individuals like Eldrad, and ones that effect the FO, act as a replacement for Traits, doctrines etc, and are essentila to build some armies. Eldrad could be banned and a player could still use his whole army and just use the Eldrad model as a normal well tooled up Farseer. Ban the other sort and whole armies become redundant. Banning the first type is IMO silly and out of date, banning the second is plain harsh.

Ah, my bad. Thanks for the SC insight, I'm still trying to update my third edition brain (only played three 600 point 5th games so far, with a person new to tabletop gaming altogether).

The campaign owner doesn't seem like he has a good grasp on the Dark Angels and in cases where an otherwise Grand Tournament legal army is barred from a local tournament....well, enough said really.

itcamefromthedeep
17-03-2009, 18:07
I'm sorry but the basic rules of the game shouldn't be removed because of one person's personal preferences.
Special characters are my no means basic. The shooting phase is basic. The characteristics on the stat line are basic. The run rule is important, but peripheral.

You can play 40k 5th edition for years, decades even, without ever seeing a special character.

Just what was it that made you say that special characters are "basic"?

Todosi
17-03-2009, 18:22
Named Characters are "basic" because they are viable choices in the army list. There is no stipulation that your opponent must agree to them. This prejudice on Named Characters stems back to the herohammer days and has no place in this edition. They are here to stay and are legal choices, so we'd best all get used to them.

That said, If this guy wants to run HIS campaign this way, then that is that! That is the agreement that everyone in the campaign is playing by. His house, his rules. At my house, we allow any and all forgeworld models and rules because we think it's fun. At our local club, they aren't allowed without prior knowledge. It's a house rule guys. If you want to play at that house....play by those rules.

I may disagree with his reasoning, but it's his call. If you don't like it, change your list or play someone else.

Count de Monet
17-03-2009, 18:23
I'm sorry but the basic rules of the game shouldn't be removed because of one person's personal preferences.

On the other hand, any rules should be changed/removed at the mutual consent of those actually involved. This isn't 'one guy' changing/ignoring the rules mid-game. He's taking the time and effort to set up and run the campaign, has a set of rules for it and those who sign up accept those rules. Those who don't want to, don't sign up. If no one signs up, it will either collapse or he'll need to change the rules until he gets a set that can garner enough consent. No issue as far as I'm concerned.

Dakkagor
17-03-2009, 18:23
So from what i'm seeing here, you did not just show up at a campaign and expect to play with your army. You were told ahead of time by the organizer that named characters were not allowed in his campaign. You could of just turned around and taken your name off the sign up sheet right then and there!

You presented your case, he thought about it, then decided that in this campaign he would not allow named characters. This is totally his right to do.

You also had every right to choose to not play in the campaign.



Someone talking some sense at last! In the end this guy is running his campaign, and has every right to put limitations on the forces he feels are fair. Considering the other options, I would suggest the OP has nothing to complain about.

Rirekon
17-03-2009, 18:29
I'm sorry but the basic rules of the game shouldn't be removed because of one person's personal preferences.

If you disagree with the suggested rules then don't play, simple as that. I, as an organiser, have every right to completely re-write the WH40k rules and set-up a campaign using them. You as a player have every right to not play in that campaign, you do not have the right to dictate how I should run said campaign however.

Captain Micha
17-03-2009, 18:29
Special characters are my no means basic. The shooting phase is basic. The characteristics on the stat line are basic. The run rule is important, but peripheral.

You can play 40k 5th edition for years, decades even, without ever seeing a special character.

Just what was it that made you say that special characters are "basic"?

They are every bit as basic as a Rhino, Leman Russ, Fire Prism, Obliterator, Fire Warrior etc etc.

The fact that oh I don't know they are part of the army list and balanced against their normal Hq counterparts maybe these days?

Special Characters like Aunva and the like were terribly unbalanced (one way or another) because they were made as if they were separate some how from their parent army list. Current Special Characters of the modern (Eldar, Dark Angels and up) era are made with the parent list in mind and are balanced accordingly. Banning them is every bit as inane if not more so than banning any of the aforementioned units I listed.

Furthermore Hqs are increasingly the way to add custom options to your army. for the Ig it's going to become Doctrine Replacement. Named characters are nothing more than ability packages which are very conveniently named for you to take up and pay the pts for all in one go rather than paying for it piecemeal. (See Doctrines )

As for "It will be years before you ever see one!" I see one, at least once a month. Heck my group made up their own special characters.

Thud
17-03-2009, 18:34
You can play 40k 5th edition for years, decades even, without ever seeing a special character.

Good point! I've played 40k for just about ten years now, and I've never played against Sisters of Battle. Let's ban them!

Captain Micha
17-03-2009, 18:38
If you disagree with the suggested rules then don't play, simple as that. I, as an organiser, have every right to completely re-write the WH40k rules and set-up a campaign using them. You as a player have every right to not play in that campaign, you do not have the right to dictate how I should run said campaign however.

Oh please without players you have nothing unless of course you would like to play with yourself :rolleyes: Your participants opinions is every bit as important as your own.

Lungboy
17-03-2009, 18:48
They are every bit as basic as a Rhino, Leman Russ, Fire Prism, Obliterator, Fire Warrior etc etc.

Yup, and a campaign that banned all tanks, all HS etc would be perfectly fine too.

Dakkagor
17-03-2009, 18:48
Oh please without players you have nothing unless of course you would like to play with yourself Your participants opinions is every bit as important as your own.

True, but as this guy by the sounds of things

A: already has enough players to run a campaign
B: was confident turning this guy down would't inspire a player revolt in HIS campaign, with HIS rules and HIS time spent organising it

makes your point redundant. Your participants opinions matter, but you run with the consensus or majority. If the majority is happy and this one guy is throwing a strop, why should he change the rules?

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
17-03-2009, 18:50
Except of course that in the case of DA it specifically tells you to clone them for successor chapters.

Ontop of that I doubt Eldrad was the only Farseer who was Awesome and Win beyond Compare (Tm).

Furthermore if Gw didn't want you altering the fate of their characters they wouldn't be letting you use them in the first place.

According to your logic, it would be fine if I disallowed the Assault Phase? Because it is my campaign?

So tell me allmighty how two belials stop out of sudden to call themself "belial". If you will find out how - i'll addmit that you're right.

Sure, disallow assault phase, even movement phase if you like.


I'm sorry but the basic rules of the game shouldn't be removed because of one person's personal preferences.


You can even decide to change the rules to suit you better(this is known as house rules).

Did you ever bother to READ THE RULEBOOK ????:rolleyes:

Captain Micha
17-03-2009, 18:59
So tell me allmighty how two belials stop out of sudden to call themself "belial". If you will find out how - i'll addmit that you're right.

Sure, disallow assault phase, even movement phase if you like.





Did you ever bother to READ THE RULEBOOK ????:rolleyes:

That made no sense what so ever. They are not named Belial. Belial is just a Rules Package for the Dark Angels Chapters Masters Of Deathwing. Belial is short hand for that. Infact this is pretty much how all named characters are handled at this point in gaming. Master Farseer? Eldrad. Duh. Chapter Master of Bt Spawn? Helbrect Rules. IG "named characters"? Rules packages for the new Doctrines.

It's my understanding that there must be a -group consensus- for house rules to take place. Not one mans **** poor understanding of game mechanics and he wants to change them.

Malorian
17-03-2009, 19:03
Rules are rules and if you start breaking them, for whatever reason, how can you ever draw the line? Once someone heard that DA were allowed special characters then you would get others trying to plead their case.

"My army is only viable with..."
"Fluff wise I have to use..."
"Come on... isn't that powerful."

Sorry, you have to draw the line and the organizer was wise to stand by it. I would hope however that in the future that the requirements are made mroe clear and that problems that occured from this event are addressed.

Heimlich
17-03-2009, 19:12
So tell me allmighty how two belials stop out of sudden to call themself "belial". If you will find out how - i'll addmit that you're right.

Sure, disallow assault phase, even movement phase if you like.





Did you ever bother to READ THE RULEBOOK ????:rolleyes:

Keep talking Acheron, please, everything you say makes me laugh. ESL?

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
17-03-2009, 19:19
That made no sense what so ever. They are not named Belial. Belial is just a Rules Package for the Dark Angels Chapters Masters Of Deathwing. Belial is short hand for that.

It's my understanding that there must be a -group consensus- for house rules to take place. Not one mans **** poor understanding of game mechanics and he wants to change them.

No, Belial is Belial. Are you telling me that Belial is not Belial ? Even when both players call their Belial 'Belial' ? Check your codex, if he is called belial or not. But first of all USE YOUR BRAIN CELLS! It's not the first time you cant understand simple thing. There is something wrong with you, maybe you should ask specialist whats up ?

Campaign IS group consensus. Person who lead the campaign wrote down the rules, and players either agree or not play. This is consensus.

In this one leader says: 'Guys, there is no named characters allowed'. And most players is ok with that it seems. Only OP whine that he want his character, and leader should make exception, and allow his petty sammy.


Keep talking Acheron, please, everything you say makes me laugh. ESL?

Another clueless guy. Sigh. First, start to use logic. Then we can discuss.

Until then, laugh as much as want. If it's all you can do, fine. I pity you, but i'll not reply until you start talking sense.

Captain Micha
17-03-2009, 19:25
No, Belial is Belial. Are you telling me that Belial is not Belial ? Even when both players call their Belial 'Belial' ? Check your codex, if he is called belial or not. But first of all USE YOUR BRAIN CELLS! It's not the first time you cant understand simple thing. There is something wrong with you, maybe you should ask specialist whats up ?

Campaign IS group consensus. Person who lead the campaign wrote down the rules, and players either agree or not play. This is consensus.

In this one leader says: 'Guys, there is no named characters allowed'. And most players is ok with that it seems. Only OP whine that he want his character, and leader should make exception, and allow his petty sammy.

No, Belial is only Belial when it is actually the Dark Angles. Master of a Dark Angels's Second Founding's Deathwing is obviously not Belial. Furthermore you and I both know full damn well that most 40k players do not name their minis. Not even their Hqs. Not even when it's a second founding of a parent chapter or what have you. To go with this when someone asks what mini is that, you respond "He is Belial" to prevent confusion on the opponent's part. You know instantly what his rule package is for that character. It's not hard to grasp at all. The Op even said his chapter is -not- the original Dark Angels. And once again the Codex backs me up here they say almost word for word you use Belial and Sammaels rules (as well as the Chapter master) for your second foundings Masters of Death, and Ravenwings and Chapter Master. They Spell It Out For You. Period. There is no ambiguity here what so ever.

These are not Rpg characters nor novel characters. They are Rule Packages that have Fluff attatched to them (Belial by the way isn't the first master of Deathwing and DA had the ability to use Termies as troops long before he came along. But IIRC you've always needed the Deathwing Master to do it)

Much like a Class in D&D it is a simple ability package that you pick up to fit your theme. You don't honestly think -all- Rogues in D&D call themselves Rogues do you? Fighters, Fighters? They are ability sets that you pick up to fit what you need. They are not literally what you are. In this case Class Description for the preset mold is not your character unless you -wish for it to be-.

Named Characters function -exactly like that-. Just like every other Hq.

Also what the Op wants is to be able to field his Ravenwing army. Which he presently can't do now. Thanks to one idiot that has no grasp of game mechanics. He did not ban Belial and Sammy for Fluff Reasons (even those are easily debunked by the Codex) he did it because he has no grasp on Game Balance or Mechanics.

Heimlich
17-03-2009, 19:28
Another clueless guy. Sigh. First, start to use logic. Then we can discuss.

Until then, laugh as much as want. If it's all you can do, fine. I pity you, but i'll not reply until you start talking sense.

I'm pretty sure quoting me counts as a reply. As for not making sense, did you reread your own post that I quoted?

Malorian
17-03-2009, 19:37
Thanks to one idiot that has no grasp of game mechanics. He did not ban Belial and Sammy for Fluff Reasons (even those are easily debunked by the Codex) he did it because he has no grasp on Game Balance or Mechanics.

How do you know why he did it? Maybe he has ran campains before and found that there were too many of the unbalanced special characters? Maybe he found that players weren't all that familiar with special characters and it slowed the game down? Maybe some of the special abilities of the new space marine ones would ruin his campain missions?

Without talking directly to him it's impossible to know.

All we know is that he took 5 minutes to think about it which means there must be a reason, and in the end it was a preset campain rule which the OP broke (either knowingly or not) which led to this problem.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
17-03-2009, 19:39
snip

It still does not change a thing when there is two actuall Belials. Only if successors fight with DA/each other.

