Monday, 4 July 2011

A change needed for the tournament scene?

A lot of the tournaments I've been to over the last year have stipulated that no named characters can be taken but I have to ask WHY?

In the current edition of 40K named characters aren't unstoppable monsters, they are generally characters that tailor the aspects of your army like Logan allowing you to take a pure Terminator army.

Now normally this doesn't bother me, I play Wolves and don't use characters because the Rune Priest is the best HQ in the book to me but after studying the Grey Knights Codex I have to question the reasoning to do this.

So many of the Grey Knights lists rely on using special characters and this will lead Grey Knights players to almost needing two armies. So what do people think? Should British tournaments change.


  1. Vote: Yes! I love Special Characters I really don't think any of them are particularly game-breaking. Ghaz is a possible exception but you take the rough with the smooth and one character no matter how bad ass cannot win a game on his own.

  2. The main argument I have seen is that you get all the same army, did that happen at Blog wars when we were made to take Special Characters?

  3. Most tourneys here in Ireland don't have any comp, regardless of points level so as not to turn people off attending. I've found that certain armies perform significantly better with them (Vanilla Marines particularly) but some don't need them as much (SW as you've said above) so there is a case for them to be included, if only to promote a greater variety of armies.

  4. I like Special Characters, and I think all the new codexes are dsesigned specifically with Special Characters at the very heart of army selection: Astorath being a prime example (giving access to Red Thirst on 1-3 not just 1) and the Ork and Space Marine charactersd that "unlock" bikes as Troops units.

    In fact, I think allowing Special Characters actually adds flavour to army selection, and opens up the possibility of more builds, rather than limiting things. Of course the top tables will most likely feature Cheesy armies (coughLong Fangscough) but that'll always be the case.

  5. And another thing!

    Something I'd love to see is more randomisation of mission / set-up - ie, lots more different set-up and mission types.

    Also, I'd like to see random events or one-off stratagems being used in the normal game (ie a random selection of a stratagem 'card' similar to those used in Apocalypse). I've been musing for a while on some 'in-house' rules to do exactly that, which I'm hoping Michael, Gav & Andy will indulge me in trying out on them. I'll elaborate further in the next day or so before I head to Sonisphere...

  6. I think there were only a couple of duplicate chars at blog wars and nowhere near identical lists.

    You know how I feel about special chars! On the variety of missions, this is part of the plan for Blog Wars 2.

    If anything not having special chars limits variation. The problem with tournaments is ppl use net lists not their imagination.

  7. You don't need a special character to have long fangs. 

    Just saying...

  8. Since they made "turn" refer to "player turn" Ghaz isn't quite as awesome since he only gets one "game turn" of 2+ invulnerable.

  9. Michael Simpson5 July 2011 at 09:31

    Yes he means that even with the oppertunity to have all bike armies or logan wings you will still see similarity in builds whether you have Special Characters or not

  10. Ironically the requirement for special characters is what puts me off Blog Wars 2


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.


Related Posts with Thumbnails