Named characters might function as class (at least some of them) AND function as the named characters (all of them).

So you cant just say they are only class - thats the generic characters role.

So not exacly as other HQ.

You dont even know the guy behind this, so how you could call him idiot for this home rule ? Which is common.

Captain Micha
17-03-2009, 19:44
It still does not change a thing when there is two actuall Belials. Only if successors fight with DA/each other.

Named characters might function as class (at least some of them) AND function as the named characters (all of them).

So you cant just say they are only class - thats the generic characters role.

So not exacly as other HQ.

You dont even know the guy behind this, so how you could call him idiot for this home rule ? Which is common.

Dude only certain battles are "canon" or fluffy anyway. I doubt very strongly that there are many instances in fluff where Ultramarines and Dark Angels go to war with each other. No it's not the Generic Character's role only. Or Ultramarines fight Ultramarines, or Grey Knights on Grey Knights... the list just goes on and on.

Named characters have special Gw fluff attatched to them to give you an -example- of what kind of fluff you can make for your Special Heroes. (Hqs) That's all the fluff is there for. Is to give you inspiration to come up with your own story for your heroes. Just like a D&D class description. It's just there for a springboard. Sure the current master of Deathwing in Dark Angels is Belial, but he's not the master of all Deathwing. And there very well might be someone else in the Deathwing that might be easily his rival. (even within the Chapter and thus still use Belial's rules) Maybe it's his rival and him squaring off for the title of Master Of Deathwing.

It's always better to say yes. than to say No. There are so many more plot hooks that come out of Saying Yes. There is an article all about Saying Yes which I will link once I find it.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dusg/20080721

Something any form of Dm/St/Gm needs to read and learn from. Saying No, cuts off tools for plothooks. Not expands. If it only hurts the game why say no. There are times when saying No is okay (such as a level 1 character asking for a Holy Avenger or something and even then I might consider it, but it won't function as a Holy Avenger at first) unless it's something like asking to be 1000 points over (100 whatever) the point limit for a game, saying Yes is always the better option. When balance is not affected it's best to Say Yes.

Because it absolutely hoses some armies (Dark Angels, in many cases Space Marines, Necrons and soon the IG). And leaves others completely and utterly untouched. It screws with the game's balance -dramatically- on some armies and not in a good sort of way.

Malorian
17-03-2009, 19:49
Because it absolutely hoses some armies (Dark Angels, in many cases Space Marines, Necrons and soon the IG). And leaves others completely and utterly untouched. It screws with the game's balance -dramatically- on some armies and not in a good sort of way.

I wouldn't say they are 'hosed'. Sure you can't do the deathwing or ravenwing but you can still do vanilla dark angels. And as far as the others go I can't see how an army book is ruined when you remove the special characters.

If your entire battle plan is based on your space marines out flanking your opponent thanks to one special character then maybe it's time to get off the one trick pony and try something a little more diverse.

Captain Micha
17-03-2009, 19:55
I wouldn't say they are 'hosed'. Sure you can't do the deathwing or ravenwing but you can still do vanilla dark angels. And as far as the others go I can't see how an army book is ruined when you remove the special characters.

If your entire battle plan is based on your space marines out flanking your opponent thanks to one special character then maybe it's time to get off the one trick pony and try something a little more diverse.

Vanilla DA are inferior in every single way by leaps in bounds without Death or Ravenwing compared to the current Space Marines. Da just pay through the nose for the perk of Raven and Death even when they aren't using them.

Think of it like playing as Blood Angels without using the Black Rage guys.

On a special note as well, Eldrad (since everyone loves picking on "eldrad being everywhere") Even in his fluff this is covered, he is bound inside of multiple spirit stones given to various Farseer disciples. Anytime there are two or more "eldrads" in play it is simply these spirit stone bearing Farseers being present on the battlefield. So even here from Gw there's yet another example where "a Special Character that there is only one of" can infact be in more than one place at a time. Also, another note is that all battles are speculative interpretations of events by two given armies. Deathwing and Belial are associated synonymously and where one is, the other might be as well even if he really wasn't.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
17-03-2009, 19:59
Dude only certain battles are "canon" or fluffy anyway. I doubt very strongly that there are many instances in fluff where Ultramarines and Dark Angels go to war with each other. No it's not the Generic Character's role only. Or Ultramarines fight Ultramarines, or Grey Knights on Grey Knights... the list just goes on and on.

Named characters have special Gw fluff attatched to them to give you an -example- of what kind of fluff you can make for your Special Heroes. (Hqs) That's all the fluff is there for. Is to give you inspiration to come up with your own story for your heroes. Just like a D&D class description. It's just there for a springboard. Sure the current master of Deathwing in Dark Angels is Belial, but he's not the master of all Deathwing. And there very well might be someone else in the Deathwing that might be easily his rival. (even within the Chapter and thus still use Belial's rules) Maybe it's his rival and him squaring off for the title of Master Of Deathwing.

It's always better to say yes. than to say No. There are so many more plot hooks that come out of Saying Yes. There is an article all about Saying Yes which I will link once I find it.

Because it absolutely hoses some armies (Dark Angels, in many cases Space Marines, Necrons and soon the IG). And leaves others completely and utterly untouched. It screws with the game's balance -dramatically- on some armies and not in a good sort of way.

We dont know if the campaign will allow infighting or not - tbh we dont know squat about it (SM ban aside). But at least some are based upon the fluff (missions, timeline etc), so it might be a reason for banning Calgar UM vs Calgar UM. It might be the case.

If that would be the case they would not be limited to only one per army. What you describe is true for Chaplain, Captain, Librarian, but not for Calgar ... D&D does not limit the number of rouges.

Maybe there is better to say yes, but there is always worse to force somebody to say yes.

The game is already unbalanced, and you can always play the most overpowered army in existence ? And the game is not way more unbalanced with sc ban, than one without sc ban. There are multiple factors, and sometimes it's terrain which make game way less balanced than lowly sc's.

Ubermensch Commander
17-03-2009, 20:00
@ OP
Well you were informed what the rules are and frankly, I do not think the ruling was aimed at your army.
To make a ruling fair for a tourney it has to be a blanket ruling. I suspect he just did not want to see (as another Warseer poster put earlier, damn my lack of a quote button on this comp) Wazdakka lists, Vulkan burny hot fun time lists, etc. If he had to start making exceptions for the DA characters, then the next army over would complain about it. You were also informed of this fact before the gaming started. Now, it was not written down, and thats slopy. But it is still fair.

Also, you say you were not in fact banned from a campaign. Yet your thread title says spefically that you "got banned from a campaign!" That sounds like you were fishing for sympathy with inaccurate descriptions.

So you did not like his ruling. Fine. Next time you host a campaign, do what you want.

But I have to say coming onto Warseer just to bitch about it...makes YOU look like the tool.
In the end it boils down to this: His event, his ruling. Do not like it? Do not have to. But your options are either A) Suck it up, cupcake, and play the game. Accept the fact that he did not get your opinion on how he should run his event. B) Do not play. If it is truly that big of a deal, which it is not, then step away from the event and find something else to do. C) Talk calmy and rationally to your fellow campaign goers and see what they think. If enough of them, IE well over half, say "yeah, we would really rather that SC's be allowed in, it sure would increase the overall fun factor of this thing" then approach the organizer and put the idea forth to him. However, it sounds like the majority of players just do not mind the lack of SCs.

Oh and contrary to the statement a fellow poster on warseer made DO NOT make snide little whiny bitch comments throughout the tourney like "man, sure do wish I had my belial list etc etc etc" It just reflects poorly on you and sucks the fun out of the game for other people who are just there to play the game with friends/fellow gamers.
So I recommend breathing, relaxing, then use Belial in the next campaign which you yourself should host to make sure its how you want it to be.

Malorian
17-03-2009, 20:04
Vanilla DA are inferior in every single way by leaps in bounds without Death or Ravenwing compared to the current Space Marines. Da just pay through the nose for the perk of Raven and Death even when they aren't using them.

Think of it like playing as Blood Angels without using the Black Rage guys.

We're not talking silver back gorilla vs kitten here. We're talking one marine army against another with a few more special rules. Hell, a lot of people think the book is inferior even with the 'wings' so what's the difference?

As I said, maybe the organizer will look at this and then next time just ban special characters that change your deployment or core rules. It all depends on his intent.

If he doesn't, next time I would suggest the OP knows the campain rules BEFORE he makes his list.

Captain Micha
17-03-2009, 20:09
We dont know if the campaign will allow infighting or not - tbh we dont know squat about it (SM ban aside). But at least some are based upon the fluff (missions, timeline etc), so it might be a reason for banning Calgar UM vs Calgar UM. It might be the case.

If that would be the case they would not be limited to only one per army. What you describe is true for Chaplain, Captain, Librarian, but not for Calgar ... D&D does not limit the number of rouges.

Maybe there is better to say yes, but there is always worse to force somebody to say yes.

The game is already unbalanced, and you can always play the most overpowered army in existence ? And the game is not way more unbalanced with sc ban, than one without sc ban. There are multiple factors, and sometimes it's terrain which make game way less balanced than lowly sc's.

9.99 times out of 10 when someone says "I banned special characters" there's still infighting. Mostly due in part to there are that many Marine Players. And also due to a lack of foresight. Especially when there's things like Lash Prince running around in the first place. Also if there is no infighting allowed at all, the "Special Character Issue" Never comes up in the first place.

That's because there's really not more than one Deathwing master guy (or whatever) that would be allowed on the field at a given time for a company. And honestly the odds of two guys fielding Belial -in the same game- are some where between slim and none. Especially when there are quite frankly better codexes out there at this point.

Exactly, Scs don't break the game anymore (if they ever did I've not seen -one- Op special character yet). DA even at it's most powerful doesn't compete with the most broken of armies. (Lash Prince with Oblits and Vindicators again for example). The game has so many balancing factors that most people don't even realize Scs don't even enter the equation anymore on the powercurve beyond "as long as they don't suck up too many points for what they do" which is what -every- unit in the game follows for criteria.

But starting with a definitive pts handicap (I believe at 1,500 Da are effectively fielding what 200 pts behind smurfs without Death or Ravenwing benefits) only -hurts- the games being played. It is a very significant handicap. I've seen what merely 80pts behind does. 200 would be a disgusting gap.

"Named Characters" only "hurt" fluff. And it only really hurts those that lack the imagination to think of other avenues of explanation rather than an absolute Literal Interpretation.

Malorian: It's all about the effective Pts gap. Termies as Troops or bikes as troops coupled with their special characters helps make up the Pts gap due to some very unique tactic sets that come with it. It's one of the reasons Pure GK sucks. (rather than using Guard or Sm with Gk allies) the limited Tactics gained by the uniqueness of the list after a certain point just fails to deliver because the price is so high. Enter the Da without Death or Ravenwing.

Lungboy
17-03-2009, 20:29
Vanilla DA are inferior in every single way by leaps in bounds without Death or Ravenwing compared to the current Space Marines. Da just pay through the nose for the perk of Raven and Death even when they aren't using them.

Is it really that hard to just use the SM codex with a bike captain? Really?

Malorian
17-03-2009, 20:31
Malorian: It's all about the effective Pts gap. Termies as Troops or bikes as troops coupled with their special characters helps make up the Pts gap due to some very unique tactic sets that come with it. It's one of the reasons Pure GK sucks. (rather than using Guard or Sm with Gk allies) the limited Tactics gained by the uniqueness of the list after a certain point just fails to deliver because the price is so high. Enter the Da without Death or Ravenwing.

Still doesn't matter.

Maybe one of the missions required you to hold an objective with infantry? What would raven wing do then?

Maybe one of the missions required to break past his line at center board. Not much fun when the deathwing deepstrike right by.

Maybe after the first game your HQ gets another 20 free points of gear. What happens if it's a special character?

Putting a campain together is a lot of hard work and a lot has to be done to stop those who (either knowingly or not) find loopholes which ruin the campain.

Since the organizer took time to look at the list rather than just ban it I can only assume is was a loophole. Personally however, I would have just banned it without a second look just to make sure I wouldn't be mobbed by people either wanting to take special characters too or complaining that it wasn't fair that I changed the rules.

The Orange
17-03-2009, 20:35
Probably going to regret this but IMO the organizer was in the right. Why? Because it's his tournament, he's running the show. You may not agree with his decisions, he may not have good reasons for his decisions, but its his private tournament that he's running. If he want's to put in his own house rules then he can. It doesn't matter if it's fair, it doesn't matter if Belail was balanced, it doesn't matter if DA are underpowered even with their SCs, it doesn't matter if they were overpowered with their SCs, it doesn't matter if he's breaking GWs rules. Since it's his tournament he can instigate any house rules he wants. He can change the mission parameters, he can put in special bonuses to specific armies (lopsided battles), he can rule out specific missions, he could make up special rules for specific pieces of terrain. All that would be breaking the rules, but might be quite normal in any campaign but does anyone complain? Not really right.

I mean yea it sucks that you can't use your army but it doesn't seem like the organizer is being an ass about it or anything, and it's not like it makes the tournament completely unplayable. So I don't get what all this "he's a tit, he's a tool" nerdrage is about. I mean just throw in 2 tac squads and a reg. HQ and you should be relatively good.

I mean common, your playing DA so you weren't expecting to win anything anyways, right?..........(j/k :p)

Swifty
17-03-2009, 20:52
While I see your point of this no longer makes your army work I think campaigns like this are good every once in a while. It makes everyone go back to basics making the game a very different one to play. I wouldn't look at it as someone saying you can't use your army but a chance to make your army play differently and have fun with it in a different way.

At the end of the day its his campaign so he can choose the rules, if you really don't like it you don't have to take part.

megatrons2nd
17-03-2009, 21:34
Discussion's like this are why I am against Special characters in general. I have said in other discussion's/forums that it would have been better to let a more streamlined doctrine system, or generic force altering HQ's be more prevalent than SC's.
It is within the rights of the organizer to ban characters from the game. Complaining does very little except irritate all party's involved. I agree in principle that you should be able to use characters to alter your list, but it is the final decision of the organizer to disallow their use. If I organized a campaign I would probably ban SC's as well, however I might make exceptions if you discussed your problems with other participants(the majority) who agreed to let you use yours for "army build" reasons.
I would suggest that you discuss calmly with the other players and the organizer your situation. They may end up being more understanding than you would think. If he sees that it does not irritate the other players he may relent and allow 1 of your characters.

Lord Dan
17-03-2009, 21:57
It's a campaign, the organizer can do whatever he wants. If you don't like what he does, don't play in the campaign. Consider yourself lucky, because if I ran a campaign:

-No SC's. Ever. In fact I'd also ban the lists that have SC's in their fluff.
-No lists that are too good. So basically nothing that can beat me.
-No Eldar tanks.
-No monoliths.
-No absurdly good combos. So mid game if you pull something that is "too good" on me, I have the right to tell you to remove the models from the table as casualties.
-Nothing orange. I don't know why.
-In fact, no Eldar at all.
-Nothing with indirect fire.
-No force weapons.
-No psykers in general. Again, no Eldar.
-Nothing with Ld 10. Ld9 is okay so long as they're my units.
-No railguns. Stupid Tau.
-No Daemons. I don't even know if they're good in 40K, but they're so good in fantasy that I don't even want to see them on the table.
-Nothing that is "anti-Daemon" either. It reminds me of Daemons.

Needless to say, no one wanted to be in my campaign. But then, that's the beauty of it- they have the choice.

The Orange
17-03-2009, 22:02
-Nothing orange. I don't know why.
...
-No railguns. Stupid Tau.


:(...:cries:...:p

O&G'sRule
17-03-2009, 22:06
Special characters are my no means basic. The shooting phase is basic. The characteristics on the stat line are basic. The run rule is important, but peripheral.

You can play 40k 5th edition for years, decades even, without ever seeing a special character.

Just what was it that made you say that special characters are "basic"?

The run rule is crucial to horde armies, especially tyranids. Now you can't go direct from one assault into another your combat troops are open to further rounds of shooting, running minimises this problem a bit

jfrazell
17-03-2009, 22:14
Gentlemen, and you know who you are, can we keep it polite here?

Edit: So to the issue, why didn't you play them as Vanilla? Bikes in FA, Termies in Elites? Inversely two scouts in pods with homers and then lots of termies? I understand your desire to play DA, and the new (read inferior) codex structure is such that special characters are used to open up the codex to do what they normally could anyway. but I can see where the league organizer might be trying to keep out the C'tans, Abaddons, and Calgars of the 40K world.

HsojVvad
17-03-2009, 22:39
Given that there is actually the option of playing regular marines for you, I don't see that this is such a terrible case.



What do you mean by this? Use the SM codex, or play Greenwing DA? Dont you see that there is something wrong when his army costs 2000 points, and the he only pays for 1750 points for the exact DA army?

I would say that he is making the campaing to his advantage, so yes I say he has a problem with it. All he had to do was say he didn't want to bother with everyones SC, but he didn't so I think he is making an advantange for himeself witch he is not handicapped by.

Spyral
17-03-2009, 22:49
What do you mean by this? Use the SM codex, or play Greenwing DA? Dont you see that there is something wrong when his army costs 2000 points, and the he only pays for 1750 points for the exact DA army?

I would say that he is making the campaing to his advantage, so yes I say he has a problem with it. All he had to do was say he didn't want to bother with everyones SC, but he didn't so I think he is making an advantange for himeself witch he is not handicapped by.

But the DA army restricts things like scouts yes?

Bottom line his army is reliant on special character(s) SCs are banned ergo his army cannot be used. I think that the Campaign Organiser is at liberty to do whatever he wants alright but should have thought it throug ha bit more.

Occulto
17-03-2009, 23:04
I wouldn't say they are 'hosed'. Sure you can't do the deathwing or ravenwing but you can still do vanilla dark angels.

If a player only owns Terminators, Dreads and Landraiders (because he doesn't want to play anything but DW) - he's going to find it rather difficult to field a vanilla list. ;)


And as far as the others go I can't see how an army book is ruined when you remove the special characters.

I really fail to see how you can make such a blanket statement. Not all special characters are equal - I wish people would stop glossing over that as if it's some insignificant detail.

Are SM unplayable without Chronos? No.
Are Eldar unplayable without Eldrad? No.
Are RW unplayable without Sammael? Yes.


If your entire battle plan is based on your space marines out flanking your opponent thanks to one special character then maybe it's time to get off the one trick pony and try something a little more diverse.

This is not a case of: "oh your list is now slightly less powerful." It's a case of: "oh your list is now illegal." My own DW army's gone from 4 Troops and 2 Elites, to 0 Troops and 6 Elites.

I'm not sure whether expecting to field a legal list can be called a "one trick pony." :rolleyes:


Is it really that hard to just use the SM codex with a bike captain? Really?

If you don't own the SM codex I dare say it is. :p

jfrazell
17-03-2009, 23:09
Then its best he not play in the League isn't it? Problem solved.

Occulto
17-03-2009, 23:17
Then its best he not play in the League isn't it? Problem solved.

I thought that'd been settled by now. :D

Hasn't the argument morphed into a general free-for-all about Special Characters? (Or do I need another coffee?)

Orcboy_Phil
17-03-2009, 23:41
If a player only owns Terminators, Dreads and Landraiders (because he doesn't want to play anything but DW) - he's going to find it rather difficult to field a vanilla list. ;)


I don't know about vanilla lists but hes going to need a good slapping. The only people who I know play DW do so becuase there PGT's who think and all terminator army gives them a distinct advantage and not because they like the Deathwing fluff,

Lungboy
17-03-2009, 23:41
Are SM unplayable without Chronos? No.
Are Eldar unplayable without Eldrad? No.
Are RW unplayable without Sammael? Yes.

Chronos is an upgrade for a vehicle, not an SC as such. SM and Eldar are two army types, whilst Ravenwing is a subset of a particular army, you can't directly compare them. Plus, RW is playable without Sammael, just use an SM captain on bike.

Rirekon
17-03-2009, 23:57
You'll notice that the named characters in the Space Marines army are dawn from several different Chapters, but they can still be used in the same army if you wish. This can represent the common occurance of different Space Marine Chapters fighting alongside one another. Alternatively, you can use the model and rules for a named character to represent a might hero of a different Chapter - for example, using the rule and model of Marneus Caldar as the Chapter Master of the Imperial Fists, or a Space Marine CHapter of your own design - you just need to come up with a new name.

Emphasis mine.
Named characters are not requred to be that actual character, they are a set of rules that you can use to represent whatever you want. It's not rocket science.

Occulto
17-03-2009, 23:59
Chronos is an upgrade for a vehicle, not an SC as such.

Nuts to that. He still gets to run round after the vehicle's been destroyed. He's just as much a SC as anyone else.

But you're pretty much agreeing with what I said before - not all SCs are equal. Disallowing all SCs in one hit, is going to affect different players in different ways.


SM and Eldar are two army types, whilst Ravenwing is a subset of a particular army, you can't directly compare them.

Sound suspiciously like you're saying: "RW isn't a real army."

Regardless, it's wrong to ever make the assumption that just because someone fields a subset of any army, that they'll automatically have the models to radically change it.

If a person buys the DA codex, loves the fluff and collects a RW army under the expectation that it's completely 100% legal, then it's a bit unfair to turn around and say: "oh your army's not allowed because we don't like one of your options."


Plus, RW is playable without Sammael, just use an SM captain on bike.

Again (and bolded for emphasis...)

If the player does not own the SM codex, then he is going to find that rather difficult.

I think it's a tad unreasonable to expect players to have to buy "backup" codices, just in case an organiser of an event can't adjust to the idea of special characters no longer being optional.


I don't know about vanilla lists but hes going to need a good slapping. The only people who I know play DW do so becuase there PGT's who think and all terminator army gives them a distinct advantage and not because they like the Deathwing fluff,

As someone who loves the DW fluff, I can assure you some of us do it for the background. :D

Lungboy
18-03-2009, 00:08
Nuts to that. He still gets to run round after the vehicle's been destroyed. He's just as much a SC as anyone else.


He can't be bought without first buying a tank, and once fielded he can't leave the tank unless it is destroyed. He is a unit upgrade, not an SC.




Sound suspiciously like you're saying: "RW isn't a real army."


I'm saying nothing of the sort. If you compared RW to a White Scars SM army that used all bikes (a direct comparison to RW) then you would have a point. Comparing a subset army to the entirety of the SM codex is daft.


Again (and bolded for emphasis...)

If the player does not own the SM codex, then he is going to find that rather difficult.

I think it's a tad unreasonable to expect players to have to buy "backup" codices, just in case an organiser of an event can't adjust to the idea of special characters no longer being optional.

The OP himself said he used to run green marines using the SM dex, so i'm not sure why you're bringing this up, unless you are talking generally, in which case i agree except that noone is forcing these players to take part and use armies that they don't own.

Doppleskanger
18-03-2009, 01:10
Hi again! Well to re-iterate a few points because some people do seem to be rather intent on putting words into my mouth.
I said all along that i had other options and that I certainly wasn't going to go and harrass this guy into changeing his mind. I may play with another army, I may not. This guy is my friend after all, and i've not been rude about him.
I posted to see what the members of Warseer thought about the situation, if they thought it was fair or not, if they had experienced something similar, if my understanding of the new role of SC's was similar to other peoples or not.
The discussion has been interesting but has at this point become somewhat circular.
It seems, without going back and actually counting, a lot of people think it was a silly way to organise a campaign given the current approach by GW to SC's, whilst a lot agree with the above but defend the right of the organiser to run a campaign anyway they want. A much smaller amount seem to think SC's are still some sort of evil 3rd ed game breaker (and in fairness a few very old characters may qualify as such) but I haven't seen any particularly valid arguements to support this view.
I also think that people argueing that the Vanilla Marine dex is an ideal substitute may not fully understand how DA works. The extra points cost on both DW and RW squads compared to the marine dex is substantial (15pts per DW squad, around 50 pts per RW) and only makes sense if the units are used in conjunction with the SC's. After all even if you don't take the SC's and therefore neither type counts as troops, you still pay the points hike. As mentioned my 200pt doublewing list adds up to around 1750 using the dex. It's not a PG list, it's an advantage NOT to take it, the reason I built the army is because the models and fluff are very cool, and there is a great synergy between the way the RW and DW squads compliment each other. I got to play 2 games and now, as everyone in my club will be in the campaign, i won't get to use it again for maybe 4 months. That's dissapointing, but certainly not the end of the world.

backslide
18-03-2009, 06:34
no named character means no named characters... whats the issue? get your tac marines to do the hard yards like everyone else

Industrial Propaganda
18-03-2009, 11:32
WH40K is boring since they bringed back the special caracters as center pieces for your armies. Remember the 2nd edition ? It gives me the same feeling. Marneus, Eldrad, Kharn and Abaddon in EVERY army.

But I know. It's marketing :p To sell alot of übermensch special caracters minis that GW do this. So I can live with it, but will never play them.

yabbadabba
18-03-2009, 11:47
WH40K is boring since they bringed back the special caracters as center pieces for your armies. Remember the 2nd edition ? It gives me the same feeling. Marneus, Eldrad, Kharn and Abaddon in EVERY army.

Thats because people lack imagination, seek every advantage they can possibly wring from every army, and are lazy. You can't blame GW for seeking to make as much money as they can.

09Project
18-03-2009, 11:50
Sorry but for me them the rules tough perverbials.

You said you have a lot of different armies, so use a different army.

ChrisMurray
18-03-2009, 11:57
It was proberbly not the organisers (your friends) intention to ban your army. He wanted to ban special characters as he most likely felt as some people do, that they can ruin the fun in a game. For whatever reason he choose to ban them, which is fair enough, which makes it impossible for you to field your original choice of army. He can't then allow you to take special characters to allow you to play your armie as others can then appeal and have reeasons why there sc is essential to their army.

As you have stated that you are happy(ish) to play another army IF you decide to still play in the tournament\campaign then there really isn't a problem.

LaevusLevusXIII
18-03-2009, 12:38
Personally I would just drop it and take another army list. However I would take the most tricked out and overpowered list you can make. Then you can ask him if you may use your doublewing. Now I do realise that this is not the more mature response, but then again, I enjoy playing warhammer for fun, and sometimes being immature is fun. Reminds you of being a kid again.

Now, whilst I realise that this opinion is not shared by a lot of you here, I think that the organiser is being a (#insert imaginative phrases here#) if it is a local, friendly campaign. Please let us know what you end up doing and how it turns out

Logarithm Udgaur
18-03-2009, 12:55
To the OP: you said you have a lot of armies, play another instead. Alternately, play a vanilla codex army.
The organizer is right to not make a special exception to the campaign rules just for you.

09Project
18-03-2009, 12:56
Personally I would just drop it and take another army list. However I would take the most tricked out and overpowered list you can make. Then you can ask him if you may use your doublewing. Now I do realise that this is not the more mature response, but then again, I enjoy playing warhammer for fun, and sometimes being immature is fun. Reminds you of being a kid again.

Now, whilst I realise that this opinion is not shared by a lot of you here, I think that the organiser is being a (#insert imaginative phrases here#) if it is a local, friendly campaign. Please let us know what you end up doing and how it turns out


Ok I can't comment on this campaign as well I don't know its background.

But I can give reasons based on tournaments I have run and if I was to run one now I would too remove all special or as they are now named characters.


1- I would always play as a Games Master type, I would have an army but it would not be involved in the campaign as standard, more an external annoyance to players.

2- Named characters would give me opportunities to evolve a campaign. If i knew which named character players had, I could boost someone who is struggling by a character turning up for a game or two to help them out (A mid point range character added to their list).

3- Another use would be allowing say Ork and Space Marine players to 'upgrade' their ingame characters profile to one of the named characters for sterling service, or maybe a particularly accurate scout would be allowed to be Telion. It gives me room to move the campaign and also the story on for armies. A particularly successful Pain Boy to the Mad Dok as a new HQ that can be moved in and out of the list for example.

4- A lot of named characters mess up an army. If you have to have a legal 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 point list all made up from the same body, could the DA special characters make a legal 500pt force?

5- Campaigns are not tournaments, they designed with story much more to the for, I played a lot and well, never 'won' one but really enjoy them and running them, as a GM of a tournament though, any room for adding in excitement to the story keeps a campaign flowing.

7- And lastly, it gives these non-named characters a story arc that maybe they didn't have before, and indeed units.


Calling this guy a 'tool' and indeed in the OP boasting about hammering his army is pointless, the guy may well have very good reasons for wanting to keep named characters out, if it in the rules it there, you go with it, if you have another army you use it, if you have the ability to form an army with no named characters you use that.


The only exception I would ever make if I was running it was if a new player could in no way form a legal list as they only had what they had and they had no other armies. I would always get people involved and adjust a campaign, if the top limit was 2000 and someone only had 1500 I could get them into it somehow too.

But those are exceptions made to bring new players to campaigning, not experienced gamers who are desparate to use basically the strongest army from their codex. Army strength has no interest to me, and as a GM if i thought your army was beardy, you'd find out as something nasty would happen (Usually if the army started dominating a campaign very early an angry ork army may turn up with the intention of stealing your land raiders!).

So there you go those my thoughts. In a longer format.

Rirekon
18-03-2009, 13:29
Other than this...

4- A lot of named characters mess up an army. If you have to have a legal 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 point list all made up from the same body, could the DA special characters make a legal 500pt force?
... all the reasons you give are fluff based.
To take this pointer further; Surely whether your players can make legal 500pt armies is entirely their problem. If you have laid out right from the start "You will need to be able to generate legal X, Y and Z cost armies from your list" then they know to account for that in their army selection.

Back to the fluff points (I'm speaking generally from here out, this is not specifically targeted at anyone!); I get that having Belial turn up in every fight is a bit weak, but that's if you focus on the name Belial. "Belial" in itself is as meaningless as "Jonny", it's the rules that are used to represent "Belial" that people want.
Not allowing players to use "Jonny", 2nd in command of the Deathwing who just happens to have the same rules as "Belial", means you are making a mechanic driven decision. If you believe it to be fluff based then you are failing to understand the principles you're attempting to enforce.

So you need to decide what you are banning;
Is it the fluff of having "Belial" turn up? Fine, let players use a different name but the same rules.
If it the fluff of having a Company leader turn up? Ok fine too, however you are going to have to make some tough decisions about how this is applied to other HQ selections.
Is it the rules that Belial and others represent? Ok fine too, but you should probably identify what is it about those rules that you don't like/want so that you and your players can make educated choices.

Interestingly the last choice seems to be the actual reason coming out from a lot of people. If you are banning Belial then you should also ban other HQ selections that allow units to be taken in different FOC slots and/or add extra rules to the army, such as Ork Warbosses etc..

Hopefully this helps explain where a lot of the "hate" is coming from on choices like this being made. The feel ill thought out (whatever the actual reasons and logic behind it) and people will rebel against it. I also hope it gives people some insight on how to approach what is essentially game design when you are planning campaigns and/or tournaments with rules modified from the core set.

As a final note; I personally advocate people modifying the game in any way which suits them as long as it the changes are applied evenly :)

Razarael
18-03-2009, 14:13
*Note - I wrote this last night when there were only 6 pages in the thread. Since reading the last few new pages, I needed to add nothing to the main point of this. :)

@doppleskanger

I read through the whole thread and I understand the concern and I understand the feeling of annoyance you must be getting from the whole situation. While I do not use special characters (I play Eldar, and Eldrad just seems like a waste of points), I am not opposed to my opponents using them. It certainly sucks when an army becomes reliant on a special character to function as seems the case with Dark Angels. I've played against them once and my Ork Boy horde got spanked. But anyway, I do have some questions and some advice for you, so here goes-


1) Are you a regular at wherever this campaign is being held?
2) Has this particular person ever organized a campaign before?
2.1) If yes, have you ever played one of their campaigns before?
2.2) If yes, were special characters allowed before? And how frequently are they not allowed?
2.3) Again, if yes, have you enjoyed playing in this person's campaign before?
3) Have you attempted to find out the rationale behind why SCs aren't allowed? And not just a one sentence answer. For example, finding out details, like whose idea it was, and whether it was the entire gaming group or just this gentleman's whim.
4) Is the fellow in question usually an *******?

Those are my questions, here's my advice.

1) Cope with it the best you can, as the fact of the matter is you're not going to be able to use DA special characters. If you have another army, I would recommend that, or as other's have mentioned, use Codex Marines using DA models. Personally, I would be totally understanding to your predicament. By cope with his decision, I don't mean let the annoyance well up within you, I mean resolve to make the best of the situation, as there is a very big difference between letting something fester and bother you versus making the best of an unfortunate situation.

2) When it comes to how you talk with the person next, being personable and not a jerk is going to be the best way to let things work in your favor. I'm not saying you would be a jerk, just putting that out there. The absolute best way to get what you want from someone is not by getting upset and arguing, it's by being understanding to somebody elses point of view, especially when you go out of your way to see it.

I would try to have the conversation work something like this:

1 - next time you see them, whenever it is.

"So, I know we're not allowed to have special characters, so I've made a new army list without them. I'm looking forward to the campaign! Thanks for all the hard work you've put into making this happen."

I did a couple things there, you'll see. First, I went with their ruling without arguing or pissing or moaning or whining. It shows that you respect them as the authority. Next, I complimented them on their hard work. It shows that you respect them as a person.)

2 - maybe midway through the campaign. Something similar to this periodically would be good.

"Hey, thanks again for all that you've done. Dang, nice looking army you got there. Good luck on your next game."

This would work the best if he's playing in the campaign himself. If he isn't, something equally complimentary will suffice.

3 - nearing the end of the campaign.

You: "Great job planning this. When do you think you'll be planning another?"

Him : "Uh, I don't know. Sometime in the near future."

You: "Awesome. If you need any help, let me know. I've been talking to some others and we've got some ideas if you would like any help with it."

This would work the best if you have in fact been talking with people about campaign ideas. Otherwise, you're a lying prick. :)


Okay, so that's basically it.

The idea is this: When it comes around to the time when you're telling him that you've got ideas for the next campaign he's going to recognize you as one of the few people that has been periodically telling him that he's been doing a great job. Who the hell wouldn't want a person that's always being nice to them to help them out. You'll also probably notice that when talking to the organizer, not once did I say anything about special characters. That's probably what he'll remember from you as you had a conversation about it and he'll immediately know that you're trying to weasel something out of him. It will put him in defense mode, and that will botch everything up for you. Also, you'll only rolls 1s for your terminator saving throws.

For your sake and everyone elses, it's much better to a build a bridge than burn it; also it's much easier to set it aflame, as it takes time, genuince interest, and integrity to lay a foundation. My advice is actually really simple though - it involves going out of your way a bit to be nice to someone.

An important thing to remember is that if it comes down to an argument, you have already lost. When people begin to argue, there is no winner. That defense mode that I mentioned does this: They only hear their opinion, and nothing you say is going to get through. If you 'win' the argument, the person with the authority is going to be embarrassed and/or angry and you will not get your way. Ever.

Good luck, unless you act like a jerk. :)

***

The one thing I did think upon reading the last few pages: If it smells like Calgar, if it tastes like Calgar, if it looks like Calgar, and it kills Avatars like Calgar, then isn't it Calgar and not his brother's really enthusiastic nephew?

Saying it's another dude with the same exact rules seems kinda silly to me. It makes special characters less, um... Unique. There's a reason only one of them can be taken in an army. Because there's only one of them, and his name is printed on the page in front of you.

No disrespect. Just my opinion.

Rirekon
18-03-2009, 14:21
The Codex disagrees with your opinion ;)

You'll notice that the named characters in the Space Marines army are dawn from several different Chapters, but they can still be used in the same army if you wish. This can represent the common occurrence of different Space Marine Chapters fighting alongside one another. Alternatively, you can use the model and rules for a named character to represent a might hero of a different Chapter - for example, using the rule and model of Marneus Calgar as the Chapter Master of the Imperial Fists, or a Space Marine Chapter of your own design - you just need to come up with a new name.

Though that makes it no less valid :)

09Project
18-03-2009, 15:42
Sorry Rirekon but Belial would fail to get into my system, as far as I am aware you could have a perfectly fine Space Marine commander in Terminator armour thus there is no need for Belial who sorry to say it is a named character thus on rule check he would be out, you can't have him.

The DA codex is the weird one, now I haven't come accross it, not run a campaign for a wee while and well, if someone wanted a deathwing army, or a ravenwing army I would have to openly support that, but it wouldn't be through the use of named characters. Allowing say a Space Marine Commander (or even chaplain) on bike to allow Ravenwing Squads (minus landspeeder) to be taken as troop being one option, Space Marine Commander (in terminator armour) allowing Terminators as troops another. But I would look for them to be single themed armies not Ravenwing/Deathwing cross overs with a restriction on say if you take ravenwing a max limit for terminators, basically something to be negociated with players based on what they own.

I mean there wouldn't be many standard style games I usually put a lot of effort into mixing it up thus the need for your army to break down into smaller but FC legal sections.

As for the quote from Codex Space Marines, a GM of a campaign over-rules it simple as, and anyone told me that such and such is Brother Gavin not Pedro they would be told to stop being silly..

But then that why you ask players to submit army lists before it starts, so any wee things like this can be sorted out easily, and if any changes need to be made they can be.

I don't see any reason for stopping FOC changing basic characters at all by the way.


PS I just put these things as well my personal way of campaign running has been successful, there are many other successful ways. Some have sort of suggested though that not allowing named characters is somehow a bad idea, I wanted to put forward a reason why it isn't. Though end of the day I am not against campaigns having them in or not, just prefer them not to be there in mine. And lastly end of the day, it down to negociating with players, the campaign should be fun and a good GM must be able to negociate well for that.

Rirekon
18-03-2009, 15:56
Sorry Rirekon but Belial would fail to get into my system, as far as I am aware you could have a perfectly fine Space Marine commander in Terminator armour thus there is no need for Belial who sorry to say it is a named character thus on rule check he would be out, you can't have him.

See I'm curious, would you mind explaining precisely why you don't want named characters in your (hypothetical?) campaign?
I only ask because you seem to be designing your rules based on fluff rather than effect, which is an ineffective method.
For example;

The DA codex is the weird one, now I haven't come accross it, not run a campaign for a wee while and well, if someone wanted a deathwing army, or a ravenwing army I would have to openly support that, but it wouldn't be through the use of named characters.
Allowing say a Space Marine Commander on bike to allow Ravenwing Squads (minus landspeeder) to be taken as troop being one option, Space Marine Commander allowing Terminators as troops another. But I would look for them to be single themed armies not Ravenwing/Deathwing cross overs with a restriction on say if you take ravenwing a max limit for terminators, basically something to be negociated with players based on what they own.
<...>
I don't see any reason for stopping FOC changing basic characters at all by the way.
Here you state you would be happy to have characters with rules that allow for units to be moved around the FOC. Belial (to continue our example) is a character that contains such rules and has a point cost to that effect, yet you won't allow it to be used because... fluff?
Belial and an Ork Warboss have the same mechanical impact on the game, they alter the FOC in a way which is appealing to players for various reasons (mostly rules based). However, and please correct me if my perception here is wrong, you seem to feel that because one of them has been specifically named by GW that it shouldn't be used. This is to me, as a designer, a very strange reason to implement such a rule. It just doesn't apply evenly from a mechanics perspective, why should one model be banned while another isn't even though they do the same thing.


As for the quote from Codex Space Marines, a GM of a campaign over-rules it simple as
Oh don't get me wrong, I totally agree that it can be over-ruled. My point was merely that GW intend for the rules to be representative of other characters, not just for the named character they present.

anyone told me that such and such is Brother Gavin not Pedro they would be told to stop being silly..
This being precisely my point, GW have out right stated that those rules do not just represent Pedro, they can be used for other characters. Could you explain further your reasoning for rejecting this?

I'm not picking on you at all, I'm just really curious to have someone with your mind set explain your thinking :)

bielmic
18-03-2009, 16:19
part of the problem is that 3 editions of codexes are still tourny legal/current. you've got 3rd edition characters (like dark eldar) who were undercosted running around with 5th edition overcosted characters, with the 4th ed stragglers in between. i can understand why he wouldn't want to deal with every player trying to get special exceptions for "their totally fair" special character. either way, you've got a way to play your army using the marine codex and you can even count bikes as troops (a huge bonus). i would just do that. you were not banned from the campaign; your favorite version of your army was. there are plenty of others that you can use without spending any additional $.

Kurisu313
18-03-2009, 16:35
@ 09Project

I feel like I should point out that a Company Master (Space marine Captain equivalent) in the DA codex cannot take terminator armour or a bike. So by writing out Belial and Sammael, you'd have to write additional options for the Master

Doppleskanger
18-03-2009, 17:09
quite so. It is a strange codex, something of a test run for the new style perhaps.
So you're standard Company Master can't have Terminator Armour or a bike, but can have a jump pack, whilst both Chaplain types and the Librarian can take all three. how random is that? Well it just reinforces that this particular codex was specifically designed around the SC's and using the DW and RW as troops.

itcamefromthedeep
18-03-2009, 17:19
I only ask because you seem to be designing your rules based on fluff rather than effect, which is an ineffective method.GW likes to make models and then give the model rules, regardless of how it affects the synergy of the rest of the list. Rules based on fluff isn't exactly new to this system, nor is it particularly undesirable.


It just doesn't apply evenly from a mechanics perspective, why should one model be banned while another isn't even though they do the same thing?It would be much better to ban characters and units based on a cost/effectiveness index,but no such measure exists. The best way to be sure to catch all of the inappropriately priced special characters is to ban special characters.

If you want to play with Deathwing and Ravenwing models, do so. Just bring a pair of Tactical Squads along with them. It will increase the tactical flexibility of the force, and no special characters are needed. Really, it's not so hard to switch out Sammael for one Tac squad, and a unit of Terminators for another. Bring a Terminator captain along instead of Belial.

There, done. Doublewing, done legally, without special characters. True, the Terminators and Bikes aren't Troops. Which is fine, because they shouldn't be Troops. They're the elite of the Dark Angels, and they should be elsewhere, fighting other battles, rather than holding ground. Making those units Troops is just an excuse to spam them, which, while interesting, is precisely what the Force Organization chart is there to stop anyway.

Somerandomidiot
18-03-2009, 17:35
Rirekon, I think you're missing the entire point. Aside from a few specious arguments regarding campaign design (I can understand no named HQs in a campaign that focuses on upgrading your HQ choice, but that's about the limit), the only reason that's been posted for disallowing named HQ choices in this thread is:

"Because I can!"

They've decided that they know more about how the game should work than the designers, and you really can't argue with that.


True, the Terminators and Bikes aren't Troops. Which is fine, because they shouldn't be Troops. They're the elite of the Dark Angels, and they should be elsewhere, fighting other battles, rather than holding ground. Making those units Troops is just an excuse to spam them, which, while interesting, is precisely what the Force Organization chart is there to stop anyway.

This is a great example of that kind of argument. Terminators and Bikes SHOULDN'T be troops, apparently. Never mind the fact that the wonderful people who designed the Dark Angels codex (or the Marine codex at that) specifically allow avenues that make Terminators and Bikes troops. They were wrong, he's right, and you can't have a logical argument with that.

Doppleskanger
18-03-2009, 17:37
yeah but no but...
that just gets to the point about the uneven application of mechanics. Both Marines and Eldar can have bikes as troops without the need for SC's, so where's the fairness there? If I were to start adding tactical squads for troops that's an absolute minimum of 180 pts for two 5 man squads with no upgrades. Would you play 5th ed with only two tiny troop choices. I'm guessing not, so realistically to go down that route, you're talking spending 400 to 800 pts on tactical squads, which really isn't the same army at all.
A long long time ago in this thread someone pointed out that by removing SC's from the armies where they effect FO then you are limiting certain armies to generic builds, which is boring (and this is even worse with the BoLs tourney rules!) Essentially you're making players use the battleforce army, you know, three tactical squads, one tank, one dread,, one terminator squad, one assault squad etc I don't really see how limiting variety is good for anyone.

Rirekon
18-03-2009, 17:50
GW likes to make models and then give the model rules, regardless of how it affects the synergy of the rest of the list. Rules based on fluff isn't exactly new to this system, nor is it particularly undesirable.
This isn't entirely true though is it, let's face it Marines would be a lot harder if their rules came anywhere near reflecting their fluff ;)


It would be much better to ban characters and units based on a cost/effectiveness index,but no such measure exists. The best way to be sure to catch all of the inappropriately priced special characters is to ban special characters.
So you are banning the over priced named characters but allowing the under priced non-named characters instead. This is precisely what I mean about not applying the effect evenly.
This is how not to design a game.


Bring a Terminator captain along instead of Belial.
You can't, the only Terminator captain available is Belial...


Making those units Troops is just an excuse to spam them, which, while interesting, is precisely what the Force Organization chart is there to stop anyway.
And yet you are allowing the other characters which do precisely this, such as Space Marine Captains on Bikes, Ork Warbosses, etc...


Rirekon, I think you're missing the entire point. Aside from a few specious arguments regarding campaign design (I can understand no named HQs in a campaign that focuses on upgrading your HQ choice, but that's about the limit), the only reason that's been posted for disallowing named HQ choices in this thread is:

"Because I can!"

Heh, I'm getting that impression yes. I was kind of hoping to get some other insight from people, or even (pipe dream that it is) to illuminate people to what they're doing.

Doppleskanger
18-03-2009, 18:21
Side note on Variety.
Number of troop choices availible without using named SC's in Codex;
Orks 4
Eldar 4
Marines 3
Chaos Marines 5
Tyranids 4
Dark Angels 1

(and yes I do feel sorry for Necrons and BT who can only ever choose from a list of 1 irrespective)

The_Outsider
18-03-2009, 18:26
Side note on Variety.
Number of troop choices availible without using named SC's in Codex;
Orks 4
Eldar 4
Marines 3
Chaos Marines 5
Tyranids 4
Dark Angels 1

(and yes I do feel sorry for Necrons and BT who can only ever choose from a list of 1 irrespective)

DE have 2 (though really it is just one unit with the option for a transport), space wolves have 2 (though must take a unit of GH) and, err, I forget how many the other unnamed forces have.

IIRC Tau only have 1.

Fixer
18-03-2009, 18:31
Tau Firewarrior and Kroot Carnivore units are both troops.

Lungboy
18-03-2009, 18:36
Side note on Variety.
Number of troop choices availible without using named SC's in Codex;
...
Dark Angels 1


Surely this kind of suggests that your remark about the DA codex being written with 5th in mind isn't true. Limiting you to 1 possible troop unit unless you take one or both of Sammael and Belial doesn't fit with the Marine 'dex or the rumours of the IG dex at all.

itcamefromthedeep
18-03-2009, 19:07
Belial and an Ork Warboss have the same mechanical impact on the gameIt's not Belial who is the problem. Considering that an army can live without him, I'm not going to lose sleep if he get caught in the crossfire.


Both Marines and Eldar can have bikes as troops without the need for SC's, so where's the fairness there? Marine and Eldar Bikes are essentially footsloggers with a little more mobility and a little more durability. Much like what you get with a transport.

The Ravenwing, however, are plugged not as the basic troops of the line but rather as an elite force within the Dark Angels, and they get special rules to justify that. I'm fine with them working in support of Tac Marines, because that's what they say they do.

The bottom line is that you can put Ravenwing and Deathwing models on the table as something other then Troops and still win games. Suck it up.


If I were to start adding tactical squads for troops that's an absolute minimum of 180 pts for two 5 man squads with no upgrades. Would you play 5th ed with only two tiny troop choices. I'm guessing not, so realistically to go down that route, you're talking spending 400 to 800 pts on tactical squads, which really isn't the same army at all.More like 400pts, about 200 per squad. Combat Squad them for objective missions. That's about a quarter to a 5th of the force. With a ~150pt character, that leaves enough for 2 Terminator Squads and 2 Bike squads, even in 1500pts.


Essentially you're making players use the battleforce army, you know, three tactical squads, one tank, one dread,, one terminator squad, one assault squad etc I don't really see how limiting variety is good for anyone.So, taking a variety of units in an army lacks variety. That's what you're going with?

You can do an infantry list. You can do a mechanized list. You can do a horde list. You can do an elite list. You can do a mobile list. And you can do any of these with virtually any army. There's plenty of variety in there without spam lists.

Oh, and I'm not responsible for the BoLS tournament rules.


Number of troop choices availible without using named SC's in Codex;
Eldar 4
Make that 5. Wraithguard can ninja their way into the Troops section.

Rirekon
18-03-2009, 19:59
It's not Belial who is the problem. Considering that an army can live without him, I'm not going to lose sleep if he get caught in the crossfire.
So who or what is the problem then?


Marine and Eldar Bikes are essentially footsloggers with a little more mobility and a little more durability. Much like what you get with a transport.

The Ravenwing, however, are plugged not as the basic troops of the line but rather as an elite force within the Dark Angels, and they get special rules to justify that. I'm fine with them working in support of Tac Marines, because that's what they say they do.
Ork Nobs and Dreadnoughts, Eldar Wraithguard, etc... are also the elites of their respective armies yet you don't have a problem with them becoming Troops.


The bottom line is that you can put Ravenwing and Deathwing models on the table as something other then Troops and still win games. Suck it up.
The same applies for every other unit which normally non-Troop but which can be made so using a specific character or option. Yet you don't seem to see them as a problem...



Make that 5. Wraithguard can ninja their way into the Troops section.
Interesting that you highlight this but don't seem to have a problem with it...

If you wouldn't mind explaining the reasoning for why you feel ths way I'd really appreciate it, I just can't see the design logic behind it :)

Oathwarden
18-03-2009, 20:08
@itcamefromthedeep

The DW army cannot live without its belial. You deny it as a valid choice as it is written in the codex. If it wasn't to be allowed as a playable army, they wouldn't have written them into the 'dex.

I don't own tac marines squads at this time. I've got my termies and then a handfull of bikes because of expirementing with doublewing play. So basically you're giving guys like me the finger saying "I don't like the army you've collected, go get more models(that I don't want) use them, then we'll talk."

As for the 'you can still win games without DW/RW as troop options', that is true, but you can be sure that if I'm playing my DW my termies will be troops, because guess what, thats the theme.

While these style armies might be 'spam' armies(I will give you that comment, because even I 'spam' my DW squads for scoring purposes in 5th) That doesn't invalidate them. I've made a choice to play an army based on the fluff that means termies/dreads/LR's and its perfectly legal, yet you'd deny me my opportunity to play, because I need a so called special character, belial's just been a bullet magnet for me, in order to play it.

Let me just pose this one question, If the DW and RW were able to be played by just giving a captain termie armor or a bike, would you still be against it?

Sorry its gotten a bit on the rant side, but I find the argument 'just take tac squads' to be a bit silly.

Nostro
18-03-2009, 20:32
Count me in with Rirekon and Doppelskanger.

As far as the OP is concerned, well his tourney his rules, he could make a tourney with only 1 HS slot allowed if he wanted to. Some players would complain it nerfs their army (some rely a lot more on HS than others to be competitive) but bottom line it's his event, follow his rules.

But you can seize that opportunity to discuss the undeserved flak special charcaters are taking. They used to be underpriced killing machines but they are not. Instead of doctrines or traits, GW decided to use FOC-altering SCs instead. You may find it dumb (and somehow I do) but it's how it works.

People say SCs move the FOC in unintended ways: other rules do that yet nobody would ban Warbosses on the grounds that they allow a Nob squad as troops.

People say some SCs are ill-costed and banning them prevents that: some are, some aren't, but that's true of a lot of units. Do you ban obliterators? Do you ban Lash princes? Do you ban nob bikers? Then why would you ban SCs?

Feel it's right or wrong, but you have to forget how SCs used to be. They now are "generic" SCs, GW even EXPLICITLY stated so. Instead of calling the guy "0-1 Master of Veterans Captain" they called him Pedro Kantor because it allowed them to give a cool mini, a cool chapter, a cool history and people would feel more attracted to it that if it were just an picture-less entry of "Master of Veterans"; and also it enables to give a 0-1 limit to the entry without explicitly doing so, which GW seems to be reluctant to do currently.

Yes it opens the door to cries of chees and banning of SCs. Maybe it's dumb from GW to allow FOC altering rules this way instead of just giving traits. But for crying out loud they themselves say their SCs are just a generic description of how a heroic being would fill the slot in any chapter. :cries:

SwordJon
18-03-2009, 21:07
holy balls red text my eyes

itcamefromthedeep
18-03-2009, 23:38
Ork Nobs and Dreadnoughts, Eldar Wraithguard, etc... are also the elites of their respective armies yet you don't have a problem with them becoming Troops.
Let the record show, those were terrible design ideas. That's the kind of mistake that led to Nidzilla.

But, that's completely beside the point.

The problem is Eldrad, Vulkan, Shrike and their ilk, who are problematically powerful. Eldrad is just better than another farseer, and chapter tactics are just better than combat tactics. There's no down side. Really, if you're taking a farseer, just take Eldrad instead. If you're taking a Space Marine Captain, just make it Vulkan. You might as well.

Having said that, I should make it clear that I wouldn't ban special characters from my campaign (if I ever run a campaign). I never actually said I was, but people asked why this guy might. I answered. I'm not an incredible fan of special characters in my games (surprise!), but I wouldn't ban them. It's not entirely unreasonable to ban them, but I just don't care enough.

Rirekon
18-03-2009, 23:45
Let the record show, those were terrible design ideas. That's the kind of mistake that led to Nidzilla.

But, that's completely beside the point.
I respectfully disagree, it's preceisely the point. If you (hypothetically) want to remove what you consider over power/under costed options from your campaign then do just that; Remove the Ork Warboss, Belial, Eldrad, Ork Big Mech, Pedro, etc...
The problem I'm attempting to highlight to people is that bannning named characters doesn't do this, it removes a few of them and leaves others behind while also removing non-problem entries.


Having said that, I should make it clear that I wouldn't ban special characters from my campaign (if I ever run a campaign). I never actually said I was, but people asked why this guy might. I answered. I'm not an incredible fan of special characters in my games (surprise!), but I wouldn't ban them. It's not entirely unreasonable to ban them, but I just don't care enough.
Fair enough and apologies, I misunderstood the intent of your post :)

TheCelestialbard
19-03-2009, 00:44
I can really understand both sides. He could be easy going and let it swing but at the same time rules are rules.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
19-03-2009, 00:50
I respectfully disagree, it's preceisely the point. If you (hypothetically) want to remove what you consider over power/under costed options from your campaign then do just that; Remove the Ork Warboss, Belial, Eldrad, Ork Big Mech, Pedro, etc...
The problem I'm attempting to highlight to people is that bannning named characters doesn't do this, it removes a few of them and leaves others behind while also removing non-problem entries.

You missed the point. Banning special characters is totaly reasonable. Just like banning heavy support tanks, entire heavy support, etc.

It's part of codex, the organizer dont want to. And it's cool.
It's going to unbalance codex power levels ? Sure.
Are those codices power level balanced with special character ? No.

So it's just end up unbalanced in another way. It is fair ? As long as any player can play any army, and all players obey the same rules everything is fair.

If you dont want to play - who is forcing you ?

For Deathwing guy - just DONT PLAY. Your army is crappy anyway, so why bother ? Sorry for harsh response, but there always will be some victims. DA is current one.

Doppleskanger
19-03-2009, 01:49
Acheron, whilst I still can't follow your logic, that's kind of the solution I'm leaning towards. As it is, this is one of a long number of annoyances with the club in question that have been bugging me for a while, the details of which I won't bore you with now. I had been looking forward to this campaign, but really this may have been the straw that broke the camels back. I won't be falling out with anybody but I may give them a miss for a while. Whilst far from the only issue, this group of gamers has become so preoccupied with stopping the (imaginary in their particular case) threat of PG wrecking the game, that they are running various systems and attitudes which prevent my enjoyment. Obviously I am no longer in tune with their wishes.
As for your point that my army is 'crappy' I'm not sure. I think it would be a very difficult army to win with. In effect it is tiny and overpriced, but as an experienced player I was drawn to it for that very reason. I thought it would provide an interesting tactical challenge and allow much more competitive games with these players than some of my other more tourney orientated armies. As i have not yet played with it enough to understand its subtelties, I was going to go through the campaign on a learning curve. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by 'crappy', maybe you think it's a PG list, but I don't see it like that.
at the end of the day I don't think this list would have spoilt anyones fun.

The_Outsider
19-03-2009, 02:22
Sorry for harsh response, but there always will be some victims.

"I don't like marines because my lasguns struggle to kill them, therefore 3+ or better saves are banned from my tournament, lol sucks to be a marine/chaos/necron/tyranid/daemon/ork player"

boogle
19-03-2009, 02:28
So if they are that hell bent on stopping Power Gaming, you'd expect that Double Lah Princes, et al would be ruled out too wouldn't you?

Anyway, as an aside, what other forces do you know are set down for the campaign?

Doppleskanger
19-03-2009, 02:47
Um, off the top of my head, it's about 10 players, so 2 orks, 2 IG, 1 Chaos, 2 (?) Nids, 1 Vanilla Marines, 1 Eldar and me if I go, maybe a few others too.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
19-03-2009, 02:51
Acheron, whilst I still can't follow your logic, that's kind of the solution I'm leaning towards. As it is, this is one of a long number of annoyances with the club in question that have been bugging me for a while, the details of which I won't bore you with now. I had been looking forward to this campaign, but really this may have been the straw that broke the camels back. I won't be falling out with anybody but I may give them a miss for a while. Whilst far from the only issue, this group of gamers has become so preoccupied with stopping the (imaginary in their particular case) threat of PG wrecking the game, that they are running various systems and attitudes which prevent my enjoyment. Obviously I am no longer in tune with their wishes.
As for your point that my army is 'crappy' I'm not sure. I think it would be a very difficult army to win with. In effect it is tiny and overpriced, but as an experienced player I was drawn to it for that very reason. I thought it would provide an interesting tactical challenge and allow much more competitive games with these players than some of my other more tourney orientated armies. As i have not yet played with it enough to understand its subtelties, I was going to go through the campaign on a learning curve. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by 'crappy', maybe you think it's a PG list, but I don't see it like that.
at the end of the day I don't think this list would have spoilt anyones fun.

So change that group. It's obvious that you want enjoyment, and if break from those people will do this, why not ?

I meant under power curve. And it's true that good player can with with any list. DA are not as badly developed list as some person thinks. And even tuned lists from the codex have less direct power than tuned lists from some other codices.

@The_Outsider: Sucks to be you, if your new cheaper lasguns struggle with power armour :P And sure, with such rules sucks to be marine, but orks/daemons list would shine.

samiens
19-03-2009, 02:56
Ok, personally i find the attack on new style named characters utterly archaic (and I started in a time when theyw ere totally overpowered- Calgar from 2nd ed codex ultramarines for example). To ban them seems to me to be eliminating a valid part of the codex, without addressing the real balance issues as already mentioned. It seems abitrary and unfair.

I'm in the mionority- I think 40k is relatively balanced and things like this actually unbalance the game more than they save it.

That said, its his tournament and his rules. However, I wouldn't automatically say don't play becuase your favourite option has been removed. Its easy to make a 'protest' but the chances of it having an effect are minimal.

Instead just ask yourself:

Do I want to play in the campaign (knowing the restrictions)?
Will it be worth it for me?

Don't cut your nose off to spite your face but also don't do something you really don't want to- its just a fun hobby. Remember, I and many others agree with you but at the end of the day its not worth real world stress over. We could (and probably will) debate named characters forever but that has no impact on your real life decsion.

Deathwing seem fine to me but everyone is entitled to their opinions. I haven't seen much to impress in the new marine codex so there you go!

Doppleskanger
19-03-2009, 03:09
I think 40k is relatively balanced and things like this actually unbalance the game more than they save it.


That's been one of my long standing disagrements with some members of this club. Certainly whatever balance issues there may be in 40k, they can't be solved by simplistic blanket changes. For every problem that solves, it causes just as many new ones!

Definitely bearing in my mind the whole face/nose/spite thing btw.

itcamefromthedeep
19-03-2009, 03:09
Fair enough and apologies, I misunderstood the intent of your post :)Mea culpa. I represented myself badly. We're good. :D


I had been looking forward to this campaign, but really this may have been the straw that broke the camels back. I won't be falling out with anybody but I may give them a miss for a while.I hate it when Warseer is responsible for a falling out within a gaming club. You don't sound that foolish, but it needs to be said.


So if they are that hell bent on stopping Power Gaming, you'd expect that Double Lash Princes, et al would be ruled out too wouldn't you?Yeah, the Chaos book was just chalk full of bad ideas. Lash of Submission, Daemon Princes as compared to the other HQs, effectively removing the Legions, Possessed, Chaos Dreadnoughts, Plague Marine price/efficiency, icons being responsible for marks, summoned daemon power, not allowing daemons to have marks... the list just goes on and on.

Removing special characters will hardly stop power gaming. The best power lists do not depend on special characters to work. I'm thinking of mech Eldar, Bikernobz, Nidzilla... you get the idea. Some do, most don't.

Really I've found that the best way to deal with power gaming is to apply some peer pressure. First, you point out that you're concerned about the list. Second, you play a game with them (actually make sure it's overpowered, and let the guy play with his new toy at least once). After demonstrating the problem, you then have a chat about powergaming. Best case scenario you don't see that army/combo again. Worst case, don't play that army again. Just remember to play the guy again if he switches it up. Always be ready to play ball if he's willing.

That's the best protocol I've found.

Starchild
19-03-2009, 05:10
Sorry its gotten a bit on the rant side, but I find the argument 'just take tac squads' to be a bit silly.

Yeah, especially when Ultramarines & Friends get a 10% point cost reduction. :eyebrows:

Oh, and like I said before, Belial is merely a Terminator Captain who can take a relic blade. I fail to see how is he even remotely game-breaking. So what if he makes Terminators troops? SMs get Drop Pod assault, potentially even meaner than Deathwing Assault, especially when used with turbo-boosting Scout Bikers.


Really I've found that the best way to deal with power gaming is to apply some peer pressure.

Even better than that, volunteer to be a 40k gamemaster (like they had back in Rogue Trader) and design balanced, interesting scenarios. The problem is getting people to play this way-- most of us want semi-tourney style games.

Oathwarden
19-03-2009, 07:20
For Deathwing guy - just DONT PLAY. Your army is crappy anyway, so why bother ? Sorry for harsh response, but there always will be some victims. DA is current one.

Yeah, but I want to play. I have fun with a challenging army(local guys call my a masochist playing against all the ap2 heavy lists we got in the local metagame). I like playing the fluffy list, always outnumbered and outgunned, makes me have to try and play smarter. At this point in time the SC ban would mean I'd have to swap armies.
Yes I do have a second army at this point, but I don't have as much fun with it. At the begining DW was the only force I had and since it's my first I'm very passionate about it. when people say just take tac marines, I find it stupid.

That's not the army I built, and not the army I believe most DW players build. I can run black/white lists now because I have the models, but I started as a pure DW player and prefer to play it as such. And to be told I can't play because the unit that lets me play it is named, makes me steamed. Or being told to make a bike captain and buy the SM dex and run it that way also irritates me because thats not my army. I'm playing out of the DA dex for a reason, to be told get a different dex and tac squads is offensive, thats not the army.

And brought me to my question that was at the end of my quasi-rant. Would people have the problems with belial if he had just been left unnamed, but granted the same benefit. The overwhelming response seems to be that people would be fine with it because it would be like the biker captain in the regular SM dex, but because he's named my army gets the shaft.

As I said I know people have the right to run their own events as they see fit, but some of the comments applauding the organizer or his logic in general set me off. To deny a valid army in a codex is wrong in my opinion. I understand the issues of SC hate, but certain lists, ork biker, white scars or other biker heavy marines, DW/RW, require a certain leader to be made viable, unfortunately some are named others are not. So I find the discrimination on the fielding of legitimate armies appaling.

Edonil
19-03-2009, 07:38
As much as I find myself astonished to say it...in the case of certain Special Characters (Belial and Sammael being the only ones I can think of at the moment) I'd be perfectly alright with them in a campaign because it's the only way to run the armies. And I don't even like Special Characters. But, as people have said, the organizer set the rules...doesn't mean that those were the best rules though. And yes, I'd still be annoyed with Belial if he'd been left unnamed, lol.

rcal13
19-03-2009, 07:58
go to the store Owner/manager if they won't change the rules then think about playing some where else I had to do that for a whaile the gaming group got all these "cool rules" then got uppity when core rules didn't play the way they wanted. So I took my money else where.

Rirekon
19-03-2009, 10:27
You missed the point. Banning special characters is totaly reasonable. Just like banning heavy support tanks, entire heavy support, etc.

It's part of codex, the organizer dont want to. And it's cool.
Ok, I've obviously crossed some wires some where so let me start again.

I have no problem with the concept of people altering the rules of the game so that they get more enjoyment out of it, I positively encourage it!
What I am trying to get across is that banning named characters is a clumsy method - it's as effective as banning all HQ choices with a "B" in their title, and just as arbitrary.


It's going to unbalance codex power levels ? Sure.
Case in point.


Are those codices power level balanced with special character ? No.
This is what I have the biggest problem with, and what no-one seems to be willing to answer.
Why is it not ok to use Belial or Pedro but it is ok to use an Ork Warboss or Big Mek? All four characters alter the FOC and make normally elite units into troops, but for some reason being given a unique name makes it suddenly unbalancing.
If you want to ban FOC altering abilities, then ban those. Banning named characters is useless as, as people keep pointing out, there are other ways of achieving the same effect that won't be banned.


So it's just end up unbalanced in another way.
So what was the point?


If you dont want to play - who is forcing you ?
Agreed, but this isn't the point I'm getting at - see above :)

Nostro
19-03-2009, 12:46
You missed the point. Banning special characters is totaly reasonable. Just like banning heavy support tanks, entire heavy support, etc.


People say SCs move the FOC in unintended ways: other rules do that yet nobody would ban Warbosses on the grounds that they allow a Nob squad as troops.

People say some SCs are ill-costed and banning them prevents that: some are, some aren't, but that's true of a lot of units. Do you ban obliterators? Do you ban Lash princes? Do you ban nob bikers? Then why would you ban SCs?





What I am trying to get across is that banning named characters is a clumsy method - it's as effective as banning all HQ choices with a "B" in their title, and just as arbitrary.

Why is it not ok to use Belial or Pedro but it is ok to use an Ork Warboss or Big Mek? All four characters alter the FOC and make normally elite units into troops, but for some reason being given a unique name makes it suddenly unbalancing.

If you want to ban FOC altering abilities, then ban those. Banning named characters is useless as, as people keep pointing out, there are other ways of achieving the same effect that won't be banned.

There. True, banning SCs is no more wrong than banning FOC-altering abilities, or banning 2 HS slots out of 3. Or banning nob bikers and lash princes.

Where it's wrong is that the sum of any limitation you can see never equals half the times you see SCs banned, and that's why I'm fighting against that. Banning SCs is a relic from WHFB or 2nd Ed.

It's no solution to balance. If Snikrot was named "0-1 Veteran Kommando" he wouldn't suffer the ban yet would function the same way. If Belial was named "0-1 First Company Captain" same story. Chaplains used to be way undercosted in the old SM codex yet were never banned.

Yes Eldrad is too cheap, but so are many things in many armies. On average SCs are pretty balanced, some are a bit undercosted, some a bit over, but it's nowhere near a general rule that SCs are overpowered for their cost.


holy balls red text my eyes

But red looks nice :cries:

Captain Micha
19-03-2009, 13:38
Still doesn't matter.

Maybe one of the missions required you to hold an objective with infantry? What would raven wing do then?

Maybe one of the missions required to break past his line at center board. Not much fun when the deathwing deepstrike right by.

Maybe after the first game your HQ gets another 20 free points of gear. What happens if it's a special character?

Putting a campain together is a lot of hard work and a lot has to be done to stop those who (either knowingly or not) find loopholes which ruin the campain.

Since the organizer took time to look at the list rather than just ban it I can only assume is was a loophole. Personally however, I would have just banned it without a second look just to make sure I wouldn't be mobbed by people either wanting to take special characters too or complaining that it wasn't fair that I changed the rules.

Then the SC could either not be allowed to get special gear or he does. It's not like "SCs" are better than the "normal" hq. They just cost more, for whatever it is more that they do.

Deepstrike, termies. Same difference. so that "reason" is not a reason right there.

Holding the line with infantry, you wait till last turn duh. Just like any objective game with a mobile based army. Which by the way is still feasible to do with other army lists. Such as Tau. are Devilfish banned too?

there's nothing that could possibly be ruined by Deathwing and Ravenwing that arent' already ruined by existing codexes and army units.

captainramoz
19-03-2009, 16:14
In this kind of moments I miss 3rd ed

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
19-03-2009, 16:27
Ok, I've obviously crossed some wires some where so let me start again.

I have no problem with the concept of people altering the rules of the game so that they get more enjoyment out of it, I positively encourage it!
What I am trying to get across is that banning named characters is a clumsy method - it's as effective as banning all HQ choices with a "B" in their title, and just as arbitrary.

Yeah, from gaming perspective it is just like that. Arbitrary ban for all named characters [also relic of not updated codices]. From fluff perspective it's of course different.


This is what I have the biggest problem with, and what no-one seems to be willing to answer.
Why is it not ok to use Belial or Pedro but it is ok to use an Ork Warboss or Big Mek? All four characters alter the FOC and make normally elite units into troops, but for some reason being given a unique name makes it suddenly unbalancing.
If you want to ban FOC altering abilities, then ban those. Banning named characters is useless as, as people keep pointing out, there are other ways of achieving the same effect that won't be banned.

Never used this argument. Named are similiar in that case, and it should not lead to outright ban.



So what was the point?

To allow different gameplay ?
To change metagame ?
To make sure people HQ will not be too tough (scenario issue here) ?

For some campaings there might be even whole races banned (narrative), and some unit choices (narrative). But it is not the case here, btw.

Rirekon
19-03-2009, 16:59
Yeah, from gaming perspective it is just like that. Arbitrary ban for all named characters [also relic of not updated codices]. From fluff perspective it's of course different.
I agree it's a product of an old way of thinking, hopefully discussing it will change that view... we can but hope :D
With respect to fluff I actually disagree that it works on a fluff basis too. Space Marines have a Chapter Master character in addition to Calgar, you could easily claim either set of rules for representing your own Chapter Master.
Possibly a discussion for another time though :)

Heimlich
19-03-2009, 22:55
Sorry but for me them the rules tough perverbials.

You said you have a lot of different armies, so use a different army.

Maybe you should have scrolled up a bit and read the OP's new post, then you wouldn't come off as a prick.

Razarael
20-03-2009, 04:05
Sounds to me now like the whole mess is getting blown out of proportion. Yeah, it sucks. That is life. Trying to rationalize it is just making it worse. I also believe that very few people are willing to even look at their opposing view with an open mind. Which is a shame, as both sides have valid points.

Also, being more vocal about an idea doesn't make it the right one. Having the most common opinion doesn't make it right either. Just because your neighbor and your neighbor's neighbor all think the same thing as you, doesn't make it right, or at least any more or less valid than anybody elses opinion on the matter. Arguing about it and getting uppity is rather.... childish?

My advice to anyone who encounters a situation like this is to go along with it with an open mind. One campaign out of many does not allow special characters? Consider it a challenge.

I hear from Dark Angel players that even with the FOC altering characters their army is still the underdog, but that's one of the reasons the person liked the list in the first place? It was a tactical challenge to win a game. Wouldn't it be more of the case of being challenged without them? Fitting into the idea of the army in the first place?

Imagine this, having this 'apparent' or 'supposed' disadvantage (depending on your POV) handicap and then still winning. Wouldn't that make the victory even more impressive?

See what I did? I found a silver lining. I urge everyone to try to do the same.

Leo
20-03-2009, 08:25
yeah, but e-muscleflexing and keyboard bravery are way more befitting the usual tone on Warseer.

And a lot more fun to read.

So there is a campaign with a certain set of rules that absolutely apply to everyone. How dare they not making special allowances for me?
Especially if there are plenty of other armies for me to chose from?
I play a special chapter so I deserve special rules and special treatment.

It's a little bit like trying to attend a WFB-campaing with a 40K army because I spend so much time building it thus I have the right to do so.

evilsponge
20-03-2009, 15:05
yeah, but e-muscleflexing and keyboard bravery are way more befitting the usual tone on Warseer.

And a lot more fun to read.

So there is a campaign with a certain set of rules that absolutely apply to everyone. How dare they not making special allowances for me?
Especially if there are plenty of other armies for me to chose from?
I play a special chapter so I deserve special rules and special treatment.

It's a little bit like trying to attend a WFB-campaing with a 40K army because I spend so much time building it thus I have the right to do so.



You make a lot of assumptions

1) That the OP is just out to get special treatment, not true. He plays a ravenwing army that does not give him the option to not play a special character. If someone informed you that you couldn't play and army after you had put the time and effort into creating it would you be happy? How do you know he has other armies to play? 40k isn’t exactly a cheap hobby.

2) Bringing a 40k army to a WFB-campaign is has nothing to do with banning special characters in a 40k campaign. Special characters are perfectly legal to use and honestly that is just a really ignorant analogy.

The OP has a legit complaint; please don't turn this thread into a flame-fest.

Doppleskanger
20-03-2009, 15:21
Firstly I'd like to thank Razarel for joining us from Japan and adding several random points and insults to a thread that is basically over ;)
Um as for the thing about it being like bringing a 40k army to a WFB event...no it's not.
As for both sides having valid points, I'm kind of still waiting to here one from the other side lol.
The arguements go
Well just play something else (misses the point)

It's his event, his rules, don't try to change it (agreed with since the beginning, but simply evades the point)

named characters unbalance armies and should be banned (outdated opinion and not in line with current rules system, in particular the DA codex)

Out of curriosity, which one of them are you reffering to as being valid?

malisteen
20-03-2009, 15:24
So the general consesus is something like:

-In a narrative campaign, or a campaign that features narrative development elements, there can be good reason to ban near about anything, particularly special characters, which usually have their own narrative baggage. Where this is the case, the rules for what is or isn't allowed should be posted well in advance.

-In generic tournaments and non-narrative campaigns special characters should generally be allowed, as they are neither more nor less balanced on the whole then anything else in a codex (ie - I'd rather see any of the chaos special characters then another generic sorcerer or daemon prince with the lash), and are required for some armies to work at all. The assumption of the rules in the current edition is that special characters are just as much a part of an army list as anything else.

-If you aren't running the campaign or tournament, you need to respect the rules of the people who are, whether they're reasonable or not. At most, politely point out that GW is making special characters required for some traditional armies (like ravenwing), and ask that they post any extra rules or restrictions on armies in advance of the next tournament or campaign so that you know what armies are available to play. That's really all you can do. Well, that and complain online, of course. ;)

Leo
20-03-2009, 19:31
You make a lot of assumptions

1) That the OP is just out to get special treatment, not true. He plays a ravenwing army that does not give him the option to not play a special character. If someone informed you that you couldn't play and army after you had put the time and effort into creating it would you be happy? How do you know he has other armies to play? 40k isn’t exactly a cheap hobby.


So he is out for special treatment. There are rules in this particular campaign that apply for everyone. He shows up with an army that is basically illegal with with these rules and demands an exception.

And I know that he has other armies because he kind of said it in his first post.

I'm informed that I can't play in particular campaigns all the time. Everytime a tournament forbids allies or doesn't recognize some weird web-erratas my Demonhunters are basically forbidden or at least borderline unplayable and much unlike the OP I don't have many options.
But since I can see the point of this I don't throw a fit, come running to Warseer and try to cook up a nerd rage to print out and confront the organizer with.



2) Bringing a 40k army to a WFB-campaign is has nothing to do with banning special characters in a 40k campaign. Special characters are perfectly legal to use and honestly that is just a really ignorant analogy.

Is it? Special characters may be generally legal to use, just not in this particular event. So in this campaign his army is illegal, just as High Elves would be, only that it's a little closer.
People act like it's somehow the OP's right to play in the campaign when it's really not. The organizer could even make much more arbitrary changes or disqualify certain players at his wim and all you could do is accept it.

Or complain on the internet, of course.



The OP has a legit complaint; please don't turn this thread into a flame-fest.

Well, if you take a look at the top of the thread, you can see that it basically started as a flame-fest. There has been name-calling since its very beginning. Of course it all went against someone who isn't even here to defend himself, so it's all a-ok. This is Warseer after all.

evilsponge
20-03-2009, 20:15
So he is out for special treatment. There are rules in this particular campaign that apply for everyone. He shows up with an army that is basically illegal with with these rules and demands an exception.

I'll let the OP defend himself but from what I've seen he chose not to particapate in the campaign, not demand an exception.


And I know that he has other armies because he kind of said it in his first post.

I stand corrected


I'm informed that I can't play in particular campaigns all the time. Everytime a tournament forbids allies or doesn't recognize some weird web-erratas my Demonhunters are basically forbidden or at least borderline unplayable and much unlike the OP I don't have many options.
But since I can see the point of this I don't throw a fit, come running to Warseer and try to cook up a nerd rage to print out and confront the organizer with.

See the point of banning armies? What's the point? Show me DH, Ravenwing, or WH dominating GT's. They're not there. I only see unnessesary penalizing. Some choose to change the game to fit their play style and confort zone, good for them, others choose to play the game. I choose to play the game.


Is it? Special characters may be generally legal to use, just not in this particular event. So in this campaign his army is illegal, just as High Elves would be, only that it's a little closer.
People act like it's somehow the OP's right to play in the campaign when it's really not. The organizer could even make much more arbitrary changes or disqualify certain players at his wim and all you could do is accept it.

Or complain on the internet, of course.

that doesn't mean the OP can't call BS on it. No it's not his right to play, but any smart organizer wouldn't go out of his way to alienate his players. Should he have gone to the organizer first before coming here, yeah probably. That doesn't change my point


Well, if you take a look at the top of the thread, you can see that it basically started as a flame-fest. There has been name-calling since its very beginning. Of course it all went against someone who isn't even here to defend himself, so it's all a-ok. This is Warseer after all.

And that's a shame.

phonchoman
23-03-2009, 03:43
I think I should make some comments about this "situation"

1: Im part of the club in question

2: I too have suffered from the rules of the campaign (Im using Impy Guard and cant use my last chancers because of the special char ban)

3: I would like to have used the last chancers (colour to the game etc...) but I see it this way "large campaign, hard to organise and run, the easier the better for the person dedicating so much time to it." Ive no problem letting the boys go, Ill use something else fill their void.

4: Really this should have been discussed in the club with other members , explain the problem (although am I correct in saying that these chars would mean both bikes and terminators could capture objectives as troops?)

5: Overall, Im not a fan of the special characters out there, call me old school , but I believe they are worse now than before, its getting like hero hammer again! Last year I used Mephiston and I got nothing but abuse for my troubles (even though he died in every game... after he killed buckets of tactical enemies! so maybe theres a point)

6: All I know for sure is that my guard wouldnt last 2 turns against Gazgul, Abbabadon , Eldrad , Ctans...etc... the new marines would laugh at my army. So I would also think of the others using old codex builds.

7: Obviously this whole tread has touched some nerves with the community... but thats ok, not everyone likes how each other play, but thats part of the modern gaming concept.

8: Lastly I think you might want to edit some posts about him being sour from losing to you a few weeks back... hes one of the easiest going players around and is always happy to play whether he wins or loses(and not to mention , he`ll fight any list, fluffy,hardcore,silly etc...). So Im pretty confident that you would have very much both hurt and offended him with the notion of him having a case of sour grapes to try and get some sort of revenge on SP Chars...
If I was him, I would be very disappointed.

As it is Im just trying to shed some light on the issue and play peace keeper.

in the end all he wanted to do is run a nice little campaign where we could all go mad stabbing away at backs till our hearts were content and maybe have a few nice games against silly guard, inquistion amongst others.


As for the people freaking out about some of our clubs ideals: Relax, we`re a minority, We dont run tournaments , We control nothing, We play how it suits us... in fact Im pretty sure that the rule book states on the first few pages that its a guideline to enjoy the hobby... thus the changes etc, that suit us.

Peace :)

yabbadabba
23-03-2009, 09:11
5: Overall, Im not a fan of the special characters out there, call me old school , but I believe they are worse now than before, its getting like hero hammer again! Last year I used Mephiston and I got nothing but abuse for my troubles (even though he died in every game... after he killed buckets of tactical enemies! so maybe theres a point)

Welcome to the World of Ignorance. The one thing that people forget about special/named characters is that you know exactly what you are getting. There are no suprises. They are an integral part of the Worlds GW have created and the flavour in its games. There is nothing wrong with them.

Doppleskanger
23-03-2009, 11:49
In fairness he did say that one of his reasons for not going with an exception was
"well I didn't enjoy playing your army at all!"
I suspect therefore that that game may have had an effect on his decision.

As for that about printing off this discussion to beat him around the head with. How many times have I said it now?

I AM NOT GOING TO ARGUE THIS DECISION OR TRY AND/OR MAKE TROUBLE AT MY CLUB

This has been a discusion about the treatment of special characters in `the present itteration of 40k, using my situation as an example. Clearly in some peoples minds, like mine, the situation is clear cut, others seem to be hanging on to older ideas about them despite the effect this has on some fully legitimate lists.

phonchoman
23-03-2009, 13:42
it is unfortunate, but its not like hes the only one there that doesnt want special characters in the campaign. For use in normal games they are fine, just not in the campaign. I suppose it makes sense to me because of the scale of the campaign and also how the perks work (+200pts here and there) that on top of your desired list would make for terrible game balance. Consider that we are using some made up rules that dont take into account the FOC Character changes... as the organiser , he would have to go a write a whole set of new rules just for your force... which would be only fair in actual fact. But then its not really fair to have one set of rules for you,and then a set for the rest of us... then I might weight in and say I want a set of rules for my last chancers.... It would be a nightmare for him. Im sure this wasnt discussed yet on the forum, but people should consider the non rule book rules that are in play and that give massive perks... In fact Im sure it would have been an idea to suggest getting special chars after you win a certain amount of territory.

However that never got a chance to be discussed...(i like the idea that if your down to 1 zone , that you then get special aid from a named character...ie. Schaefer arrives down to save my dying forces in the nick of time... only to fly off if i recover 3 zones. something like that)

Nostro
23-03-2009, 15:28
6: All I know for sure is that my guard wouldnt last 2 turns against Gazgul, Abbabadon , Eldrad , Ctans...etc... the new marines would laugh at my army. So I would also think of the others using old codex builds.


Nor would they to a tooled out demon prince (or two or five), or a Nidzilla list, but nobody banned them. If the demon prince was called N'Kari you'd ban him but as such you don't. If a tooled out Carnifex was called Old One Eye you'd ban him but as such you don't.

The point I and the other guys on my side keep trying to make is that SCs, to a few exceptions, are not overpowerd, and not more powerful than a lot of other "unnamed choices" wandering across many other codices.

Sidenote: you talk about old codices; let's look at Chaos 3.5: full of possibilities for overbeardy undercosted monstruosities but that would go under the radar of an SC ban.


I suppose it makes sense to me because of the scale of the campaign and also how the perks work (+200pts here and there) that on top of your desired list would make for terrible game balance. Consider that we are using some made up rules that dont take into account the FOC Character changes...

Again, SCs are no threat to the game balance like they were in the past. Cheap oblit spam and wound-allocation exploiting nob bikers can be much more.

Point has already been made several times: things like a SM captain on a bike or a warboss as HQ also alter the FOC yet nobody cries of game-balance altering and bans them.


it is unfortunate, but its not like hes the only one there that doesnt want special characters in the campaign.

To the light of what I said above, it's a shame. Very widespread (like in this thread in this very same forum) (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189368) and due to an old (justified) history but a shame notheless.

phonchoman
23-03-2009, 18:20
well actually , lots of things are not banned... but I personally would never bother playing most of the things you listed... such as a nidzilla list etc,Id simply agree that the other guy wins, simple! :P

we are a simple club who try to AVOID tourney style playing. Its only us, the people there have been at it a long long time. They (by and large) are very happy to play with niceR lists and no SCs etc (unless the other person agrees etc...)

And yes, its a change to the rulebook that we have basically made, but it doesnt worry us. Its not like it will spread to other clubs or players, I just dont see the big deal. (its not set in stone either)

but put it this way ,if some one comes to my house to play a game and I have house rules , then its house rules, otherwise dont come. Its simple really. Except this time its a group of gamers with a set of ideals (again whether theyre good or bad is a matter of opinion) setting standards.

but back to the point, it was a blanket ban (whether its a good call or not) on SPs in a campaign, it was the organisers call (along with the backing of 90% of people taking part in it).

I understand people think its a shame but whats the big deal. No ones stopping anyone from actually playing the simple game of toy soldiers.

Nostro
23-03-2009, 18:49
I understand people think its a shame but whats the big deal. No ones stopping anyone from actually playing the simple game of toy soldiers.

Sure, nor would I tell you how to play your game. I said in the beginning of the discussion that it was the guy's tourney, so his rules as he likes and people then choose to play it or not. But free to people to discuss that ban and expose their views about it.

The fact that make me react is the broad support that that blanket ban gets in your group, and more generally among a large majority of players and organisers.

Everybody houserules how he likes, but seeing SCs take 80% of the flak (like those bans) is why I try to debunk the myth that they are game-balance altering. Such a widespread and strong reaction means SCs are wrongly percieved, it's just a relic of the past, that's all I'm saying.

Spyral
23-03-2009, 22:28
An interesting observation Nostro but I doubt that's why. I think its because most people don't use SC generally although Doppleskanger *has* to take one to use his army. My guess is just SC fear and to keep the game level. The fact that even with the SC its an underpowered list and the fact that the OP could probably take a cheeseballed up different army but hasn't has to show merit. Its one of these irristible force meets immovable object type things. I would even say make 2 lists... one as marines with a lot of bikes and one as ravenwing. Use the ravenwing to attack and the normal marines to defend. It seems quite logical to me.


So he is out for special treatment. There are rules in this particular campaign that apply for everyone. He shows up with an army that is basically illegal with with these rules and demands an exception.

No he was told about it after he'd decided which army to use if you read his posts. A bit of clarity rather than hyperbolated testestosterone fuelled keyboard warrior-ing would be better :skull: :chrome: :skull: