Do you think the use of special characters should be announced/is something that one should get "permission" from the opponent for?

Just got a narrow victory at my local shop, and my opponent made some polite comments about how he "wished he knew we were playing special characters," because he totally would have brought his
Skull Crusher and won. My interpretation: in a 2000 point game, it would be kind of weird NOT to see a special character.

Thoughts?

Do the new codexes require opponent permission? No. I let my opponent review my army list and declare everything, but I'm not going out of my way to tell them anything either. Your opponent sounds like he has sour grapes and would find an excuse for any defeat.

^^ yeah,that.

I don't say anything. I just wait for them to realize that that IS marneus calgar,not a veteran in terminator armor.

Yeah, I say this guy needs to get outta 3rd ed. Show me where it says Calgar is a "special character" that requires permission to use.

I have taken to thinking of them as Named Characters. They are just a unit that you may choose in your army.

If someone wants to have a hissy about it, then they need to change their game to be able to handle the overcosted characters.

I have an opponent that takes Lysander in every list 1000pts to 3000pts. He hasn't lived through a game yet.

And I am sure it is only a matter of games until he figures out how to take out Mephiston.

hungryp wrote:Yeah, I say this guy needs to get outta 3rd ed. Show me where it says Calgar is a "special character" that requires permission to use.

It's been that way for a very very long time. Can't blame folks who would rather not use them, despite Jervis' attempts to shift more of the 'very' expensive named character models in 5th ed.

We still don't use special characters and don't miss them either. I find them usually gimmicky and often broken.

What are you guys yammering on about? Is this some sort of anti-calgar slander?

If they're broken,why aren't you using them? >.>

MGS: Depends from character to character.
Some are just plain broken with thier rules, while others give nothing for a dumb points cost.

Ive found the swarmlord to be good for his points, but not soo good he is broken.
Mephiston seems broken at 1st, but with no inv save or EW he aint too good for an expensive character.



OT: Dont need permission to use characters anymore.
Dont see why you should really.
Way back when they could destroy units on thier own i see why, but now, they got a huge power cut.

Samus_aran115 wrote:What are you guys yammering on about? Is this some sort of anti-calgar slander?

If they're broken,why aren't you using them? >.>

Because they're broken?

I agree that some are broken, but permission not required, if standard game.

Tourneys might have certain rules though. Would depend on the TO.

If they're broken,why aren't you using them? >.>

Because not everyone plays ultrasmurfs?

So you think everyone should play an army just to get a broken character?

I did't vote becouse I think they should be anounced, but you don't need permision and how the question/Poll was worded you could no choose the correct one.

In general, yes I think you should get your opponents permission before using special characters.

However, if this is 40k specific it belongs in the 40k forums, n'est-ce pas?

RAW you don't need permission to play special characters. But that's not what the poll is about, the poll is asking about etiquette. I don't use special characters and I probably wouldn't know who is who from the fluff but I think it would be polite to point out that X figure is someone special. Then my opponent can make an educated guess at what to do about/to that figure. If you just plunk down a figure that looks like a beefed up version of everyone around him how can I know whether you're using Sir Awesome or just using his figure for the guy that leads the unit?
Like I said the poll is asking about etiquette not RAW.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:RAW you don't need permission to play special characters. But that's not what the poll is about, the poll is asking about etiquette. I don't use special characters and I probably wouldn't know who is who from the fluff but I think it would be polite to point out that X figure is someone special. Then my opponent can make an educated guess at what to do about/to that figure. If you just plunk down a figure that looks like a beefed up version of everyone around him how can I know whether you're using Sir Awesome or just using his figure for the guy that leads the unit?
Like I said the poll is asking about etiquette not RAW.

I don't get what you mean. do I have to ask permission to take a Battlewagon in an Ork list?
Or if I take a Death Company in my blood Angels?
No.
They are a legal, valid army list choice that has been determined by GW to be so.

The Permissive attitude is an odd holdover from when they actual told us they didn't balance them. The game has changed. Keep up, people!

No.

I'd be more than happy to take a broken character,if it matches my chapter only though. I obviously wouldn't take lysander in a salamander's list,or vulkan in a ultramarines list.

I personally love using broken characters in my ultramarines army. It sends a message like: "yes,this is why I play ultarmarines, because we have more special characters than entire armies,yay"

I don't really see anything wrong with calgar. He costs as much as a land raider, and he's only got three wounds (and 4s 4t). A trygon prime is far better than him,for like 30 less points.

skrulnik wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:RAW you don't need permission to play special characters. But that's not what the poll is about, the poll is asking about etiquette. I don't use special characters and I probably wouldn't know who is who from the fluff but I think it would be polite to point out that X figure is someone special. Then my opponent can make an educated guess at what to do about/to that figure. If you just plunk down a figure that looks like a beefed up version of everyone around him how can I know whether you're using Sir Awesome or just using his figure for the guy that leads the unit?
Like I said the poll is asking about etiquette not RAW.

I don't get what you mean. do I have to ask permission to take a Battlewagon in an Ork list?
Or if I take a Death Company in my blood Angels?
No.
They are a legal, valid army list choice that has been determined by GW to be so.

The Permissive attitude is an odd holdover from when they actual told us they didn't balance them. The game has changed. Keep up, people!

^ This.

Special characters are fun & they way they are designed now you need some of them to run certain types of armies such as Deathwing, Ravenwing, Salamanders, etc. They are generally expensive so by including them they reduce the size of your army so there is a trade off - special abilities versus more more units. Sure some are extremely popular, it is what it is.

G

skrulnik wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:RAW you don't need permission to play special characters. But that's not what the poll is about, the poll is asking about etiquette. I don't use special characters and I probably wouldn't know who is who from the fluff but I think it would be polite to point out that X figure is someone special. Then my opponent can make an educated guess at what to do about/to that figure. If you just plunk down a figure that looks like a beefed up version of everyone around him how can I know whether you're using Sir Awesome or just using his figure for the guy that leads the unit?
Like I said the poll is asking about etiquette not RAW.

I don't get what you mean. do I have to ask permission to take a Battlewagon in an Ork list?
Or if I take a Death Company in my blood Angels?
No.
They are a legal, valid army list choice that has been determined by GW to be so.

The Permissive attitude is an odd holdover from when they actual told us they didn't balance them. The game has changed. Keep up, people!

Leo is sating that you don't need permission to play special characters, it's perfectly fine to play them without permission. However, in terms of etiquette, your opponent should KNOW that your special character is a special character. This is especially important if you've converted a special character, for which there is no model, as your opponent has really, no way of knowing that you have a special character. In most cases, it is considered polite to inform your opponent of this, therefore, in terms of etiquette, you should point them out.
But that guy you were playing was probably a sour grapes kinda dude.

^ (skip over this guy)this. I always feel cool using one of the greatest warriors in the galaxy...I think that's how 240 points is supposed to make you feel.

The Nightbringer is completely broken though. He should be an Apoc only character, really.
S10,T8,W5 ? Seriously broke.

Oops,nevermind. You^^ posted before me.

Matters of permission aside, if your opponent can't be bothered to express any curiosity as to what you're placing on the table, it's his own fault when he gets face-pwned by it.

If you're using the special character model, shouldn't that be enough? Conversions I can understand
needing to be up front and explain.

Permission? No, especially not in the case of the newer books where the character can drastically influence your army list. If I'm playing Ork Bikers and suddenly, I can't use Wazdakka, I can wind up with no troop choices.

On terms of etiquette though, you should be able to provide your opponent with your list or at least run through what you have on the table and they should be able to do the same for you.

I don't think anything should require 'permission', but I think that Special Characters should be de-emphasised.

All things in all army lists require your opponent's permission to play, unless you've tied up your opponent in your basement and are holding a gun to their head. You do not need to ask special permission to field a special character though. An opponent agreeing to begin turn 1 after having seen your army list is implicit permission. Etiquette demands you make sure your opponent understands what your army is. Nothing is required beyond that.

As for the OP's opponent, definitely sounds like a case of sour grapes. Or tactical weakness- if they feel they need a special character in order to win.

Personally, I generally don't take special characters unless they are nessecary for reorganizing my FOC. I generally prefer to take more guys with guns than to take one extra-special guy with a page of individual rules.

No.

And if someone tells you that you can't use it in a friendly game, tell them that they can't use ork boyz/guardsmen/aspect warriors/TMCs

Yes, that will make sure the game runs with a swing.

Technically, no, you don't need permission to use special characters if they are a part of the standard codex.

OTOH no-one can be forced to play a game and they can just pick up their models and go home if -- rightly or not -- they decide you are being a dick.

Most arguments arise in games because one guy gets a nasty surprise from some special rule which he didn't know about at the beginning.

Special characters have far more special rules than ordinary units and they are often OTT, so they are more shocking.

It's just polite to declare your extraordinary characters and rules at the start of the game.

Should it be announced Yes, since its only polite to show your opponent your list before the game.

Should you need your opponents permission to play a special character? - No.

Obviously try not to be a dick about it or play dickish opponents.

I'm clear on JJ's stated and GW's real reasons for allowing special characters. I do believe that nothing has changed re 'we balanced them now so you can use them as standard', I regard the statement as Bull Gak. But if I were to play a stranger or at a tourney, I'd bring special characters and expect my opponent to do likewise.

We, ie my group, don't use them as an unwritten standard. If someone is invited to play with the group, then we just mention 'we don't use special characters' unless we're having a special characters game. Because sometimes we like to try them out with their wacky rules and powers. I believe the codices are, usually, far better balanced without them.

I don't know many of my friends to use special characters, with the exception of SM players - pedro, vulcan etc.

Frankly use them if you wan't don't if you don't most seem overcoasted to me

Does an army get to pick who they fight on a day of war? No. Show em your list if that's what they want but I don't think you should need permission as long as the characters use is legal.

Is it certain Special Characters that attract the ire of others of just Special Characters as a whole?

I agree with the majority of people in that you should be able to just play your list as you made it, including named characters, but that you should be so polite as to go over him/her/it at the beginning of the game and maybe explain all the rules that come with the thing.

To me and my group named characters are part of what makes this game fun and exciting. One of my friends once applauded Kharn the Betrayer when he plowed through his Trygon Prime and a brood of Raveners almost singlehandedly, sealing the game. I will no doubt do the same for his Swarmlord when he finally gets around to putting it together.

I'd like to see them go back to being 'by agreement only'. Many of them aren't balanced, whatever GW says.

Consider why you only see 1 or 2 regular named characters in some armies, none in others. It's because some are very worthwhile indeed. Did JJ mean, when he said 'we've balanced them' that they produced a chart of special characters and the few massively powerful ones balance on average with the many fairly spurious ones? Because they certainly don't balance across codices, several of which were written before this bright idea.

I'd like to see a far more optioned set of HQ choices. So that you could build Ghaz or Lysander or Eldrad from the options available in terms of buying stat upgrades, powers and equipment. The Special Characters would exist as 'historical' examples of HQ option combinations.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'd like to see them go back to being 'by agreement only'.

Soon as that happens they stop being used for the same reasons FW stuff is never used - people are afraid of losing (though they won't admit it) and therefore won't allow something that they think will give an advantage to their opponent.

Now, as it happens, a lot of the current crop of special characters do give an advantage (but they have to - how else is GW going to make money on a model someone will only ever buy once? They have to make everyone want to buy it, and rules are the best way to do that). As soon as 'requires permission' enters back into the 40K vocab, these units vanish.

If they want to de-emphasize the rules of special characters, they'll have
to consider not producing the figs or simply (is it simple?) having FW do the models
for all special characters.

Also, how do you retcon the time period from when special characters were
the norm and people used them to build their army around?

It's kind of a mess.

I voted yes, but after reading though comments, I'd change that to a no for two reasons. I just realized that I was still in the mindset that special characters are game changers. I don't know where I got that idea, but I think I developed it as a noobie when psychic tests & special characters were things I never tried because I found them too complicated. (Simple minded as I am). Nowadays, special characters are like an opponent's landraider in that you just need to know how to handle them. Granted each one is distinct, but special characters are now what attract me to starting new armies; I see them in an opponent's list & want to try them myself. Then I come up with threads like this:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/285309.page ha ha ha...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/211000.page <please be kind; this was when I was a noob

I do think that its polite to inform my opponent of what special abilities that character allows though. Presently I'm playing Vulkan with flamer & melta spam & I take the time to explain the list so that my opponent feels comfortable. I still want to play hard & win, but not at the cost of losing someone fun who might want to play again sometime. My .02.

InventionThirteen wrote:Does an army get to pick who they fight on a day of war? No. Show em your list if that's what they want but I don't think you should need permission as long as the characters use is legal.

40K is very much a game rather than a simulation.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'm clear on JJ's stated and GW's real reasons for allowing special characters. I do believe that nothing has changed re 'we balanced them now so you can use them as standard', I regard the statement as Bull Gak. But if I were to play a stranger or at a tourney, I'd bring special characters and expect my opponent to do likewise.

We, ie my group, don't use them as an unwritten standard. If someone is invited to play with the group, then we just mention 'we don't use special characters' unless we're having a special characters game. Because sometimes we like to try them out with their wacky rules and powers. I believe the codices are, usually, far better balanced without them.

Wow, sounds like a very unfluffy place to play. You guys must be really into just gaming and hate the fluff to not want to use special characters.
I guess all about the game is fine if thats what people want to play, but for me, I want to play fun casual games, not these ultra-competative games you're describing.
I like the fact that your house rules would mean I could never field my blood angels army ever, since the entire army is dante and 6 units of sanguinary guard.
Also would mean my friends wolf guard army, or my other friends deathwing army would all be completly useless. nearly a grand there in models that would be useless if special characters weren't used.

To me banning special characters makes about as much sense as banning heavy support choices, or all units whose name strtas with B.

Time to stop living in 3rd ed, eh?

Roleplayer wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'm clear on JJ's stated and GW's real reasons for allowing special characters. I do believe that nothing has changed re 'we balanced them now so you can use them as standard', I regard the statement as Bull Gak. But if I were to play a stranger or at a tourney, I'd bring special characters and expect my opponent to do likewise.

We, ie my group, don't use them as an unwritten standard. If someone is invited to play with the group, then we just mention 'we don't use special characters' unless we're having a special characters game. Because sometimes we like to try them out with their wacky rules and powers. I believe the codices are, usually, far better balanced without them.

Wow, sounds like a very unfluffy place to play. You guys must be really into just gaming and hate the fluff to not want to use special characters.
I guess all about the game is fine if thats what people want to play, but for me, I want to play fun casual games, not these ultra-competative games you're describing.
I like the fact that your house rules would mean I could never field my blood angels army ever, since the entire army is dante and 6 units of sanguinary guard.
Also would mean my friends wolf guard army, or my other friends deathwing army would all be completly useless. nearly a grand there in models that would be useless if special characters weren't used.

To me banning special characters makes about as much sense as banning heavy support choices, or all units whose name strtas with B.

Time to stop living in 3rd ed, eh?

Urggggh.... Your last comment is snotty and rude, I hope you didn't mean to sound that utterly devoid of intelligence?

I just said I recognise they are taken as standard now and that I'd use them in games against strangers or if we fancied using them by way of a change...

Unfluffy? We all agree that it's ridiculous to see all the heroes and villains of 40k crammed onto one tiny table with tiny armies to lead, especially given that according to the fluff some existed hundreds or thousands of years before others. We also understand that the lack of balance in different special characters is highly variable given the vast tracts of time the codices were written over. Some codices were written BEFORE this ideology was thought up and given the development teams love of moving onto new and shiny things before their finished with the other thing, it's also as likely we're already moving out of 'balanced' special characters back into Overpowered ones again, just cos that's how GW's design teams go, like a pendulum. If you're been around long enough, you'll have seen it before.

We certainly go in for fluff, if you got the chance to watch my friend painting his ultramarines, freehanding in personal names onto the armour, greenstuffing tyranic war campaign icons onto veteran armour etc, or saw the work I've been putting into my BloodAxe orks and theme building the Waaaghlord for them to look like an orky kommisar.

We certainly don't play ultra-competitive. We play relaxed games and discuss through things as we're going. It isn't a house rule mate, it's a given amongst a group of friends who've been playing each other for bloody years, I mean Rogue Trader/3rd ed WHFB years.

Strangely, your army list sounds boring as feth and very much as though you'd like to waac. Spamming 1 unit is a highly competitive tactic and your accusing me of being 'unfluffy', with your jump pack elites as troops...and elites... It reeks of an immature 'kiddies' list.

How old are you btw?

Samus_aran115 wrote:The Nightbringer is completely broken though. He should be an Apoc only character, really.
S10,T8,W5 ? Seriously broke.

Broken with a 4+ save?

But to the point, I would say no, you shouldn't need permission to use them. Your opponent should be able to see what characters you're using beforehand, but they shouldn't be able to decide wherever you are allowed to use them or not.

You've just chalked out £25-£30 for Marneus Calgar, and some kid won't let you use him for fear of getting stamped on (apparently)

Also, if opponents were able to prevent you from using them, you would eventually get absolute who see a threat, and stop it by selfishly not letting you use it, as they are two hyped up on trying to win rather than allowing both of you to have a fun game.

Valk

Mr. Burning wrote:Is it certain Special Characters that attract the ire of others of just Special Characters as a whole?

I learned the definition of "cheese" in regards to wargaming a long time ago:

1. Cheese is anything my opponent has that I do not.

2. Cheese is anything that counters or makes my own cheesy/min-maxed/netdecked list have to work for a win

3. Cries of cheese are an excuse to protect ego ( some forget this is a game of toy soldiers)

Let us not forget that toy soldiers are s3rious buizness111

Valkyrie wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:The Nightbringer is completely broken though. He should be an Apoc only character, really.
S10,T8,W5 ? Seriously broke.

Broken with a 4+ save?

But to the point, I would say no, you shouldn't need permission to use them. Your opponent should be able to see what characters you're using beforehand, but they shouldn't be able to decide wherever you are allowed to use them or not.

You've just chalked out £25-£30 for Marneus Calgar, and some kid won't let you use him for fear of getting stamped on (apparently)

Also, if opponents were able to prevent you from using them, you would eventually get absolute who see a threat, and stop it by selfishly not letting you use it, as they are two hyped up on trying to win rather than allowing both of you to have a fun game.

Valk

With how hard he is to hit in the first place,yes, that is broken. He's got a 4++ save too. Not to mention TOUGHNESS 8!!!!!Argh!

And yes,that's exactly how I feel about calgar. I painted him all pretty and paid a fortune for him,but You won't let me use him because your only HQ is a piece of chitin Cannoness? Give me a break.
"hey,what the hell? Is that marneus calgar?"
"Yeah,why?"
"why didn't you tell me you were using him?"
"didn't you notice the 3 units of honour guard I have?"
"......no."

If you're using a converted model, then I would consider it polite to point out that it is a special character. Otherwise, no bother, and you certainly don't need MY permission to play it. Otherwise I'd shoot you an e-mail before the match saying "Sure, up for the game on Saturday! But remember you can't use any of the below units which would give you any sort of tactical advantage whatsoever."

I think this an be applied to FW (non-superheavy) models as well. In Imperial Armour: Apocalypse, the introductory note discusses this, and explicitly states that FW models are designed to be used in 40k games, and that requiring opponents 'permission' is baloney. (Tournaments: YMMV). Again, it comes down to allowing your opponent to control your list, which immediately puts them at a tactical advantage.

OP: dude is stuck in the Dark Ages. Maybe, if he faces enough people with "unannounced special characters", he will learn. No fault on your end.

CadianXV wrote:
I think this an be applied to FW (non-superheavy) models as well. In Imperial Armour: Apocalypse, the introductory note discusses this, and explicitly states that FW models are designed to be used in 40k games, and that requiring opponents 'permission' is baloney. (Tournaments: YMMV). Again, it comes down to allowing your opponent to control your list, which immediately puts them at a tactical advantage.

Entirely appropriate... in games of Apocalypse...

There is certainly no balance in the release of Forgeworld minis for the armies.

The rulesets for them are riddled with more holes than Swiss cheese.

"balance" is subjective anyways when it comes to 40K.

By it's very nature it can't be balanced.

Buy some pretty models, put them on the table and see what happens.

At the end of the day who really cares if your character was a monster and tore up the field?

People way too often want way too much for 40k to be a "sport", and are way too worried about winning imho.

The problem isnt the game as much as the mindset of the players imho...

I didn't make myself quite clear. Although the introduction was for Apocalypse, the author was talking about standard games. He stated that FW models were deliberately higher in terms of points than their real value to counter their unusual nature, and special rules.

Additionally, there is no balance in the release of GW minis for the armies- when was the last time DE got new models?

Don't wish to sound rude- just arguing my point!

CadianXV wrote:Additionally, there is no balance in the release of GW minis for the armies- when was the last time DE got new models?

Hate to break you're bubble but they got models in 07. Yes it was one box and I don't know if it was a recut. I do get your point though.

Back on topic. I think agree with most other people in that you should tell them but tough if they don't like it. Something else to point out, I frequently get hammered by calgar.

I'd have expected some armies to have more need of special characters, to address lack of balance in the army. (Example from WFB being the high elves, who suffer without named characters). So, my orks can take them or leave them, but I haven't played a Space Wolf game without one.

I hadn't thought you'd need to get permission, or even warn an opponent. I can understand a group "unwritten rule" to bar them, as I can understand any rule to change the way the game is played. With balanced armies, banning special characters probably makes for a more tactically skilled game. Let's face it, Ghazgkhull and Njal are great fun, but it takes more thinking to win without them.

It's interesting to see how almost everyone is reacting to the second part of the question and no one seems to care about the first part. There can be no question that RAW allows for special characters. Like it or not that's the way this edition of 40K plays. So, to me, the second part of the poll makes no sense and is irrelevant to any reasonable discussion about special characters.
I responded to the topic's title and the first part of the question asked. Should someone, as a matter of etiquette, anounce that they are using a special character and, presumably, specify who it is and which figure represents him. To those who say "No, I shouldn't have to say who or which figure I'm using for a special character." My question is why not? Aren't you required by rule to say what each unit is and what each unit has? Putting the onus of discovery on your opponent seems unworthy of someone who just wants to play the game. Depending on the army being played and the points being used a sneaky person could just slip in that special character by burying his stats in his army list. This is called "sandbagging" where I'm from. Sure you could do it and you'd probably catch me off guard the first time you try it. But there won't be a second time, I play warhammer for the fun of it and I expect people to behave in a gentlemanly way. If you feel that you have to resort to cheap ploys to win then enjoy yourself because the only people who will play with you after that are others of your ilk.
I would think that common courtesy would be that you inform your opponent of any special troops or troop choices that you have and even any special rules that accompany them. In a tourney it's caveat emptore so this doesn't hold in that situation. But in general I think that the courtesy should be extended.

CT GAMER wrote:

People way too often want way too much for 40k to be a "sport", and are way too worried about winning imho.

The problem isnt the game as much as the mindset of the players imho...

The expectation should, however, remain that you are able to win, that your codex and your opponents are written to be used against one another.

What in the name of grud would be the point of playing otherwise?

Guess I coulda been more clear...I had Mephiston both in my list, and clearly out on the table; he saw him on turn 1, so it wasn't a "omg, THAT's Mephiston?" After Mephiston killed his Bloodthirster, there was a mild annoyance of "if only I'd brought this other thing."

For what it's worth, I agree with the posters saying some armies favor special characters. In my humble opinion, most of the non-named characters in the Blood Angels and Space Marines codex aren't as good as, say, a Bloodthirster (at least at scary close combat). Then again, I can understand Mephiston seeming cheesy for someone encountering him for the first time from the new codex (HOW many wounds? Hitting at strength 10? Whaddya mean I'm transfixed?!?).

Just curious how other people rolled.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

People way too often want way too much for 40k to be a "sport", and are way too worried about winning imho.

The problem isnt the game as much as the mindset of the players imho...

The expectation should, however, remain that you are able to win, that your codex and your opponents are written to be used against one another.

What in the name of grud would be the point of playing otherwise?

Off the top of my head:

1. Showing off models you have painted and converted as your opponent does same ( the artistic appreciation of a job well done)

2. The camaraderie of "talking shop" with others who share a love of the same hobby/game

3. Telling a good story ( which doesn't require an expectation of winning, nor balanced forces) thru gameplay.

4. hanging out with friends

5. Blowing off steam

They are in the Codex so they are legal. I should expect to be able to take special characters at will and expect my opponent to be able to do the same.

That said I will bring the special character to my opponent's attention at the beginning of the game as I'm deploying. It's just good form. "This is Mephiston" <points to model>.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Valkyrie wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:The Nightbringer is completely broken though. He should be an Apoc only character, really.
S10,T8,W5 ? Seriously broke.

Broken with a 4+ save?

But to the point, I would say no, you shouldn't need permission to use them. Your opponent should be able to see what characters you're using beforehand, but they shouldn't be able to decide wherever you are allowed to use them or not.

You've just chalked out £25-£30 for Marneus Calgar, and some kid won't let you use him for fear of getting stamped on (apparently)

Also, if opponents were able to prevent you from using them, you would eventually get absolute who see a threat, and stop it by selfishly not letting you use it, as they are two hyped up on trying to win rather than allowing both of you to have a fun game.

Valk

With how hard he is to hit in the first place,yes, that is broken. He's got a 4++ save too. Not to mention TOUGHNESS 8!!!!!Argh!

The most amusing thing about this post is how you seem to have completely forgotten he's part of the Necron army.

Biggest problem I, personally, have with Special Characters is the reliance the Dark Angels Codex has on them.

Why do I have to take Belial/Sammael to field Deathwing/Ravenwing forces? Why is there not an option to tool up a standard Captain/Commander/Librarian to lead the same?

CT GAMER wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

People way too often want way too much for 40k to be a "sport", and are way too worried about winning imho.

The problem isnt the game as much as the mindset of the players imho...

The expectation should, however, remain that you are able to win, that your codex and your opponents are written to be used against one another.

What in the name of grud would be the point of playing otherwise?

Off the top of my head:

1. Showing off models you have painted and converted as your opponent does same ( the artistic appreciation of a job well done)

2. The camaraderie of "talking shop" with others who share a love of the same hobby/game

3. Telling a good story ( which doesn't require an expectation of winning, nor balanced forces) thru gameplay.

4. hanging out with friends

5. Blowing off steam

Other than point 3, none of those require setting up a table or going to the effort of playing the game.

Are you seriously suggesting you'd show up, weekend after weekend, to face off against enemies that would beat you every single time, not because they are 'better' gamers or through the luck of the dice but purely because they have a book with better rules?

Have fun with that...

Are special characters really that overpowered, or are they just so much better than often underpowered generic units?

I mean, look at Chaos lords and virtually any SM captain: they're pretty weak sauce for the points. Lysander isn't overpowered, I think he's just better pointed.

Vulkan is arguably the best of the Special Characters and while he adds a lot of punch, Vulkan marines are still not overpowered on the tournament scene.

Personally, I don't care for them but as long as my opponent gives me a chance to read over the (official) rules for the character then I don't have a problem.
That being said, i do find the majority of them to just be... ludicrous and they really tend to come across as if they haven't really been playtested, at all.

I myself love people playing special characters, more chance for everyone's favorite ork attack, Zogwort's Curse....better known as "Squig!!, Shut your mouth, he's a bad mother!" but honestly, if you offer him a look at your list and he passed it up, then it was his own damn fault that he lost, he addition to that. I think it is more then fair to play what you want when you want it as long as it is in the rules.

Bookwrack wrote:
The most amusing thing about this post is how you seem to have completely forgotten he's part of the Necron army.

HA! ICwutudidthar.

Yeah,that actually totally makes him balanced. Haha

I have so far never encountered a Special Character that so completely broke the game that I would ban Special Characters from use.

I don't see why anyone wouldn't use everything available to them in their codex. I personally don't use Special Characters, but my TWO characters are both too expensive for my armies. All my friends, however, use special characters all the time. I regularly see Prince Yriel, Skulltaker, The Masque (to some extent), almost every SW and Guard hero, Doom and Parasite for nids, etc.

Honestly, I find games with special characters are much more interesting, and much less chess-like with the funky rules and wargear.

lokilokust wrote:...they really tend to come across as if they haven't really been playtested, at all.

You could probably apply that statement to most of the regular models as well.

Lol @ above

Are you seriously suggesting you'd show up, weekend after weekend, to face off against enemies that would beat you every single time, not because they are 'better' gamers or through the luck of the dice but purely because they have a book with better rules?

Have fun with that...

Hyperboyle does not a valid argument make.

No codex nor special character in the game has a 100% guarantee of victory.

If YOU are losing every game YOU play, YOU might need to look inward for the answer...

I have yet to encounter that list/character/codex...

If you saw marneus calgar in a salamanders list,would you allow it, sine he's "Chapter Master of the uUtramarines!"?

Technically, you could,but it would be totally wierd. Should there be rules on this kind of thing? I think so.

Considering they state that you could use the rules for a specific special character as a "template" for your own...

If the model is heavily converted in line with Salamander iconography, etc and the backstory is fantastic?

I'd allow it.

CT GAMER wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting you'd show up, weekend after weekend, to face off against enemies that would beat you every single time, not because they are 'better' gamers or through the luck of the dice but purely because they have a book with better rules?

Have fun with that...

Hyperboyle does not a valid argument make.

No codex nor special character in the game has a 100% guarantee of victory.

If YOU are losing every game YOU play, YOU might need to look inward for the answer...

I have yet to encounter that list/character/codex...

No hyperbole, I initially said that it was no bad thing to have an expectation that all codices have a good chance of achieving victory, all things being equal.

I'm wondering if you've taken the hypotheticals I've been talking about and mistakenly attributed them to me? I wonder this due to your fairly odd statement about a codex giving you 100% victory, followed by that sentence where you use YOU alot and then the sentence at the end about you not finding that in your life. To explain what I was saying, I was suggesting that all codices should contain in them the ability to grant a 50%chance of victory vs each other given no further variables such as player experience at gaming, understanding of the enemy codice/army synergy and likely composition etc.

Your post in response suggested that the social aspects and painting an army etc etc were more important. Those things are important to me as well.

I'm still saying the playing of the game should be enjoyable, one of the factors of that enjoyment should be the ability to bring an army that gives you a fighting chance of winning against your opponent's army.

You're taking my initial post at a cross purpose, I am saying balance is something that should be striven for in codices. I know about codex creep and power and balancing issues, but the design team should be, imo, working to make each army capable of victory on an even scale. Not like the situation currently in fantasy with the daemon army, which has not proven a good fit and seems to have been greatly overpowered in comparison with the rest.

Im 29.

And i chooese lists purley on whats best to paint snd convert.

I like the look of sanguinary guard, and I spend about 15-20 hours per guard to paint them up. (You can see my finished ones over in my blog in the painting forum, not hrd to find)

I couldnt care less if they have chainswords and weapon skill 1. I've been playing this game sincd 2nd ed, and all I care now is making fluffy armies. The idea of 30 sanguinary guard lead by dante descending from the heavens sounds awesome to me and is a perfectly valid choice.

And maybe I did sound a bit snooty, but you sound 100% more snooty. Sorry, all that hours of work and converting is invalidated because I am think this unit isnt balanced, wah wah.

We all have units we think aren't balanced. But I dont mind of my opponent fields them. I dont mind what he puts in his army. especially special characters. To me they just increase the flavour and fluff of the game, and makes things really, really enjoyable.

I almost never play games without special characters, unless it is a very small points cost game. I have converted half of the codex space marine special characters to be spesifically for my blood ravens to use in games. Many are pretty terribad rules wise, but I find it adds more flavour to use them.

Like I said, to me, banning special characters is liking banning every unit with a name that starts with L. Its just weird and arbitary

I am also taking from someone who has only really played a lot of 40k, I dont know what the special character situation is like in fantasy.

but i have never found any 40k special character overpowering to play with or against

Lone__Gunman wrote:My interpretation: in a 2000 point game, it would be kind of weird NOT to see a special character.

Thoughts?

Once upon a time, its WASNT weird to see no special characters in the game. They required permission to use.

However that ship has sailed, especially in the latest edition. Now "special" characters, and I use that term loosely, are as common as alcohol is in Lindsey Lohan's blood stream.


Sad really, but no they dont need permission or even notification.

That time was also when special characters could shred through multiple units by themselves.

That ship, also, has sailed for the most part.

skrulnik wrote:
The Permissive attitude is an odd holdover from when they actual told us they didn't balance them. The game has changed. Keep up, people!

What makes you think they balance them now?

Roleplayer wrote:Im 29.

And i chooese lists purley on whats best to paint snd convert.

I like the look of sanguinary guard, and I spend about 15-20 hours per guard to paint them up. (You can see my finished ones over in my blog in the painting forum, not hrd to find)

I couldnt care less if they have chainswords and weapon skill 1. I've been playing this game sincd 2nd ed, and all I care now is making fluffy armies. The idea of 30 sanguinary guard lead by dante descending from the heavens sounds awesome to me and is a perfectly valid choice.

And maybe I did sound a bit snooty, but you sound 100% more snooty. Sorry, all that hours of work and converting is invalidated because I am think this unit isnt balanced, wah wah.

We all have units we think aren't balanced. But I dont mind of my opponent fields them. I dont mind what he puts in his army. especially special characters. To me they just increase the flavour and fluff of the game, and makes things really, really enjoyable.

I almost never play games without special characters, unless it is a very small points cost game. I have converted half of the codex space marine special characters to be spesifically for my blood ravens to use in games. Many are pretty terribad rules wise, but I find it adds more flavour to use them.

Like I said, to me, banning special characters is liking banning every unit with a name that starts with L. Its just weird and arbitary

I am also taking from someone who has only really played a lot of 40k, I dont know what the special character situation is like in fantasy.

but i have never found any 40k special character overpowering to play with or against

Roleplayer, you seemed to take personal offence about my post and decided to take a potshot over my group of friend being 'snobs' because we run a house rule.

So, let me explain how it would work if we met...

"Oh hi roleplayer, welcome to my house, hmmm? You play 40k, wow, that's great, so do me an a few of my mates. How's about a game or two of 40k. Tell me about your army?

Right, a blood angels army entirely of those golden guys with jump packs and Dante, sure, I'll give it a go, our lot don't usually use special characters but ok, I'll write a list with some in, I might try out big GT or Snikrott.

.../some time passes

Great, thanks for that game, was fun. How's about a game next week, same points value, without special characters to see how the rest of the army fares?

Oh? Won't work? Ah, due to your elites only working as troops for this special character... hmm, how about using half the sang g as elites then and half as phys reps for troop types? Hmm? No we're not anal about phys reps at all, a couple of weeks back those mounted skeles you see on the shelf were ork bikers for an afternoon, so i could playtest them.

And try a jaffa cake! "

See? Nothing snobbish about it, I'm surprised you think its all so odd since you've played since 2nd ed, where special characters were extremely unbalanced and were most decidedly 'by mutual agreement'.

I can see where you're coming from Stompa.

I didn't really take offence at your post,, sorry if you got that impression. I just find it odd.

Yes, in 2nd ed they were opponents permission as it said so in the book.

I actually dont allow any "this counts as this" in any of my games, unless a friend is just testing out one unit to see if he buys it.

I wouldn't have any problem with "Let's play a game without any special characters" if we agreed upon it the week before.

What i wouldn't want is to bring my Blood Angels army to a club and everyone refuse to play because special characters aren't allowed.

I actually own enough blood angels to field them without Sanguinary Guard as troops.

I object to the idea I need your permission to play that list, tho. I'm a decent guy, so if we're mates and you say, hey Aaron, I want to play a game without special characters to see what happens, I'd be down for that.

I'd be down for any suggestion or weird rule to make an interesting game. I'd even be fine with every second week being no special characters night, (or no tanks night, or no 2+ armor save night, or whatever people want to do) i'm totally down with everything like that.

I don't like the idea of people looking down on other people for using special characters, like they take them to powergame or there is something wrong with taking them.

Friendly games are whatever the two people agree on., I was a bit out of line to make asseumptions about the attitudes of your game club. But you were also a bit out of line to assume that people take special characters to powergame.

I also think you are flatly wrong that they are anywhere near as powerful now as you believe they are. I think when you see abaddon for example you still see 2nd ed abaddon in your head, the shock and awe is still there for you.

I've played against armies with special characters and used none myself and won easily, and be beaten easily when fielding my own special characters.

To me 'Sicarius" and "Space Marine Captain" are just two different choices in HQ. I dont see one being any different from the other, except one lacks customization ability.

Well personally I run through my entire army with my opponent anyway. So that know what weapons are on vehicles or in squads. What's in the transports. Where my HQ choices are. It just means that if someone doesn't know what something does, then they can ask a question before the game starts, meaning that valuable time isn't wasted during the game goin "WTF!? How did that blow up my entire army!!!???"

Oshova

I think if a group wants to arbitrarily veto a unit type that is 100% legal (as special characters are in the current edition) then instead they need to incorporate a veto system:

So I show up and you say "no special character for you today" then I get to veto something from your codex/list on a 1:1 basis.

Ok I won't use unit x, but you can't use Land Raiders, etc., etc. Whatever I don't feel like facing that day.

Only seems fair...

I have responded this way in the past to such attitudes concerning my lists and it is funny how people are usually eager to limit other people's lists, but usually unwilling to have their own cheese and "go-to" units removed from their own lists...

Around here, they're fair game. The debate never comes up as people just tend to assume you are allowed them.

The way 40k effective works now is that Special Characters are just the same as any unit. For example, there'd be no functional difference between.

0-1 Imperial Commando
Type: Infantry

And

Guardsman Marbo
Type: Infantry, Unique


0-1 Ravenwing Captain
Type: Vehicle

And

Grandmaster Samuel
Type Vehicle (unique)

And, just because I can. "You may upgrade one Imperial Guard Colonel in your army to a TACTICAL GENIUS!" giving it these stats....

No awards to guess who that is

Plus, since this is in the GENERAL discussions for now

Doesn't AT-43 effectively function in the same way as the Ravenwing example? You picked a named character to lead your army, which defines specific things in your army.....

Here is my take on it. I do not think special characters need to be announced, especially in a tournament setting. If I see Mephiston on the board across from me my first reaction is to ask... "hey, is that Mephiston or are you just using the model to represent a Librarian?" If you don't ask, it is your fault.

Now, if it is thursday night and I am playing a fun game of 40k with friends or at a store with people I do not know, the last thing I do is plop a special onto the board. Doing that quickly makes you "that guy" and I really don't think specials should be used in a fun game.

They have their place and that placeis a tournament or a semi-serious game.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We, ie my group, don't use them as an unwritten standard. If someone is invited to play with the group, then we just mention 'we don't use special characters' unless we're having a special characters game.

Just a question. What if somebody has an army based around said character? Such as, for example, a Dante Sanguiniary Guard army? Belial/Logan leading Deathwing/Loganwing? Is that also completely unacceptable?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'm clear on JJ's stated and GW's real reasons for allowing special characters. I do believe that nothing has changed re 'we balanced them now so you can use them as standard', I regard the statement as Bull Gak. But if I were to play a stranger or at a tourney, I'd bring special characters and expect my opponent to do likewise.

We, ie my group, don't use them as an unwritten standard. If someone is invited to play with the group, then we just mention 'we don't use special characters' unless we're having a special characters game. Because sometimes we like to try them out with their wacky rules and powers. I believe the codices are, usually, far better balanced without them.

So if someone has an army that only functions because of said special character (Wazdakka + Ork Bikers, Kantor + scoring sternguard), you do what? Tell them to take a hike ?

EDIT: Serves me right for not reading the full thread before replying, someone else already asked you this

Now, if it is thursday night and I am playing a fun game of 40k with friends or at a store with people I do not know, the last thing I do is plop a special onto the board. Doing that quickly makes you "that guy" and I really don't think specials should be used in a fun game.

They have their place and that placeis a tournament or a semi-serious game.

This.

Unless we've agreed to a scenario, or otherwise "fluffy" casual game, such as "Lets see if Marneus Calgar can take on 1000 points of Gimp Guard solo!" then they have no place on the casual gaming table. Using special characters in casual games is powergaming in a non-powergame environment, and I really find it interesting that so many folks don't see it that way. If you're going to be min-maxing in a casual game, then it's not really a casual game is it? What's the difference between your min-maxing in a tourney, and at the casual table? None. It's a competitive play style; period. If you show up at the store to play a random casual game, and bring a tournament style army, you're a douche, plain and simple.

Lord Manimal wrote:

Now, if it is thursday night and I am playing a fun game of 40k with friends or at a store with people I do not know, the last thing I do is plop a special onto the board. Doing that quickly makes you "that guy" and I really don't think specials should be used in a fun game.

They have their place and that placeis a tournament or a semi-serious game.

This.

Unless we've agreed to a scenario, or otherwise "fluffy" casual game, such as "Lets see if Marneus Calgar can take on 1000 points of Gimp Guard solo!" then they have no place on the casual gaming table. Using special characters in casual games is powergaming in a non-powergame environment, and I really find it interesting that so many folks don't see it that way. If you're going to be min-maxing in a casual game, then it's not really a casual game is it? What's the difference between your min-maxing in a tourney, and at the casual table? None. It's a competitive play style; period. If you show up at the store to play a random casual game, and bring a tournament style army, you're a douche, plain and simple.

Wow.

Just wow. I don't get this at all. Old Zogwort is a special character and is about as far from a tournament character as you can get - the same goes for a LOT of special characters, there's really only a few that I think you see in most tournament lists (i.e Vulkan, Mephiston, Ghaz, et al).

Roleplayer wrote:I can see where you're coming from Stompa.

I actually dont allow any "this counts as this" in any of my games, unless a friend is just testing out one unit to see if he buys it.

I wouldn't have any problem with "Let's play a game without any special characters" if we agreed upon it the week before.

What i wouldn't want is to bring my Blood Angels army to a club and everyone refuse to play because special characters aren't allowed.

I actually own enough blood angels to field them without Sanguinary Guard as troops.

I object to the idea I need your permission to play that list, tho. I'm a decent guy, so if we're mates and you say, hey Aaron, I want to play a game without special characters to see what happens, I'd be down for that.

I'd be down for any suggestion or weird rule to make an interesting game. I'd even be fine with every second week being no special characters night, (or no tanks night, or no 2+ armor save night, or whatever people want to do) i'm totally down with everything like that.

I don't like the idea of people looking down on other people for using special characters, like they take them to powergame or there is something wrong with taking them.

Friendly games are whatever the two people agree on., I was a bit out of line to make asseumptions about the attitudes of your game club. But you were also a bit out of line to assume that people take special characters to powergame.

I also think you are flatly wrong that they are anywhere near as powerful now as you believe they are. I think when you see abaddon for example you still see 2nd ed abaddon in your head, the shock and awe is still there for you.

I've played against armies with special characters and used none myself and won easily, and be beaten easily when fielding my own special characters.

To me 'Sicarius" and "Space Marine Captain" are just two different choices in HQ. I dont see one being any different from the other, except one lacks customization ability.

You're entirely right, we do have this usual rule as a holdover from previous editions, but we're all comfortable with it. It's how we play and just how we've played for a very very long time and don't think, on a regular gaming basis, that we're missing anything.

You see, you're post and others commenting on what I've said shows me something clear about why so many of you have been aghast about our no special characters rule... We aren't a club! I am referring to a group of friends who play at each other's houses. We are friends who game, not gamers who are friends, most of these players I've known for years and years. I do know that our Eldar player has a big love of Eldrad (not really a surprise) but he's happy to not take the old fella to a game because it's just one of the things we don't do. I know he uses Eldrad at his local GW and fair play, hope he has good games there.

We physrep frequently, at least I certainly have as I'm constantly experimenting with new lists, vehicle heavy, dred n kan heavy, elite heavy etc. See, you find the no special characters thing aloof and arrogant and I find the attitude of many about physrepping to be elitist and strange.

The comparisons some have made to leaving out 'heavy support' or 'fast attack' aren't really fair, you still have the standard HQ choices without special characters. Specials take up HQ spots, they are optional HQ choices, we opt not to use them.

To the folks asking 'what do you do if someone shows up with a special character based army', dunno, we've never had the situation, noone in our group of friends has such an army, never built them and perhaps that's due to our age and our experience with previous editions. Besides, I much prefer a personalised army myself.

I'll repeat myself, again, if I were to attend an open club or play in a FLGS, I'd have no trouble with someone using a special character, they are a perfectly viable choice in the codices and are incorporated into the ruleset. And that's how I voted in the poll.

I'm not the biggest anti-specials advocate in the group, that's certainly our Ultramarines player, who, for fluff reasons, despises the 'mix and match' non-chapter based (but fluff chapter based) specials for Vanillas.

But times change, I'm certainly not against experimenting with the characters. Perhaps I'll look at greenstuffing a peaked bloodaxe cap onto ghazghkull thraka one day...

I don't require permission to field a special character. I do, however, feel the need to inform my opponent that I am fielding one, and what special rules apply to said special character. It prevents so many arguments.

The only exception to that is Shadowblade, the special Dark Elf assassin, because knowing about him pretty much negates the point of using him in the first place...

Lord Manimal wrote:

Now, if it is thursday night and I am playing a fun game of 40k with friends or at a store with people I do not know, the last thing I do is plop a special onto the board. Doing that quickly makes you "that guy" and I really don't think specials should be used in a fun game.

They have their place and that placeis a tournament or a semi-serious game.

This.

Unless we've agreed to a scenario, or otherwise "fluffy" casual game, such as "Lets see if Marneus Calgar can take on 1000 points of Gimp Guard solo!" then they have no place on the casual gaming table. Using special characters in casual games is powergaming in a non-powergame environment, and I really find it interesting that so many folks don't see it that way. If you're going to be min-maxing in a casual game, then it's not really a casual game is it? What's the difference between your min-maxing in a tourney, and at the casual table? None. It's a competitive play style; period. If you show up at the store to play a random casual game, and bring a tournament style army, you're a douche, plain and simple.

There are a lot of sweeping generalizations here that are simply not always true, and in additoin, ignore the fact that many of the nastiest units in 40k aren't special Characters. To say that bringing Sicarius (a very average SC) is powergaming, but not similarly having a rule against melta vets, min/maxed long fangs, bloodcrushers, etc. is just weird.

I asked this earlier and nobody responded, but what SCs are actually that unbalanced? At lower points values they can become a problem (nobody likes dealing with Lysander or Ghaz at 750pts), but at 1500pts what SCs really provide an unfair advantage?

I still contend that the best of the SCs only look unbalanced because they are compared to the ludicriously overcosted generic equivilents. I don't think Sicarius is unbalanced, but he's nearly a no brainer when compared to the basic captain, getting FNP, a 2+ save, a power weapon, a plasma pistol, a veteran skill for a tactical squad, LD10 to the entire army, and a re-roll on seize the initiative for 100pts. He's still barely worth playing.

that's not getting into armies like DA, which need SCs to operate Deathwing or Ravenwing, or IG which only bring SCs when the player feels like having fun.

Lord Manimal wrote:

Now, if it is thursday night and I am playing a fun game of 40k with friends or at a store with people I do not know, the last thing I do is plop a special onto the board. Doing that quickly makes you "that guy" and I really don't think specials should be used in a fun game.

They have their place and that placeis a tournament or a semi-serious game.

This.

Unless we've agreed to a scenario, or otherwise "fluffy" casual game, such as "Lets see if Marneus Calgar can take on 1000 points of Gimp Guard solo!" then they have no place on the casual gaming table. Using special characters in casual games is powergaming in a non-powergame environment, and I really find it interesting that so many folks don't see it that way. If you're going to be min-maxing in a casual game, then it's not really a casual game is it? What's the difference between your min-maxing in a tourney, and at the casual table? None. It's a competitive play style; period. If you show up at the store to play a random casual game, and bring a tournament style army, you're a douche, plain and simple.

This post above makes no sense whatsoever to me for a number of reasons:

1. They are legal: just as much so as Land Raiders, or Daemon Princes, or Storm Ravens, etc., etc.

2. They are often over costed for their true impact, and rarely perform up to their potential due to player error and the whim of dice

3. they are far less game breaking/altering then the netdecking and min/maxing done in every army by competitive players (spamming of key units, power combos, etc., etc.)

Casual gaming IS exactly the place to use such characters, because we are supposed to be playing for fun. It isn't life or death, nothing is at stake (prizes, standings, etc.) and since they are perfectly legal as per the rules, etc. then who cares?!? me thinks people are taking this game WAY too seriously sometimes...

I would argue that competitive play is the place that they DON'T belong. Why? Because most tournament players are so on edge and pre-occupied about balance, sportsmanship, competition,etc., etc. that the inclusion of them fosters a lot of added drama and so forth from overly-competitive types who play "sportshammer 40K" and think it is serious business.

Having played for a while now, I can tell you in the third and fourth edition days when special characters were "opponent consent" items the conversation usually went like this:

Q: You OK with XYZ special character?
A: No.

Therefore they rarely if ever got fielded. I understand the shift to the current codex stance that allows them by default; if you didn't they'd never get fielded and by extension never get sold.

Allow Special Characters = Moar GW Salez!

In all fairness they are fun to field, especially some of the game changers like Zogwart, Ghazkull and Mephiston.

malfred wrote:

lokilokust wrote:...they really tend to come across as if they haven't really been playtested, at all.

You could probably apply that statement to most of the regular models as well.

Werd.

The Green Git wrote:Having played for a while now, I can tell you in the third and fourth edition days when special characters were "opponent consent" items the conversation usually went like this:

Q: You OK with XYZ special character?
A: No.

Therefore they rarely if ever got fielded. I understand the shift to the current codex stance that allows them by default; if you didn't they'd never get fielded and by extension never get sold.

Allow Special Characters = Moar GW Salez!

In all fairness they are fun to field, especially some of the game changers like Zogwart, Ghazkull and Mephiston.

malfred wrote:

lokilokust wrote:...they really tend to come across as if they haven't really been playtested, at all.

You could probably apply that statement to most of the regular models as well.

Werd.

You can also partially thank Privateer press for the switch Though GW would never say so, and most GW fanboys will deny it):

many of the converts to Warmachine and Hordes from GW praised PP for not having any models that required permission, and liked having powerful named characters central in their armies. GW followed this lead when going back to no permission for special characters this edition, the same way they borrowed elements and concepts from FOW in the new edition (increased role and availability of cover saves for infantry,etc.)

CT GAMER wrote:
This post above makes no sense whatsoever to me for a number of reasons:

1. They are legal: just as much so as Land Raiders, or Daemon Princes, or Storm Ravens, etc., etc.

2. They are often over costed for their true impact, and rarely perform up to their potential due to player error and the whim of dice

3. they are far less game breaking/altering then the netdecking and min/maxing done in every army by competitive players (spamming of key units, power combos, etc., etc.)

Casual gaming IS exactly the place to use such characters, because we are supposed to be playing for fun. It isn't life or death, nothing is at stake (prizes, standings, etc.) and since they are perfectly legal as per the rules, etc. then who cares?!? me thinks people are taking this game WAY too seriously sometimes...

I would argue that competitive play is the place that they DON'T belong. Why? Because most tournament players are so on edge and pre-occupied about balance, sportsmanship, competition,etc., etc. that the inclusion of them fosters a lot of added drama and so forth from overly-competitive types who play "sportshammer 40K" and think it is serious business.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but am I really understanding that my post made no sense because "they are legal"? I'm also guessing that the idea of the spirit of the game makes no sense as well then. By this logic, there's nothing stopping the Harlem Globetrotters from showing up to a public 5 on 5 basketball tournament, just because "it's legal" and it's a "public" game. Perhaps it's just me, or some kind of language/culture barrier, but to me, what you said made no sense. Do you also think that it's okay to shove 5 year olds down and take their candy, "because you can"? lol

No, you do not need permission. Yes, the characters should be known, just like I should be able to tell if it's a librarian or chaplain.

Polonius wrote:
I asked this earlier and nobody responded, but what SCs are actually that unbalanced? At lower points values they can become a problem (nobody likes dealing with Lysander or Ghaz at 750pts), but at 1500pts what SCs really provide an unfair advantage?

Off the top of my head, and this is just personal opinion, I think Mephiston, Swarmlord, Eldrad and a few others are too powerful.

For my personal preference, I like to see troops and tactics rather than an 'arms race' on putting the most hardcore individual model onto the table.

Do you guys play with other comp rules? I'm just curious, because most SCs aren't OP, and in fact unlock some really neat fluff armies.

Nope, not us, very relaxed games and attitude.

number9dream wrote:

Lord Manimal wrote:

Now, if it is thursday night and I am playing a fun game of 40k with friends or at a store with people I do not know, the last thing I do is plop a special onto the board. Doing that quickly makes you "that guy" and I really don't think specials should be used in a fun game.

They have their place and that placeis a tournament or a semi-serious game.

This.

Unless we've agreed to a scenario, or otherwise "fluffy" casual game, such as "Lets see if Marneus Calgar can take on 1000 points of Gimp Guard solo!" then they have no place on the casual gaming table. Using special characters in casual games is powergaming in a non-powergame environment, and I really find it interesting that so many folks don't see it that way. If you're going to be min-maxing in a casual game, then it's not really a casual game is it? What's the difference between your min-maxing in a tourney, and at the casual table? None. It's a competitive play style; period. If you show up at the store to play a random casual game, and bring a tournament style army, you're a douche, plain and simple.

Wow.

Just wow. I don't get this at all. Old Zogwort is a special character and is about as far from a tournament character as you can get - the same goes for a LOT of special characters, there's really only a few that I think you see in most tournament lists (i.e Vulkan, Mephiston, Ghaz, et al).

Wow was the first thing that I thought of too, that is exceptionally small of you.

So does the anti-special character crowd whine about non HQ specials too, or just the leaders?
Seems that you would have a great target in the Doom of Malan'tai for one.

Does the killing of a special character not make things a lot more epic?! I'm all for them. Watching the glorious Marnius Calgar get eaten by a carnifex is just plain awesome.

Compel wrote:The way 40k effective works now is that Special Characters are just the same as any unit. For example, there'd be no functional difference between.

0-1 Imperial Commando
Type: Infantry

And

Guardsman Marbo
Type: Infantry, Unique


0-1 Ravenwing Captain
Type: Vehicle

And

Grandmaster Samuel
Type Vehicle (unique)

Which is what I'd rather see. Spend X points and all your bike units are troops. Spend Y points and sternguard become troop choices.

Its rather crappy to see Eldred or Marbo show up to EVERY battle. Doesnt the grandmaster of ravenwing have better things to do then show up to every battle? The should be renamed as not so special characters....

The poll is misleading. while I don't think you need to ask for permission to use anything in your army, I think you should tell your opponent what you are using and explain the special rules to them if they are not familiar with the model or unit.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Nope, not us, very relaxed games and attitude.

The fact you place arbitrary restrictions on what people can use seems to belie that statement.

carmachu wrote:Its rather crappy to see Eldred or Marbo show up to EVERY battle. Doesnt the grandmaster of ravenwing have better things to do then show up to every battle? The should be renamed as not so special characters....

Consider that first and foremost, this is a game. It's all about epic clashes and overcoming the odds to pull off your mission or survive. We don't necessarily game the mundane police actions and garrison duties that these imaginary armies encounter on a daily basis. Our games are representative (in my mind anyway) of the more important struggles that turn the tide of a big battle or decide victory or defeat for whole worlds.

If you look at it that way then it's not unusual that we see Marneus Calgar and Ghazkull Thraka. It would be unusual NOT to see them in such circumstances.

But ultimately the game is what it is and what is fun to you is what you should play. Like characters? They are there. Hate 'em? Don't take them.

My .02.

Lord Manimal wrote:
Do you also think that it's okay to shove 5 year olds down and take their candy, "because you can"? lol

Well since I have an ongoing Dakka blog in which I am playing 40k against a five year old and a nine year old in a friendly relaxed 40k campaign I think the answer to that is obvious...


So manimal, if you and I meet up for game you have no issue with me hitting anything in your list I find "against the spirit of the game" with a veto then right?

Permission to use special characters? Absolutely not, you might as well ask your opponent to write your army list for you while you're at it. As long as you are clear as to what characters you took if you're proxying units and arent using too many special rules than you can legally have with the units you brought. The only exception is if it was set out ahead of time that no named character were going to be used.

I am always in the habit of asking an opponent if they are using special/named characters. If they are I ask if they would mind using a list that doesn't contain said elements. If they are not comfortable with this I will politely decline to play against them. If further questions arise from this occurance I will always emphasise that it is a personal quirk of mine to not use or play against special/named characters and that it in no way should reflect badly upon my potential opponents.

I have a foot in both camps when it comes to my attitude towards special/named characters. From the fluff perspective I find it quite silly that said special/named characters are involved in every skirmish. I do also hold the view that a fair few of them are also unbalancing in terms of power. I do think that a select few are appropriately costed for thier power and that some are overcosted junk. I know that it is in part a holdover from previous editions but everyone has their quirks and I don't look down on people who use special/named characters whatsoever.

n.b. I use the term special/named characters as some people have tried to argue the toss that characters like Pask, Lemartes, Telion etc are "unit upgrades"

The only real problem with that philosophy is that it's going to restrict the armies you can play against. Not the players, but the actual types of armies. You'll never get to play against a loganwing, or deathwing/ravenwing. You'll never get to face a khan lead outflanking force or heavily red thirsted BA army.

Again, I contend that few SCs are no more unbalanced than the killer combos that existed before, and mostly look bad compared to laughably overcosted generic equivalents.

No.

Polonius wrote:The only real problem with that philosophy is that it's going to restrict the armies you can play against. Not the players, but the actual types of armies. You'll never get to play against a loganwing, or deathwing/ravenwing. You'll never get to face a khan lead outflanking force or heavily red thirsted BA army.

Again, I contend that few SCs are no more unbalanced than the killer combos that existed before, and mostly look bad compared to laughably overcosted generic equivalents.

This is true and is the major drawback of my viewpoint. I do see it as a snafu on GW's part not the players that alternative army lists are tied to special characters for the most part. I was a great advocate of the Space Marine Trait system in the 4th ed Codex as it allowed customisation without having to include special characters.

I don't use Special Characters. It just seems weird that the 'Prophet of the Waaaagh!' would rock up to a small 1000pt skirmish...

That said, I wouldn't try and stop any opponent from using them - they're codex-legal. I just don't personally use them.

Doesnt seem weird to me.

In my mind you're not playing a 1000 ot 'skirmish' there's a huge battle raging all around you, and the camera has zoomed onto this one peice of land, where our heroes meet.

I in fact as I said have modelled every special character in the Space Marine codex to be my own Blood Raven, and givent hem different names and histories.

In fact Telion, Sicarius, Lysander and Calgar are all the same character in my Blood Raven Fluff, Octavian. As he is in various stages of his career, first a scout leader(Using Telion's rulesand model), than a Captain of the 6th company(Sicarius rules and models), captain of the 1st company(Lysander rules and model) and finally Chapter Master of the Blood Ravens (Calgar's rules and models).

Lokdown wrote:I am always in the habit of asking an opponent if they are using special/named characters. If they are I ask if they would mind using a list that doesn't contain said elements. If they are not comfortable with this I will politely decline to play against them. If further questions arise from this occurance I will always emphasise that it is a personal quirk of mine to not use or play against special/named characters and that it in no way should reflect badly upon my potential opponents.

I have a foot in both camps when it comes to my attitude towards special/named characters. From the fluff perspective I find it quite silly that said special/named characters are involved in every skirmish. I do also hold the view that a fair few of them are also unbalancing in terms of power. I do think that a select few are appropriately costed for thier power and that some are overcosted junk. I know that it is in part a holdover from previous editions but everyone has their quirks and I don't look down on people who use special/named characters whatsoever.

And likewise fluff tells use how rare and valuable things like Land raiders and terminator armour is,so Anyone who uses these in less then a 3000pt. game is being "silly"...

Likewise anyone who runs chaos cult units (plague marines, Berzerkers, etc.) not in favored number size is being silly...

And anyone who doesn't run six troop choices of gaunts in a tyranid list is being silly as the fluff always speaks of endless hordes of gaunts...

And so on and so on...

Most armys that people run are rather silly in terms of fluff and what is being deployed in such small battles...

Chapter Masters fighting over a couple of piles of crates in a random forested area? Silly.

Elie troops with sacred relics risking their loss simply to kill some lowly pee on troops choices in what amounts to a skirmish? Silly

etc., etc.

Lokdown your logic can be appliedto most of 40K, and when we are done we have battles of scout squads fighting grots left as the only valid battles...

I want a SW terminator army, so no.

No it's not required to ask permission.

I don't play with them anyways because real men use Daemon Princes (and Khorne/Abaddon on occasion :p)

Whilst different people may have different rules in their gaming club, if I showed up at a LGS looking for a game, I would expect to be able to put down an army and play it exactly as the codex/rulebook allows me to, and not a single arbitrary rule more or less.
You may be remembering how special characters used to be permission only. They're not. Trying to force others you haven't met before to play like that is like telling them they must use Target Priority rules, or that they can't field land raiders. ESPECIALLY when certain army builds rely on certain characters to even be legal on the tabletop.
If it is a mutual agreement in your club, then sure, but for pick-up games, then no.

Bookwrack wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Nope, not us, very relaxed games and attitude.

The fact you place arbitrary restrictions on what people can use seems to belie that statement.

Nice flamebait. Both polite and insulting at the same time, kudos. Do you wear a large powdered wig and carry a fan by any chance?

Many scenarios have restrictions, many army lists have restrictions, all games restrict points used.

I have politely defended the choice we, my gaming group, all agreed on and haven't really bothered to review in 4 editions of the game.

Our group, by mutual consent, all chose to not use special character, none of us are bothered to start using them now.

We, as in the group of folks I play the game with, in our houses, get to choose what we do and don't put on the table.

We, as a group, all consent to play by the restriction, none of us owns 'special character restricted armies', so it remains a non-issue for us.

If the codex allows you to use it, then play with them if you want.

If you are a good player it does not matter if they roll a SC or not. Sounds like the guy needed something to blame for loosing...

Cheers

@GMS: His statement is false, it is not a fact that you placed an arbitrary restriction. Its his opinion based in ignorance of your reasoning. One should learn the difference between fact and opinion - it helps when debating.

I play with completely transparent army lists, so obviously disclosing which units (special or not) are being used is common etiquette.

A group of players adopting any convention (such as disallowing special characters) is their right, and begrudging them for playing that way is a waste of time and energy. Expecting an outsider to automatically adapt their convention, or that group refusing to acknowledge that it is not a universal convention is also incorrect.

Universally speaking, there is no need to get permission to play with special characters. However, universally speaking, is it necessary to get permission to play the game at all. Adapting a convention you may not normally use or be familiar with may be part of getting permission to play the game at all. Accept or not at your will, but don't resent another person for your choice.

Lord Manimal wrote:I don't mean to be argumentative, but am I really understanding that my post made no sense because "they are legal"? I'm also guessing that the idea of the spirit of the game makes no sense as well then. By this logic, there's nothing stopping the Harlem Globetrotters from showing up to a public 5 on 5 basketball tournament, just because "it's legal" and it's a "public" game. Perhaps it's just me, or some kind of language/culture barrier, but to me, what you said made no sense. Do you also think that it's okay to shove 5 year olds down and take their candy, "because you can"? lol

Wow, dude. This guy...

First of all, comparing taking a special character to abusing a child and stealing from him? Seriously? Why not just go all the way and call them Nazis, too, you know you want to.

Second, I'd argue that you're the one who doesn't understand the concept of the "spirit of the game". There's no reason to ban the use of named units, it's just a personal preference of yours that you've carried over from an older edition of the game where they weren't balanced for casual play and required permission because of that. What you're doing is no different than banning land raiders or even basic troop choices, you're the one being a douche by telling me I can't field a perfectly legal army that has nothing wrong with it.

You're being pointlessly and needlessly restrictive about what I can and can't use, and yet trying to argue "casual" play at the same time. That makes no sense, how can you claim to be "casual" when you're so hard-assed and take the game so seriously? Let me play with my freaking toys man.

Finally, as far as "balance" goes...you can say what you want about GW, but honestly I don't trust any of you to do a better job than them. If you have rules in your club/store/tournament banning certain units then I won't be there, because some people just really have no idea what they're talking about and just say all characters are "broken" simply because they're characters. It's also been proven that every time a new codex comes out and the internet pisses and moans about "broken" new characters and units, they're almost always wrong. Case in point, the Doom of Malan'tai didn't end up being as game-breaking as everyone expected.

The only real problem with that philosophy is that it's going to restrict the armies you can play against. Not the players, but the actual types of armies. You'll never get to play against a loganwing, or deathwing/ravenwing. You'll never get to face a khan lead outflanking force or heavily red thirsted BA army.

Well, that's exactly what they want, to play the same thing over and over again and never have to change their armies or buy new models (participating in the "arms race"). No challenge, no variety.

CT GAMER wrote:

Lokdown wrote:I am always in the habit of asking an opponent if they are using special/named characters. If they are I ask if they would mind using a list that doesn't contain said elements. If they are not comfortable with this I will politely decline to play against them. If further questions arise from this occurance I will always emphasise that it is a personal quirk of mine to not use or play against special/named characters and that it in no way should reflect badly upon my potential opponents.

I have a foot in both camps when it comes to my attitude towards special/named characters. From the fluff perspective I find it quite silly that said special/named characters are involved in every skirmish. I do also hold the view that a fair few of them are also unbalancing in terms of power. I do think that a select few are appropriately costed for thier power and that some are overcosted junk. I know that it is in part a holdover from previous editions but everyone has their quirks and I don't look down on people who use special/named characters whatsoever.

And likewise fluff tells use how rare and valuable things like Land raiders and terminator armour is,so Anyone who uses these in less then a 3000pt. game is being "silly"...

Likewise anyone who runs chaos cult units (plague marines, Berzerkers, etc.) not in favored number size is being silly...

And anyone who doesn't run six troop choices of gaunts in a tyranid list is being silly as the fluff always speaks of endless hordes of gaunts...

And so on and so on...

Most armys that people run are rather silly in terms of fluff and what is being deployed in such small battles...

Chapter Masters fighting over a couple of piles of crates in a random forested area? Silly.

Elie troops with sacred relics risking their loss simply to kill some lowly pee on troops choices in what amounts to a skirmish? Silly

etc., etc.

Lokdown your logic can be appliedto most of 40K, and when we are done we have battles of scout squads fighting grots left as the only valid battles...

You know what's really silly? Focusing on one (albeit poorly chosen) word in my post and then using out of context examples to try and undermine it. Sure using Land Raiders or the like in 1000 point battles can be a bit "silly". But then again there is more than one Land Raider in the galaxy.

Lokdown wrote:
You know what's really silly? Focusing on one (albeit poorly chosen) word in my post and then using out of context examples to try and undermine it. Sure using Land Raiders or the like in 1000 point battles can be a bit "silly". But then again there is more than one Land Raider in the galaxy.

The idea of Land Raider rarity is a lie, there are millions of them, they reproduce like tribbles. Ask the Blood Angels, they have so many they even throw them out of thunderhawks moving at high speed to try and reduce the numbers.

And don't forget how, despite the fact that the Imperium is backwards and regressing technologically, that they keep on making new variants. Oh sorry, "rediscovering" old tech that they really had all along and have been using for thousands of years.

People worry way too much about fluff.

Bookwrack wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Nope, not us, very relaxed games and attitude.

The fact you place arbitrary restrictions on what people can use seems to belie that statement.

The restrictions aren't arbitrary, they are in keeping with the way this particular group likes to play.

Compel wrote:

Plus, since this is in the GENERAL discussions for now

Doesn't AT-43 effectively function in the same way as the Ravenwing example? You picked a named character to lead your army, which defines specific things in your army.....

No, in AT-43 you pick a Faction which determines army composition. Heroes are just awesome additions to the army to act as leaders. =]

Generalstoner wrote:

Now, if it is thursday night and I am playing a fun game of 40k with friends or at a store with people I do not know, the last thing I do is plop a special onto the board. Doing that quickly makes you "that guy" and I really don't think specials should be used in a fun game.

But I use Belial to play as Deathwing, because I like terminators. In no way is that the most effective way to play Dark Angels, but it's the way I like to play. I don't think that makes me "that guy"

Oshova

Oshova wrote:

But I use Belial to play as Deathwing, because I like terminators. In no way is that the most effective way to play Dark Angels, but it's the way I like to play. I don't think that makes me "that guy"

Oshova

Nor do I.

I classify "TFG" as someone who complains about his opponents army and tries to bully/shame him into changing it.

I find "TFG" to be the over-competative player that worries incessantly about "balance" because he really needs to win to feel good about himself or prove something.

I find "TFG" to be the guy that wants to make drama over something that is perfectly legal.

I find "TFG" to be the paint snobs, and "moralists" of wargaming who claim things aren't "proper" etiquette, etc. based upon their own narrow viewpoint.

I would play against your Belial Deathwing any day of the week.

Armies theselves don't drive me away from games, elitists and TFG do.

I rarely play special characters myself, but I'm not gonna climb on a high horse and demand others play the way I want them to.

Luckily if one avoids organized events you have 100% choice of who you play and can mostly avoid TFG...

Well I find that generally the majority of people who go to organised events (depending where they are, and who organised them) are just normal people. Who will happily play a few games, and then sink a few cheeky pints afterwards. That's the way to play wargames =p

Oshova

Oshova wrote:But I use Belial to play as Deathwing, because I like terminators. In no way is that the most effective way to play Dark Angels, but it's the way I like to play. I don't think that makes me "that guy"

Oshova

Actually I think Deathwing probably is the most "effective" way to play Dark Angels. Any other way and you're better off with Codex: Space Marines instead.

Not that it really matters.

Oshova wrote:Well I find that generally the majority of people who go to organised events (depending where they are, and who organised them) are just normal people. Who will happily play a few games, and then sink a few cheeky pints afterwards. That's the way to play wargames =p

Oshova

My point was that at an event if you run into TFG across the table from you, you are forced to have to suffer through playing him unless you want to forfeit the game or withdraw from the event. It is sort of a game of chance entering a tournament/event as far as who you might end up across the table from.

At an LGS I can simply decline any offer of a game from TFG, and when I host at my own house I simply won't invite him.

Special characters? No permission needed.

Forgeworld? Yes, permission needed.

Sidstyler wrote:

The only real problem with that philosophy is that it's going to restrict the armies you can play against. Not the players, but the actual types of armies. You'll never get to play against a loganwing, or deathwing/ravenwing. You'll never get to face a khan lead outflanking force or heavily red thirsted BA army.

Well, that's exactly what they want, to play the same thing over and over again and never have to change their armies or buy new models (participating in the "arms race"). No challenge, no variety.

I think this is a bigger source of "anti-competitive" feelings than most people realize. There is nothing wrong with building an army and running for 10 years with little time or money put back into it. Just realize that you might be out of date, and don't try to get everybody else to hold back their efforts.

Luckily, most of those guys settle into small groups, and game pretty exclusively with each other.

Polonius wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

The only real problem with that philosophy is that it's going to restrict the armies you can play against. Not the players, but the actual types of armies. You'll never get to play against a loganwing, or deathwing/ravenwing. You'll never get to face a khan lead outflanking force or heavily red thirsted BA army.

Well, that's exactly what they want, to play the same thing over and over again and never have to change their armies or buy new models (participating in the "arms race"). No challenge, no variety.

I think this is a bigger source of "anti-competitive" feelings than most people realize. There is nothing wrong with building an army and running for 10 years with little time or money put back into it. Just realize that you might be out of date, and don't try to get everybody else to hold back their efforts.

Luckily, most of those guys settle into small groups, and game pretty exclusively with each other.

True, I know of a group that set at 3nd ed and stopped updating. They wouldn't play the newer versions of 40k. Won't even entertain it.

Whilst my usual group don't use special characters as standard, i'd certainly have no objections to using them in games against other people.

Sidstyler wrote:

Oshova wrote:But I use Belial to play as Deathwing, because I like terminators. In no way is that the most effective way to play Dark Angels, but it's the way I like to play. I don't think that makes me "that guy"

Oshova

Actually I think Deathwing probably is the most "effective" way to play Dark Angels. Any other way and you're better off with Codex: Space Marines instead.

Not that it really matters.

I've heard Ravenwing is still competitive and that Death Raven lists are also quite effective.

Thinking about it, not taking named characters is odd at our store. There's only 1 guy I can think of that doesn't and that's only because he finds cannonesses to be much more effective for his army than Celestine. I was the same until I started using Belial.

Deathwing and Ravenwing are effective--standard DA isn't.

If it's in the codex, then I'll play it no problem. If someone wants to try a few "no SC" games, I have no problem with that, but if someone wants to cut off all SCs all the time, I'll find someone else to play. I enjoy playing them and playing against them..they add character and flavor to the armies, and if someone fields a particularly strong character, it just adds to the challenge for me.

EDIT: for the OP, I usually go over my lists with my opponent at the start of a game so we are both clear on what is/has what so the announcement thing is a given. Permission...as I see it, the opponent should be asking me for permission to ban them from play instead of the other way around.

Perhaps some tourney organisers would care to add why they usually don't allow special characters?

I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning.

kronk wrote:Special characters? No permission needed.

Forgeworld? Yes, permission needed.

Arbitrary restriction is arbitrary.

If it has to do with the availability of the rules, I still don't get it, as most people who use FW will bring rules for those units(or like myself, bring multiple copies so that opponents have a copy to read through AND reference through out the game).

Then again, I truly AM a casual gamer. If you paid for it and brought it, you should be able to use it. I hold the same for the older PDF lists like Kroot Mercs if they truly wanna play them.

Mmmm Kroot Mercs . . . . =p

But anyway . . . casual games are a brilliant place for playing homemade scenarios, using mixed codices, using FW stuff, and doing whatever you like to have a good, fun time. =p

Oshova

I think what people who don't like SCs would argue isn't that they're casual (even though they are) but rather "low stress."

I see nothing wrong with a group truly deciding amongst themselves to only play a certain way. When I played magic, one group of friends wouldn't' allow blue control (counterspells and the like). That's a pretty big aspect of the game, but it's how those three guys liked to play, so when I played with them I used a stupid green deck or whatever.

The restrictions are arbitrary (being based on preference alone), but aren't harmful.

Now, if I were to play against somebody at a store who objected to SCs, I would be tempted to replace the list with a curb stombingly good list w/o SCs, just to show how silly a prejudice it is, but that's me at my least noble.

Polonius wrote:
Now, if I were to play against somebody at a store who objected to SCs, I would be tempted to replace the list with a curb stombingly good list w/o SCs, just to show how silly a prejudice it is, but that's me at my MOST AWESOME.

Corrected for awesome =p

If someone complains about your list, change it, make it more awesome, and kick their army in the face! (Not literally obviously . . . that's just mean lol)

Oshova

I've been playing with the same guys off and on for over 10 years. We've never considered not using anything available in the rules or any codex. This is the first time I have ever heard of people being opposed to the use of any SC. It seems odd to me that people would want to remove flavor from their armies and water them down.

In my case, it was special characters that made me stop playing the game (early edition WHFB in the early to mmid 1980s).

It was completely pointless having an army and playing with SCs because you would wipe out the other guy's army by Using Tactics, then he would pull out some kind of "I Win" card with a hero.

If we wanted to play that sort of game we would juts plan an RPG.

I'm sure lots of 2nd and 3rd edition 40K players will tell you about Herohammer.

That's why some of us older players are biased against special characters.

I think the character system in the SM codex, which gives the whole army some special rule, is a clever way of ringing the changes, however there are other armies with a bad selection of characters (Tau).

I understand that they don't REQUIRE you to ask permission, but I'd consider it good form to point it out before the game.

If you're using another model 'as' Calgar, then you're using a counts as, and the rules explicitly require you to point out with your opponent.

Furthermore, I never just hand them the army list and hope they don't notice some of my 'tricks', I'll always go through each of my units with my opponent and explain what everything is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I think the character system in the SM codex, which gives the whole army some special rule, is a clever way of ringing the changes, however there are other armies with a bad selection of characters (Tau).

It's one way of changing the list, but I much preferred just the 'variant list' idea. I don't like the idea that, if I want to play Salamanders, i MUST take Vulcan. Every time. Otherwise they're just regular marines. I much prefer rules like 'if you take a Captain on a bike, Bike squads are troops', which allows you to play White Scars through a simple and effective rule, but doesn't mean you have to take a mandatory troop choice.

special characters are just as integral to the codex as the troops- i never complain if someone brings a special character, or an 'overpowered' unit- it's in the codex, it's perfectly legal, and if i can't deal with it then my list is obviously flawed in a certain area, or my strategy is lacking- i'm not going to cry about the fact that my opponent has a C'tan and i only have a tyranid prime. it's the same points level, therefore it's fair and legal.

Ashtaroth wrote:special characters are just as integral to the codex as the troops.

No they aren't. Troops are a compulsory part of the army, special characters are optional to take as replacements to standard HQs or Unit leader upgrades.

That depends on what you're fielding.

Deathwing and Ravenwing cannot be fielded without Special Characters.

A Salamanders army can still be fielded without Vulkan, Ultramarines, etc can be fielded without their special characters.

SCs are an attempt to add to the flavor of the force, with traits representing the way these specific forces fight.

I don't like them. I don't like using them or playing against them. But in a competitive event i use them and play against them all the same

Ashtaroth wrote:special characters are just as integral to the codex as the troops- i never complain if someone brings a special character, or an 'overpowered' unit- it's in the codex, it's perfectly legal, and if i can't deal with it then my list is obviously flawed in a certain area, or my strategy is lacking- i'm not going to cry about the fact that my opponent has a C'tan and i only have a tyranid prime. it's the same points level, therefore it's fair and legal.

Agreed. In 3ed there were some overpowered SC heroes and they could be a bitch to play against. But just like in MtG, that just means I have to build an army that can beat that. We were always open with our lists so there never were any surprises mid-battle.

Can't be bothered to read entire thread, but my view is that Special Characters are now categorically part of the army lists and you should expect to face them in a game.

As for this being a ploy to shift expensive models, I think this is balanced out by the amount of points they use up, meaning less £££ required for rank and file models to make up your army.

I think that for most armies they are good, however with my Tau we are hosed. Daemons have an Ok selection. My high Elves, well every single one of them is viable.

I say if you can't win without a special character, state it.

As a side note, if you can win using the tau special ethereal, mad props to you.

As long as everything is WYSIWYG and you and your opponent discuss what's going on with your armies before the game like you probably should I don't see what the problem with Characters are.

The person the OP was playing seemed like he was just being a sore loser.

JOHIRA wrote:All things in all army lists require your opponent's permission to play, unless you've tied up your opponent in your basement and are holding a gun to their head. You do not need to ask special permission to field a special character though. An opponent agreeing to begin turn 1 after having seen your army list is implicit permission. Etiquette demands you make sure your opponent understands what your army is. Nothing is required beyond that.

That's not true at all.
If you and I are playing a game, I can play any legal army I want. Period.
You can choose not to play once you see my army list, but that isn't a matter of receiving your permission. It's a matter of you deciding not to play.

Had someone said something about "not knowing we were using special characters," I'd have politely replied that permission isn't necessary when playing characters any more. Unless you agree NOT to play them, there's no reason not to expect to see them.

Eric

Actually, the consensus from GW seems to have been for several editions that "special characters in the army books, and 'counts-as' using those characters as a basis are completely legal, and require no permissions. Special characters of your own design, however, require prior consent from your opponent".

Flashman wrote:As for this being a ploy to shift expensive models, I think this is balanced out by the amount of points they use up, meaning less £££ required for rank and file models to make up your army.

this

Me and some people are putting together a 1000 pt 'cron army for a friend, but it kept getting too expensive money-wise. In comes Nightbringer, €15,- for a third of the army saved the day
(as an added bonus, because of the C'tan, the army is now critically low on necrons, screaming for expansion)

Sidstyler wrote:People worry way too much about fluff.

Oh, but I *like* to worry about it! Fluff gets you a cool, cohesive army more often than not in my experience. (Using you as a jumping-off point, Sidstyler! )

If I'm going to field a special character, I'm going to base my army on him. As an Eldar player, if I'm going to go back in time and use Farseer Eldrad of Craftworld Ulthwe, there's going to be a Seer Council going with it, there's going to be a fairly large force of Black Guardians following him, and few Aspect Warriors. Since Ulthwe has so few Aspect Warriors, I'd expect a diminished amount of them- maybe a few Dark Reapers, in honor of Maugan Ra's contribution to Ulthwe, but not *many* more (I'd limit myself to 2 squads of Aspect Warriors total). The Avatar's summoning would be an exceedingly rare occurrence under Eldrad; unless it's a 3000-pt game that I'm playing, I don't think Ulthwe (or indeed Eldrad) would deem it necessary to sacrifice the current Young King for the engagement.

Prince Yriel of Iyanden will have an escort of 10 or maybe 20 Wraithguard and a Spiritseer or two, and there'll be 2 Wraithlords, 2 squads of Guardians marching with the Wraithguard, and a Farseer, and then I'll take Aspect Warriors (none of them in large squads, and hardly any of them will be represented twice) and vehicles to support the list. Iyanden is increasingly depending on Wraith-stuff to shore up its armies, and there's a noted lack of Aspect Warriors in Iyanden as well- why NOT use that fluff to make an army?

A Phoenix Lord has more flexibility. Sure, I'm definitely taking two squads of the Aspect in question, but then I leave the rest of my list to the Craftworld's fighting style. Often Karandras or Fuegan belongs to a Biel-Tan list, Maugan Ra goes to Ulthwe or Altansar, etc.

In my case, special characters enhance the joy of bringing an Eldar army. I like playing with such cool characters, and I like the variable challenge of winning with fluffier armies. It seems right to me that when you field a special character, you take fluff-appropriate choices, 'Ard Boyz notwithstanding. If you're going to take a Chapter Master, then by all means, capitalize on his special rules. Give your army flamers and meltas and what-have-you from that one random Chapter Master, make Sternguard scoring, it really doesn't matter all that much to me, so long as your army reflects that it's a Salamanders or Crimson Fists army. Use that fluff to make a list with a distinctive fighting style!

I don't always arbitrarily restrict myself in this way, especially when I'm not fielding a special character, and there's no way in hell I would ask other people to limit themselves to fluffy armies. For some games, I just want to make a Mechdar list, or a footslogging list, with no attention to fluff or craftworlds. I want to find evil combos of units, and I won't let the fluff stop me. But, if I'm using a noted hero with a history, I AM tailoring the list to make it appropriate to his backstory and to his craftworld. I can't expect others to do that, I just wish they would join me in this. And yes, wanting a better chance of winning has something to do with my objection to special characters used...strangely. I'd rather not face an army with both Colonel 'Iron Hand' Straken and St. Celestine, unless we're going for a massive ultra epic battle where every hero is coming along to add his/her 2 cents. Eldrad and the Avatar in an 1850 lists gets a millisecond-long frown from me, then I go back to smiling and joking while we play the game.

As for dynamos like Mephiston, whose unpainted/primed model I see in every damn BA list at my local store, ever...under my own love of fluff, I can't object to him. Mephiston (and Dante, there's always a bloody Dante in a deep striking Death Company squad) gives Blood Angels a somewhat fluffy feel. I mean, I don't know if HQ choices besides Mephiston exist at my local store, but at least he makes an army decidedly 'Blood Angels.' He's actually fairly easy to beat as an Eldar player, if you mech up and compulsively take Runes of Warding and Bright Lances like I do, but I don't know how other armies handle him, to be honest...

[/ramble] It's a point of foolish pride for me

Everything is fine as long as its codex legal.

The only thing I ask is that I can be informed of the special rules the character has so I dont get blind sided during the game. Alot of players forget to inform their opponents of a nasty trick here and there and can lead to messy situations.

Con Carne wrote:
He's actually fairly easy to beat as an Eldar player, if you mech up and compulsively take Runes of Warding and Bright Lances like I do, but I don't know how other armies handle him, to be honest...
[/ramble] It's a point of foolish pride for me

PLASMA! Lots and lots of plasma! In cannons even! I've left Death CO., Mephiston, and Lemartes steaming piles of superheated goo after 2 rounds. And they said my codex was pathetically underpowered... pfft.

Never under-estimate the power of The Lion =D

We may hide in the shadows . . . but you don't want to see us when we come out =p

Talking of Dark Angels, this brings me nicely onto another great way of showing fluffyness with Special Characters. If you're using Belial, why wouldn't you have 20 Terminators smashing stuff up? It raises an eyebrow or two when I plonk 20 Termies and Belial on the table, and it may be possibly one of the worst lists for a Dark Angel army in the majority of situations. But I enjoy it dammit =p

Now Azrael on the other hand, you're going to be seeing scores of big green men in dresses coming out of tin cans with tracks . . . maybe even ones with guns on them . . .(That would be Tactical squads in Rhinos or Razorbacks =p) . . . Then you've got have veterans of one kind or another knocking around. And the greatest fury you can bring to the table . . . for none must know the secrets of the Dark Angels . . . we must have no witnesses to our work!

And well Sammael is the same as Belial, but with bikes instead of Termies =p . . . Find the Fallen, torture the Fallen, and punish them for their crimes until they repent! . . . it's always fun to go . . . "OMG! There's a fallen in your army . . . GO GO RAVENWING!!!" =p

/religious fervour =D

Oshova

Special characters are useful sometimes, and sometimes they seriously let you down. I've experienced fielding Abaddon and had him roll a 1 for the number of attacks he gets for his Daemon weapon 3 turns in a row. I have also killed Marneus Calgar with mega-nobz because my stupid opponent sent him forward without an escorting unit. I've also included Mad Dok Grotsnik and used his special ability to give my Mega-nobz a 5+ invulnerable save, which makes space marine players go seriously red in the face. It's all in how you play them, and how dependent on them you are. They are powerful, but using them right is even more important than more common units.

warpcrafter wrote:I've experienced fielding Abaddon and had him roll a 1 for the number of attacks he gets for his Daemon weapon 3 turns in a row. I have also killed Marneus Calgar with mega-nobz because my stupid opponent sent him forward without an escorting unit.

Karandras, Phoenix Lord of the Striking Scorpions, teamed with 8 Striking Scorpions (including a claw Exarch), and opened fire on a group of 8 Genestealers in open ground before charging in. It was a delicate charge situation- I only wanted two bugs dead from shooting to ensure a charge, so I opened fire with crossed fingers. 0 died. There was trouble afoot. I charged anyway, knowing that Karandras would strike first with his 7 St5, WS7 chainsword attacks, the Genies would strike back, and the rest of the surviving, Fearless Scorps would unleash hell with 4 chainsword attacks each. Then the Exarch would masterfully slay at least one more buggy.

It's a good thing my guys were Fearless. One Genestealer died per turn over the next 3 close combat phases. Karandras claimed one of their lives, common Scorps got the other two.

Karandras was the last one to die, right beside the Exarch of the squad. The 5 remaining Genestealers ran into cover, and nabbed an objective.

That squad of Genestealers was later reduced to 1 member thanks to the crafty work of my Warp Spiders, and I even tried a desperate charge with Powerblades, but didn't make it through the 3 inches of terrain the bug was hiding in, and so the Tyranids won after Turn 5, holding 1 objective more than I did. The knowledge that I would have drawn the game had Karandras NOT failed in spectacular fashion leaves me with an abiding contempt for him now.

That's the risk of SCs, I know (what happens when Grimaldus doesn't get back up? What do you say after the Deceiver fails to pass a single 4+ invulnerable save? Where do you turn after Mephiston fails three psyker tests, WITHOUT any interference from the enemy?). The 'funnest' part is when someone begins the game moaning and groaning about how overpowered a certain character is, then rejoicing when that character fails utterly, and meets my sorrow with the words "He was overpowered anyway." (This has only happened once, during a PUG, thank goodness.)

Absolutley not. its your army and you shouldnt need your opponents permission to use a special character

I personally don't use special characters, mainly because I don't want to use Abbadon or the SW characters, but primarily because I like building my characters with what I have or making my own SC to use in games with friends. We balance our characters out through play testing.

I don't have a problem using SC, I do like being informed if I am going up against one though. There's this one guy at our GW that usually always asks if you'll allow him to play with SC. Which I think is nice, and he always asks if you'll allow him to use two, if he wants to take two.

I voted Yes because the entire game is one based off of consent.

Now the poll like many does not take into account varying factors. Thing like the difference between tournament and casual play. If you ask me, in person, the question that has been presented for the poll, I'd have two different answers.

At a tourney the answer would be no you do not have to ask, with the proviso of whether it violated the Tourney rules to have a special character. Now, you do have to tell me if I ask what is in your army, though.

Personally I announce such at the beginning of the gane because I feel not doing such is a douchebag P***y move. What? you afraid you can't win by facing your opponent with honor. Seriously, My deceptions are in my tactics not in my hiding an uber-unit in my list.

Now for casual games, yeah its based off of permission. What? You disagree? Try and make me play. If I'm out for a casual game and I don't want to face some power gamer with a themed army I'm building then the power gamer is SOL if now one wants to play.

Now mind you, the this is just an example. I'm almost always up for a game. Only times I turn down games is schedule or if past experience tells me that a 2 hour game will be a 5 hour argument with TFG.

Yep, game of consent.

There do seem to be some people in this thread that are stuck with the opinion that special characters are awesome when that just isn't the case. (see the comment about "every nid army would have Doom")

I can only assume that since they don't play special characters they're not basing this off any real experience.

I like to see to expensive special characters in my opponent's army - that just means less models to kill. Seriously, other than the army build unlocking ones, there are not many that are worth taking and even less that are significantly better than the same points of other stuff.

To answer the question, no permission is not required - they're no different to any other unit.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'd like to see them go back to being 'by agreement only'.

Soon as that happens they stop being used for the same reasons FW stuff is never used - people are afraid of losing (though they won't admit it) and therefore won't allow something that they think will give an advantage to their opponent.

Now, as it happens, a lot of the current crop of special characters do give an advantage (but they have to - how else is GW going to make money on a model someone will only ever buy once? They have to make everyone want to buy it, and rules are the best way to do that). As soon as 'requires permission' enters back into the 40K vocab, these units vanish.

I own all DE characters that have a mini except Asdrubael Vect, High Marshall Helbrecht and Chaplain Grimaldus for my BT and Saint Celestine for my SoB. This were bought to be used. But I also have a second Saint Celestine, one Khârn the Betrayer, one Abaddon the Despoiler, one Commander Dante, one Mephiston, two Tycho, one Corbulo... all of this were bought just because I loved the minis and I wanted to paint them. My second Celestine was bought to be converted by putting her wings, and I'll paint one Tycho in his golden armour, and the other in his black armour.

So I would say the rules are not the main reason to buy a miniature for many people.

In my "to buy" list: Ahriman, Typhus, Fabius Bile... and maybe the two new BA winged guys xDD

On the thread: I don't mind to wether say or not "this mini is this character", but I don't feel obligated at all to explain it's special rules. I learn some of the rules of other characters by reading them, and some other by experience. Same should be for my oponents, if you haven't worried of reading it's rules before... then welcome to the jungle! :O

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'd like to see them go back to being 'by agreement only'.

The biggest problem with having special characters be by argreement is with special build armies. I bring my wazzdakka army, you say no and I no longer have a legal army.

Scott-S6 wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'd like to see them go back to being 'by agreement only'.

The biggest problem with having special characters be by argreement is with special build armies. I bring my wazzdakka army, you say no and I no longer have a legal army.

Hence my suggestion that special characters simply become one example of a build, you give all the powers and bits n bobs they bring and assign them a points cost and make them available to standard HQs in the codex.

You can then tailor your hqs to build such armies:

'Born ta be wild!' The Warboss may take bikes as troop choices, those specifically taken as troop choices count as scoring = #pts.
'WaaaghLord' The Warboss is mighty indeed and benefits from the following stat increases +2W +1WS +1T +1S =#pts.

'The Host of Hosts' You may upgrade your Captain to a Blood Angel Commander for the following points cost, this allows you to take Sanguinary Guard as troops choices.

See? I think that's a lot better and can allow people to tailor characters to their want, So for example with my Blood Axe Warlord, I could buy things that allowed say, battlewagons to be taken, minus a killkannon, as troop transports rather than Heavy Support choices, also Kommandos as troop choices or for a reduced points cost and stormboys that didn't lose troops on bad dice rolls for movement.

Allow more theme in the army via HQ choices, rather than less.
Special characters would still exist, but simply as examples of combinations of the 'powers' choices available to all HQs.

That's fine in some hypothetical future edition. However, in the current edition making SCs permission only creates a problem.

captain sicarius doesnt need permission
but 40k night goblin chaos lord needs
thats fair

The poll needs three questions not two.

Question 1 should have been split into

A. Get permission.
B. Be announced.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'd like to see them go back to being 'by agreement only'.

The biggest problem with having special characters be by argreement is with special build armies. I bring my wazzdakka army, you say no and I no longer have a legal army.

Hence my suggestion that special characters simply become one example of a build, you give all the powers and bits n bobs they bring and assign them a points cost and make them available to standard HQs in the codex.

You can then tailor your hqs to build such armies:

'Born ta be wild!' The Warboss may take bikes as troop choices, those specifically taken as troop choices count as scoring = #pts.
'WaaaghLord' The Warboss is mighty indeed and benefits from the following stat increases +2W +1WS +1T +1S =#pts.

'The Host of Hosts' You may upgrade your Captain to a Blood Angel Commander for the following points cost, this allows you to take Sanguinary Guard as troops choices.

Why not just bring back a strategy card system for standard 40K that allows stuff like this.

Elite army: May take a specific elite choice as troops

etc., etc.

No point costs, but you pick x number (eitehr a flat number or based upon game size)

If everyone has access it is a matter of picking 1-2 cards before each game with having to fudge points

Doesn't having that avaible identically across all armies kinda reduce the differentiation between races? Not to mention that it becomes difficult to balance if it's applied to every codex.

How is that acceptable but having special characters that do is not?

Scott-S6 wrote:Doesn't having that avaible identically across all armies kinda reduce the differentiation between races? Not to mention that it becomes difficult to balance if it's applied to every codex.

How is that acceptable but having special characters that do is not?

I have zero issue with special characters.

But one of the biggest complaints in this thread have been things like "this character is broken" or "this character is cheesy", etc. suggesting that other armies have something they do not and thus it is unfair.

If you make access to traits and/abilities broader across armies then people as a whole have less to complain about because you have lessoned the "grass is greener..." phenomenon.

It would be very easy to have tiered cards for example, with various ones worth 1-3 points. Each player gets 3 stratagy points and picks cards as apart of list creation. So you could pick one 3 pt. card or three 1 pt. cards. The cards would have abilities/options in keeping with cost of card.

Another option rather than a flat 3pts. for each player is to have the strategy card points related to levels of HQ. So for example a future codexes might go back to having multiple HQ levels such as for Marines three levels of commander: force commander, captain and chapter master, etc.

Then have the points tied to those levels, so a force commander gets 1 strategy card point and a chapter master gets three, etc. In addition to adding variety to game play and list design, this would allow people who wished to in effect make their own "characters" by modeling their HQ to represent the cards chosen in some way, so for example a commander given an artillery barrage asset might be modeled holding binocculars or calling in a bombardment on a vox, etc.

As for balance? You will always have people that will QQ and complain about balance, some people just because they like to make noise, but that doesnt mean a system couldn't be devised.

I would structure them as "strtategy/battle plan" cards, fir example off the top of my head:

1. One might have to do with flanking/reserves

2. One might represent wave attacks and allow troops to recycle

3. One might represnt an elite formation allowing you to take a specific elite type as troops

4. One might be naval assets allowing bombardments

There are a million potential themes and concepts that could be used, and Im not going to propose specifics here as it is beyond the scope of this thread, but the concept is doable. Such a system of traits would allow for additional ones to be added in future expansions (like COD-style books, etc.) or things like WD (hurray for actual game content in WD).


I think the various strategy cars in things like COD and Apoc. have the right idea and a system similar to this could be very easily incorporated into standard 40K as a way to customize armies, and vary game play etc.

CT GAMER wrote:But one of the biggest complaints in this thread have been things like "this character is broken" or "this character is cheesy", etc. suggesting that other armies have something they do not and thus it is unfair.

If you make access to traits and/abilities broader across armies then people as a whole have less to complain about because you have lessoned the "grass is greener..." phenomenon.

Every army has stuff that all the others don't.

As such, I feel that any kind of bonus system like you described will fail - some of the bonuses will be much better for some armies. Which will lead to the exact same complaining as about SCs from the exact same people.

Scott-S6 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:But one of the biggest complaints in this thread have been things like "this character is broken" or "this character is cheesy", etc. suggesting that other armies have something they do not and thus it is unfair.

If you make access to traits and/abilities broader across armies then people as a whole have less to complain about because you have lessoned the "grass is greener..." phenomenon.

Every army has stuff that all the others don't.

As such, I feel that any kind of bonus system like you described will fail - some of the bonuses will be much better for some armies. Which will lead to the exact same complaining as about SCs from the exact same people.

Well 40K is a flawed system for what a lot of people want to do with it tp begin with: play it super competitively.

If more people looked at it as a miniatures-based RPG rather than as a sport we wouldn't be having a lot of these discussions, but the "sportshammer" mentality is the monster that GW created, and I don't expect that will ever change...

You say that but it usually seems to be the hobbyist players that complain the most about balance - the super competitive players take what the rules offer and run with it.

Scott-S6 wrote:You say that but it usually seems to be the hobbyist players that complain the most about balance - the super competitive players take what the rules offer and run with it.

You must be reading a different Dakka Dakka forum than I am...

I hate the idea of putting cards into the game. The mini's are enough to keep up with and now you want me to have to keep track of cards? Card games are fine, but I'm not playing a card game; if I wanted to I'd pick up a pack of cards for $4 and play WAR with them. much cheaper and the battles last just as long. This'll just complicate things even more to no point whatsoever as they will still whine and cry because their army doesn't wipe everything off the table. That can only be fixed by sending the individuals to boot camp and I'm fairly certain GW doesn't have the power to do that.

CT GAMER wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:You say that but it usually seems to be the hobbyist players that complain the most about balance - the super competitive players take what the rules offer and run with it.

You must be reading a different Dakka Dakka forum than I am...

Just look at this thread. It's the hobby players and in-favour-of-comp players that don't want special characters. How many of the no-comp tourney players have said they should be banned?

I'd like the powers to all just have points costs, like making an individual eldar exarch used to be, back in the White Dwarf compendium days...

Scott-66 wrote:Just look at this thread. It's the hobby players and in-favour-of-comp players that don't want special characters. How many of the no-comp tourney players have said they should be banned?

So what?

Everyone doesn't have to like special characters just because GW changed a rule.

I certainly wouldn't want special characters banned from the game. I think being able to take those fluff heroes and villains and get them murdering each other on you're own tabletop is groovy...

I would certainly favour a de-emphasis on them however. I like seeing people's own characters and fluff, rather than cut and paste templates.

Kilkrazy wrote:Everyone doesn't have to like special characters just because GW changed a rule.

I never suggested that they did. CTGamer said that it's the competitive players that are the source of balance complaints - I would say that the bulk of these complaints come from the hobby and pro-comp players.

That is irrelevant to the issue whether it is correct or not.

It diverts attention from the key point which is whether it is polite to mention and explain special characters to your opponent.

It doesn't matter why someone may or may not like special characters, what matters is whether people can have a game without arguments about them.

Explaining surprise units at the start is a good way of preventing unpleasantness later on.

I'm amused by all the complaints - I'll be fielding a list using 7 named characters in it on the weekend of the 3rd & 4th.

-----------------

Unless there is a prior agreement not to use special characters, I can't see any reason why you shouldn't use them. Just make sure your opponent is clear on who they are, and what their rules are, and you're good to go.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I certainly wouldn't want special characters banned from the game. I think being able to take those fluff heroes and villains and get them murdering each other on you're own tabletop is groovy...

I would certainly favour a de-emphasis on them however. I like seeing people's own characters and fluff, rather than cut and paste templates.

Quite frankly?

The template method, in my opinion, works far far better than people developing their own characters. People get way too defensive about their own creations, even when they're quite clearly poorly balanced characters, which makes it hard to get any kind of real semblance of balance going with homebrewed Special Characters.

Kanluwen wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I certainly wouldn't want special characters banned from the game. I think being able to take those fluff heroes and villains and get them murdering each other on you're own tabletop is groovy...

I would certainly favour a de-emphasis on them however. I like seeing people's own characters and fluff, rather than cut and paste templates.

Quite frankly?

The template method, in my opinion, works far far better than people developing their own characters. People get way too defensive about their own creations, even when they're quite clearly poorly balanced characters, which makes it hard to get any kind of real semblance of balance going with homebrewed Special Characters.

Kanluwen I think your misunderstanding his point.

I think what he means is that people used to spend lots of time and tlc converting HQ models to represent named "characters" they had invented in fluff for their forces, I don't think he is talking about homebrew rules.

People used to get excited about coming up with fluff and background for "Lord Krogor the exalted, chaos lord of Khorne" and come up with ways to convert and paint a unique individual model simply for story purposes, not to take advantage of some special characters rules.

People seemed to like trying to develop their own little piece of the 40K fluff and themed armies as a way to bring the setting and their games to life.

I see that far less often these days.

Same with terrain: it used to be a matter of pride to build cool terrain, now most tables are covered with commercial kits and all look the same.

To be honest the old days seemed to have more artistry and creativity.

GW is a "cut and paste" company now" and most of the players seem content to follow their lead...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:You say that but it usually seems to be the hobbyist players that complain the most about balance - the super competitive players take what the rules offer and run with it.

You must be reading a different Dakka Dakka forum than I am...

Just look at this thread. It's the hobby players and in-favour-of-comp players that don't want special characters. How many of the no-comp tourney players have said they should be banned?

Well I'm a hobby player. I don't play tournaments or leagues, and prefer scenarios and campaigns. That being said I don't agree with comp systems and I have no issue with special characters. If there is a rule for something (official, FW, whatever) and you want to field it, go for it.

I 'd rather play a good scenario or campaign (balanced or not) then sit around and listen to whining and rules lawyering from the TFG crowd...

Heck i don't even ask to see army lists prior to playing.

ymmv...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:I hate the idea of putting cards into the game. The mini's are enough to keep up with and now you want me to have to keep track of cards? Card games are fine, but I'm not playing a card game; if I wanted to I'd pick up a pack of cards for $4 and play WAR with them. much cheaper and the battles last just as long. This'll just complicate things even more to no point whatsoever as they will still whine and cry because their army doesn't wipe everything off the table. That can only be fixed by sending the individuals to boot camp and I'm fairly certain GW doesn't have the power to do that.

Your missing the point. It doesnt need to be actual cards. that was just an example as 40K used to have just such a card system in the days of 2nd edition/Dark Millenium.

it could just as easily be written into the codexes/rule book.

The form isnt important.

I do it all the time using special character to make my home brew characters,

This one uses all the rules for Sicarius.

Captain Octavian of the 6th Company, Blood Ravens, whose family was expelled from the nobility on Ultramar and stripped of all title and wealth, he was later born and recruited by the Blood Ravens.

He harbours a deep hatred for the Ultramarines, and his families former Ultramar heretige means he uses their symbols, regalia and has a Talassian power Sword.

His desire is to prove the Ultramarine folly in expelling his family by eclipsing all their deeds with his own.



is that not a homebrew special character?

Announce them yes, ask for permission no. I think you should only use special characters if they match your fluff though. (Ulthwe=Eldrad, Smurfs=Calgar)

CT GAMER wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I certainly wouldn't want special characters banned from the game. I think being able to take those fluff heroes and villains and get them murdering each other on you're own tabletop is groovy...

I would certainly favour a de-emphasis on them however. I like seeing people's own characters and fluff, rather than cut and paste templates.

Quite frankly?

The template method, in my opinion, works far far better than people developing their own characters. People get way too defensive about their own creations, even when they're quite clearly poorly balanced characters, which makes it hard to get any kind of real semblance of balance going with homebrewed Special Characters.

Kanluwen I think your misunderstanding his point.

I think what he means is that people used to spend lots of time and tlc converting HQ models to represent named "characters" they had invented in fluff for their forces, I don't think he is talking about homebrew rules.

Maybe. However, I really don't see the issue of using an existing character as a sort of template to have a more "heroic" hero, if you catch my meaning. They even go so far in the more recent codexes to say that it's entirely acceptable to use the existing characters, with a name change and a properly created model as your own created hero.

People used to get excited about coming up with fluff and background for "Lord Krogor the exalted, chaos lord of Khorne" and come up with ways to convert and paint a unique individual model simply for story purposes, not to take advantage of some special characters rules.

Quite frankly, it's still possible to get that fluff and background going with a lot of 'dexes. The problem, however, is that the trend more and more seems to be the fact that people don't want their vision of their grand hero to be constrained by simply being "generic" Marine Captains, Guard Senior Officers, etc---or that the majority of players have moved from doing campaign/story driven games to doing tournaments.
Tournaments alone will kill how much free time most people want to spend on designing the backgrounds of their armies.

People seemed to like trying to develop their own little piece of the 40K fluff and themed armies as a way to bring the setting and their games to life.
I see that far less often these days.

You see it far less often, in my opinion, simply because of people being more interested in tournament gaming--and I don't think the recent boom in younger players joining does much for it either, since they just go for what's already there rather than doing conversions.

Same with terrain: it used to be a matter of pride to build cool terrain, now most tables are covered with commercial kits and all look the same.

This one I have to disagree with you on. You'd see one or two well-built pieces of terrain built by "that guy who knows how"(usually a guy who also does scale modeling or train layouts)--and then the rest would be styrofoam blocks gaudily painted with random crap glued in. The plastic terrain kits, while limited in range, are a godsend for gaming groups who want to get more people involved with making terrain--not just one person making it all(and getting overwhelmed by making everything for the shop/group's tables).

To be honest the old days seemed to have more artistry and creativity.

Not really. I think they just seemed that way, personally. I've seen some gorgeous things done with the current terrain/plastic kits.

GW is a "cut and paste" company now" and most of the players seem content to follow their lead...

Maybe so, but I'd far rather see people cutting inside the lines and not lathering everything in glue, then rolling it in their bits pile. Wouldn't you?

CT Gamer wrote:
Well I'm a hobby player. I don't play tournaments or leagues, and prefer scenarios and campaigns. That being said I don't agree with comp systems and I have no issue with special characters. If there is a rule for something (official, FW, whatever) and you want to field it, go for it.

I 'd rather play a good scenario or campaign (balanced or not) then sit around and listen to whining and rules lawyering from the TFG crowd...
ymmv...

Agreed. I'm working on two big things(a DA Successor Chapter "Order of the Grey Blade"--led by Uriel, the Silent Watcher and his Seneschals(Deathwing equivalent) and the accompanying support from The Noctivagant Vigil(Scouts and Ravenwing equivalent) and my Guard Regiment, the Cadian 82nd Special Tasks Group(think mechanized strike troops, with large numbers of Sentinels and tanks intended for striking right at the heart of Ork Waaghs!) led by one Ward-Captain Zachariah Greer and his bodyguard, one Sergeant Pater Lureth) right now, in preparation for a big big campaign game I'm planning out for the group.

And hell, if I do it right--I might be able to get my friends who aren't interested in 40k in on it, simply from having a well-designed and well-painted force to get their interest piqued.

Kanluwen wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I certainly wouldn't want special characters banned from the game. I think being able to take those fluff heroes and villains and get them murdering each other on you're own tabletop is groovy...

I would certainly favour a de-emphasis on them however. I like seeing people's own characters and fluff, rather than cut and paste templates.

Quite frankly?

The template method, in my opinion, works far far better than people developing their own characters. People get way too defensive about their own creations, even when they're quite clearly poorly balanced characters, which makes it hard to get any kind of real semblance of balance going with homebrewed Special Characters.

Kanluwen I think your misunderstanding his point.

I think what he means is that people used to spend lots of time and tlc converting HQ models to represent named "characters" they had invented in fluff for their forces, I don't think he is talking about homebrew rules.

Maybe. However, I really don't see the issue of using an existing character as a sort of template to have a more "heroic" hero, if you catch my meaning. They even go so far in the more recent codexes to say that it's entirely acceptable to use the existing characters, with a name change and a properly created model as your own created hero.

Why?

The only 'counts as' you see are for a handful of the special characters, why not open the 'skills and powers' charts up in future editions and allow more tailored characters for individuals to make their own choices.

More choice isn't a bad thing, at all.

But you pretty much in your second train of thought nailed the potential issue.

It's something that would have to be done "in future editions", with them balancing for each and every possible permutation of skills and powers--and redoing all the codexes at once.

Kanluwen wrote:
It's something that would have to be done "in future editions", with them balancing for each and every possible permutation of skills and powers--and redoing all the codexes at once.

It would most certainly be better than the character creep that has occurred with changes in attitude in the design team over the past 10+ years for the existing codices.

Consider the difference between Blood Angels specials and Tau specials... We don't have balance atm with them.

Quite frankly:

Tau and Guard(and to a lesser extent: Eldar) special characters are always going to be huge steps down from Marine characters, no matter what. They're not, for the most part, meant to be close combat monsters who tear through everyone they see and single-handily win games for you. They(ideally) should be support characters.

Look at Chenkov and Al'Rahem as good examples.

More options is harder to balance.

Its easier to know how a character will play when he has 3 rules and cant change them.

When a character can choose a combo of 12 rules its easy to break the game.

Also you have to explain every rule, explain what your character has, etc etc etc.

Where as you can just go "This dude is using Calgar's rules" and that explains what he has.

I really like the current ed system. Sometimes too much choice can be a bad thing.

To Kanluwen, you're being somewhat obtuse here, we can all agree the majority of characters for tau and ImpG should not be combat monsters and instead provide utility.

Whilst the Guard characters do that competently, the tau special characters punch under their weight now, due to character creep along with the codices.

To Roleplayer, that all depends on the design team now doesn't it... (I know, that means you just won that one... XD)

Your missing the point. It doesnt need to be actual cards. that was just an example as 40K used to have just such a card system in the days of 2nd edition/Dark Millenium.

it could just as easily be written into the codexes/rule book.

The form isnt important

The form was in and of itself a point, because its a pain in the rear. Secondly, I still don't like the idea as per the second half of my post because it complicates things unnecessarily because whiners who can't wipe their opponent in two turns with 'uber' characters are still going to whine.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:To Kanluwen, you're being somewhat obtuse here, we can all agree the majority of characters for Tau and ImpG should not be combat monsters and instead provide utility.

Whilst the Guard characters do that competently, the Tau special characters punch under their weight now, due to character creep along with the codices.

I'm not trying to be obtuse on purpose. I've just always found that the Tau special characters are kinda "meh" on the whole, outside of the ones we've seen from Forge World(R'myr wasn't bad at all, considering what he could've been. Outside of him being overpriced pointswise, like 99% of FW's stuff), have been terrible. Even the previous book when it was brand spankin' new and at the top of the line for codex creep--the characters just weren't that good.

Personally? I predict them next Codex getting Scout-Sergeant Telion styled upgrade equivalents for Fire Warriors, Pathfinders, and Stealth Suits. Maybe their own version of Pask too for the Hammerheads. Hell, maybe even some special characters for the Kroot/Vespid units too.

Otherwise I just can't see what you can really do for Tau outside of going against the fluff and giving them super shooty/fighty/dead 'ard characters.

I don't see why a Tau character shouldn't be super shooty however it would be better to make them synergise with the rest of the army. For example a Sergeant Pask/Telion character could allow Hammerheads to be taken as squadrons.

(OTOH this could simply be a standard part of the codex as the Leman Russ squadrons are in IG.)

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't see why a Tau character shouldn't be super shooty however it would be better to make them synergise with the rest of the army. For example a Sergeant Pask/Telion character could allow Hammerheads to be taken as squadrons.

(OTOH this could simply be a standard part of the codex as the Leman Russ squadrons are in IG.)

The do seem to be moving towards that, don't they? (Or at least cruddance is)

I'd declare I'm using them. Wouldn't ask permission though...

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't see why a Tau character shouldn't be super shooty however it would be better to make them synergise with the rest of the army. For example a Sergeant Pask/Telion character could allow Hammerheads to be taken as squadrons.

(OTOH this could simply be a standard part of the codex as the Leman Russ squadrons are in IG.)

I'm meaning more that they shouldn't be 100% combat oriented characters, but rather more support characters. I could see Tau getting something similar to the Guard's Orders system.

The strange thing is that at the moment, the higher level your Tau characters the better they are at H2H combat. The only thing holding them back from being combat gods is lack of power weapons.

Every step up in Tau rank increases WS or A. Often it increases BS too.

I would rather that high level Tau characters get more shooting attacks per turn than H2H. It seems much more in keeping with the army fluff. Or to put it differently, it makes nonsense of the fluff to improve Tau H2H at higher ranks.

Does it make sense that the philosopher-priest-kings of a pacificistic society which abhors H2H combat would settle their disagreements by halberd duelling?????!?!?!?!?/1

I have always assumed that GW's designers are so wedded to the H2H mechanism that they couldn't manage to break away from it even for the least H2H-ey and most shooty army in the game.

Could even have a tau special character grant a unit in the army 'overwatch' just like the rule from back in the day.

MGS: Only when my Guard get it too!

KK: Which characters in particular are we talking about? The Space Pope's WS is even worse than a Gretchin's.

His bodyguard however, which if I had to guess would be either Ethereals themselves or low ranking but highly experienced Fire Caste Officers (Shas'el or maybe a Shas'vre), are on par with the "elites" in their army.

Which are still just barely the equivalent of most Guard characters or your basic Space Marine.

The only thing that really sticks out to me is Farsight's WS being 5 rather than 4 like the rest of the Crisis Suited options--but that could just be the Dawn Blade.

As for the fluff part about the Ethereals/Fire Caste being "pacifistic"--that's not the case. Ethereals train alongside the Fire Caste, or at least it's hinted at that in that blurb with the Imperial Fist Marine and the Imperial Bureaucrat talking with the Ethereal. I don't think the Ethereals(for the most part) are ones for just sitting back and letting everyone else do the heavy lifting.

@Kanluwen-KK is talking about the normal rank progression. FW start of at WS2 and BS 3 and their first stat improvement is to get another attack. The second improvement is to WS and I.

It just makes no sense for their stats to increase in HtH but not their BS.

Eh, the BS part makes a bit of sense.

They've got terrible depth perception, and rely upon their equipment's sensor-suites to compensate.

Yes folks. The Tau's badass helmets are really just glasses!

@Kanluwen-You are working off a false assumption about the eyesight. The only bit of fluff says that their eyes focus more slowly. It never mentions poor depth perception or how slowly they re-focus.

The time for their eyes to adjust could reasonbly only be a tenth to a hundredth of a second slower due to the eyes being the reason the Tau have a slower I value. I 2 vs I 3 would be about a tenth to a hundredth of a second difference in reaction time.

Also, the distance changes for targets that are more than a few feet distant require little to no refocusing of the eye. Refocusing of the eye only becomes really noticeable for targets that are very close.
Oddly enough, the same is true for depth perception when firing a riflle. It doesn't come into play.(Think about optical scopes, you use only one eye.)

But we are geting a bit off topic. I think the point KK was trying make is that Tau commanders should only be WS 3 (Except for Farsight) and that the Ethereals fluff about the honourblades makes no sense from the Tau army's design philosophy.

And yes, Tau SC are less than optimal and I think that that is intentional. The Tau are about the ability of the group to overcome, not about individual ego/being better that everyone else.

As far as I am concerned in friendly games during the pre deployment chat I will tell my opponenet that I am using x special character (usually Ragnar) and pass him the codex open at the relevant page so he can see what he does. I don't expect this in return, in the unlikely event I don't know the characters rules I will simply ask if he grants any army wide rules.

At a tournament I will show my opponent my army list and that is it it is his problem if he doesn't know the rules. If he questions a rule I will show him the relevant line in the codex. At the end of the day I play friendly games for fun and tournaments to win.

In a more concise answer to the OP I believe in any situation you should make it clear you have takes a special character but there is no need to ask permission so long as that characters rules appear in a Codex and are not from a different non GW source.

IF its just a friendly game, then yea, there is a question of etiquette. Its not very fun when someone drops a LR with Calgar and TH/SS terminators when your suppose to be playing a fun game, that ruins it fast.

But if its an important match/game and you want to win, screw being polite, you kick their teeth in if you can. Infact in a game where it matters, youd better be expecting to see some special characters.

So fun games make sure you discuss if special characters are in or out.

Roleplayer wrote:I do it all the time using special character to make my home brew characters,

This one uses all the rules for Sicarius.

Captain Octavian of the 6th Company, Blood Ravens, whose family was expelled from the nobility on Ultramar and stripped of all title and wealth, he was later born and recruited by the Blood Ravens.

He harbours a deep hatred for the Ultramarines, and his families former Ultramar heretige means he uses their symbols, regalia and has a Talassian power Sword.

His desire is to prove the Ultramarine folly in expelling his family by eclipsing all their deeds with his own.



is that not a homebrew special character?

The only thing I like more than this idea is your model.

KingCracker wrote:IF its just a friendly game, then yea, there is a question of etiquette. Its not very fun when someone drops a LR with Calgar and TH/SS terminators when your suppose to be playing a fun game, that ruins it fast.

But if its an important match/game and you want to win, screw being polite, you kick their teeth in if you can. Infact in a game where it matters, youd better be expecting to see some special characters.

So fun games make sure you discuss if special characters are in or out.

With all due respect this sort of attitude I don't understand for a number of reasons:

1. What exactly is "unfun" about using or trying to beat Calgar( or any other character)?

It isn't like the model causes cancer or leaves you with an incurable disease if someone fields it.

I rather relish the challenge of beating a tough list, and Calgar is a cool model so if my opponent wants to field it, then I have zero issue with it. I encounter plenty of things in armies that are MORE "unfun" then special characters on a regular basis.

I think that "fun" is a subjective thing to be sure, but I think a lot of it has to do with the mindset that you bring to the table. Fun is what you make of it. This isn't life or death.

If someone owns a model and wants to field it, then seriously WTF is the big deal?!?

I think people take this hobby far too seriously sometimes...

@CT Gamer- The problem your not addressing is that there are many players(Yes, even competitive tourney players) that want to run a fluff based casual list and in order to do so their lists are less than optimal.
If your running a fluffy scouting list that is designed around the early light skirmishes of a battle, this force is not going to stand head to head with a full comp list. While yes, it can be an exhilarating challenge, it may not be the challenge they are looking for at that moment. Your opponent may just be in the mood for battle that doesn't involve galactically known heros that lead first turn assaults.

You can agree that it is best to discuss what each of you are expecting out of the game. Yes?

focusedfire wrote:@CT Gamer- The problem your not addressing is that there are many players(Yes, even competitive tourney players) that want to run a fluff based casual list and in order to do so their lists are less than optimal.
If your running a fluffy scouting list that is designed around the early light skirmishes of a battle, this force is not going to stand head to head with a full comp list. While yes, it can be an exhilarating challenge, it may not be the challenge they are looking for at that moment. Your opponent may just be in the mood for battle that doesn't involve galactically known heros that lead first turn assaults.

You can agree that it is best to discuss what each of you are expecting out of the game. Yes?

there is a difference between discussing what you enjoy and would like to participate in with a potential opponent and climbing on a high horse and demanding people play the way you want them to under threat of scorn and being labeled as TFG.

I just get the feeling that people place way too effort into making 40K "s3rious business1111" sometimes....

CT GAMER wrote:there is a difference between discussing what you enjoy and would like to participate in with a potential opponent and climbing on a high horse and demanding people play the way you want them to under threat of scorn and being labeled as TFG.

I just get the feeling that people place way too effort into making 40K "s3rious business1111" sometimes....

I absolutely agree with both of your statements. They are the reason why communication is important. The OP made a mistake by not adding a third,"Depends upon the gaming enviroment", answer to the poll. The answer to this question is very much situational.

Situation a)If you are at a tournament, then you should be aware of what the tournaments standards are. As long as your opponent and his army are within those standards, you need to shut up and play or if you do not want to play then forfiet without complaint(It is a game of consent)

Situation b) You both meet at your LGS and agree to a pick-up game. Before you set a single model on the table you should have mentioned whether or not you run any SC's and asked if your opponent is comfortable playing against your list. If he agrees then he has no one to blame but himself if he gets his keister handed to him. If you on the other hand spring a SC on him as a suprise then this would be a breach in ettiqiette. If your opponent does not want to play against a SC in a casual game that is his right to do so without any recriminations.

Most of these problems would never happen with good communication and a bit of man-training.

I'm pretty much an observer at this point, but I think the 'feel' of the current edition of 40k is such that they should be legal without opponent's permission. They're the mechanism for a lot of the interesting army builds under the current design philosophy.

Balance wrote:I'm pretty much an observer at this point, but I think the 'feel' of the current edition of 40k is such that they should be legal without opponent's permission. They're the mechanism for a lot of the interesting army builds under the current design philosophy.

I agree, and I voted no too, but...

I understand how much some special characters can shape the game. For example I have an Eldar list that centers around both Eldraad and Yriel together, and If I play the list with a regular Farseer, it is completely different, and significantly less effective. On the one hand, I don't want to subject my regular gaming friends to Eldraad and Yriel every time I play Eldar, but on the other hand they are regular choices in the rule book so I would expect to be able to bring them anytime I wanted and not get criticized.

I can appreciate what I think is implied in the OP, that sometimes, some discretion might be advised to NOT play the high power characters all the time, or at least to give some warning beforehand, assuming one is not in a tournament and one is playing friends, yea, I would probably at least give someone a heads up, hey, I am playing Eldraad and Yriel, or I am playing Mephiston or Ragnar etc. Just so they have a chance to come ready.

But I might do that for my army anyway, regardless of special characters, for example I'm going to play mechdar, or Razorwolves. That's just good sports with yer mates!

From a practical viewpoint, if someone insisted on playing two super high power special characters every game, a lot of their mates would probably get so pee-ed off they would just refuse to play with them.

No matter what the rulebook says about "permission".

Kilkrazy wrote:From a practical viewpoint, if someone insisted on playing two super high power special characters every game, a lot of their mates would probably get so pee-ed off they would just refuse to play with them.

No matter what the rulebook says about "permission".

Couldn't the same be said about all the "power builds" and netdecked lists that everyone plays and raves about on this very forum and in stores on a regular basis?

Focusing on special characters as some huge transgression seems a relatively myopic stance considering that carbon-copy list netdecking and min/maxing are far greater culprits in making 40K "unfun" imho...

Hmmm, I love special characters cause I like epic stories that other people already know about.

Honestly, if you field a super character combo I would never have an issue even in a friendly game beacause for the majority of people if you see a special character you know how they will be playing the game. Eliminates guessing.

Bring 'em on!

CT GAMER wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:From a practical viewpoint, if someone insisted on playing two super high power special characters every game, a lot of their mates would probably get so pee-ed off they would just refuse to play with them.

No matter what the rulebook says about "permission".

Couldn't the same be said about all the "power builds" and netdecked lists that everyone plays and raves about on this very forum and in stores on a regular basis?

Focusing on special characters as some huge transgression seems a relatively myopic stance considering that carbon-copy list netdecking and min/maxing are far greater culprits in making 40K "unfun" imho...

Yes, the same could be said about all power builds.

It doesn't make it all right.

Orion_44 wrote:Hmmm, I love special characters cause I like epic stories that other people already know about.

Honestly, if you field a super character combo I would never have an issue even in a friendly game beacause for the majority of people if you see a special character you know how they will be playing the game. Eliminates guessing.

Bring 'em on!

YEEEAAAHHH!!!

If I want Tigurius and Calgar, what are you gonna do to stop me??!! If I want abaddon and ahriman, do I care what you think? NNOOO!


Anyway, I just realized that I always tell people my list anyway, so I never have a problem with this anyway. After telling them, I usually realize that it was a dumb idea anyway, and I'm like, huh. For the price of abaddon, I could get a maxed lash prince and a khorne prince.

No contest. Special characters are only as good as the rest of your army. Case and point, the Nightbringer. Cookie-cutter builds with the nightbringer are NOT good lists just because c'tan is in there.

Kilkrazy wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:From a practical viewpoint, if someone insisted on playing two super high power special characters every game, a lot of their mates would probably get so pee-ed off they would just refuse to play with them.

No matter what the rulebook says about "permission".

Couldn't the same be said about all the "power builds" and netdecked lists that everyone plays and raves about on this very forum and in stores on a regular basis?

Focusing on special characters as some huge transgression seems a relatively myopic stance considering that carbon-copy list netdecking and min/maxing are far greater culprits in making 40K "unfun" imho...

Yes, the same could be said about all power builds.

It doesn't make it all right.

But apparently it is "right" enough to warrant a whole section of dakka set up to celebrate it...


At the end of the day using a model that you payed money for and spent the time to build and paint and is perfectly legal is not an issue for me.

If you want to field it, go for it, I relish the opportunity to try and pound that character into the ground, and if I dont?

I think I'll be ok and able to carry on with life...

People seem to want to equate the desire to play a special character with some nefarious motive (power gaming, desire to make the game "unfun", etc. ,etc.) when this may be far from the truth.

As I said before I very rarely use special character myself ( I have used a special character in exactly one game this edition), but I am opposed to people trying to bully/guilt opponents into what to field. My stance is that if a lists has models and rules for something and you want to field it then go for it, be it regular codex, FW rules, whatever.

As for encounter's with those that want to take offense over a model/unit I stand by my usual response to such behavior:

I will gladly allow you to veto from my list whatever it is you find so troubling, be it special characters, random unit that gets you all hot and bothered, whatever, but I get that same veto option on your list on a 1:1 basis.

You don't like my special character or my battle wagons? Cool, but I don't like your land raiders or your basalisks so say bye bye, etc.

What I have found is that most people who act this way are very eager to want to strike other people's stuff from availability but are not so eager to give their opponent that same power...

Why not? My definition of what is "unfun" is just as valid as yours...

Your attitude seems to be that you can do anything you like as long as it is in the codex or Forge World book.

What I am saying is that you need the co-operation of your prospective opponent in order to play a game. Being polite, and recognising that different people have different playing styles, is a good way to achieve this.

If your opponent says he doesn't want to play with special characters, just saying he has to because it is in the codex won't change his mind.

It might be more productive to suggest a compromise whereby both special characters and tanks are dropped for this game, then play another game with them back in.

focusedfire wrote:

Situation b) You both meet at your LGS and agree to a pick-up game. Befire you set a single model on the table you should have mentioned whether or not you run any SC's and asked if yout opponent is comfortable playing against your list. If he agrees then he has no one to blame but himself if he gets his keister handed to him. If you on the other hand spring a SC on him as a suprise then this would be a breach in ettiqiette. If your opponent does not want to play against a SC in a casual game that is his right to do so without any recriminations.

Most of these problems would never happen with good communication and a bit of man-training.

I don't really agree with this if you have turned up for a game with your normal army and someone wants to play you then you use your list there are ways round it but it would piss me off if someone said do you want a game but you can't bring Ragar or Ulrik (examples). I could understand if it was a new player and I have lists that are nice and friendly that will help people learn but if you are a regular player then play what is put on the table. As long as it isn't IA or Apoc then there should be no problem (these are a different subject). If a unit is in the Codex it is perfectly fine to take it otherwise people will winge if you take more than one Land Raider or Nobz on bikes etc. The etiquette should be a couteous explanation of your SC abilities to your opponent in a friendly game and nothing in a competetive game IMO.

Kilkrazy wrote:Your attitude seems to be that you can do anything you like as long as it is in the codex or Forge World book.

What I am saying is that you need the co-operation of your prospective opponent in order to play a game. Being polite, and recognising that different people have different playing styles, is a good way to achieve this.

If your opponent says he doesn't want to play with special characters, just saying he has to because it is in the codex won't change his mind.

It might be more productive to suggest a compromise whereby both special characters and tanks are dropped for this game, then play another game with them back in.

My attitude isn't that "I" can do whatever I want, it is that I don't force MY demands of what other people "should" play onto them, which is a subtle, yet distinct distinction (and which is the crux of this thread).

I think my 1:1 veto system is very much a compromise in response to those that want to dictate opponent's army composition...

Kilkrazy wrote:Your attitude seems to be that you can do anything you like as long as it is in the codex or Forge World book.

What I am saying is that you need the co-operation of your prospective opponent in order to play a game. Being polite, and recognising that different people have different playing styles, is a good way to achieve this.

If your opponent says he doesn't want to play with special characters, just saying he has to because it is in the codex won't change his mind.

It might be more productive to suggest a compromise whereby both special characters and tanks are dropped for this game, then play another game with them back in.

I both agree and disagree with this post. From one side its sometimes nice to put limitations on a battle to promote better tactics and style of play such as not fielding a special charactor, or not fielding models with armour values etc to fit with your own custom battles (I'm thinking of having no tanks for a custom underground mission where tanks wouldn' beable to get down to for example)

But on the other hand if I went to a battle and my opponent sprung something like that on me I'd be extremely miffed, its alright if you've specifically prepared for such a battle but not if your opponent springs that on you when you arrive and then "expects" you to play their way. Its as daft as arriving for a battle and your opponent saying "you can't take lascannons cus I don't like how they easily destroy my walkers"

Wether you announce what everything is in your list before you play is entirely up to you as well and depends on your opponents, I can only go with how I personally play it and thats the policy of only disclosing what units have if asked and thus you'd only find out if the model was a generic HQ model or a special charactor if you asked what it was. Our thinking process on it is that these two armies may have never faced each other before and may not have even heard of the special charactor. We find it adds to the realism a bit of learning what things do by facing them or reading up on them like you would in real life.

Basically if my opponent told me they didn't want special charactors to be fielded then provided I knew in advance I'd be happy to make a list without them and see how it gets on. Spring it on me during a game and I'd be miffed as hell

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Orion_44 wrote:Hmmm, I love special characters cause I like epic stories that other people already know about.

Honestly, if you field a super character combo I would never have an issue even in a friendly game beacause for the majority of people if you see a special character you know how they will be playing the game. Eliminates guessing.

Bring 'em on!

YEEEAAAHHH!!!

If I want Tigurius and Calgar, what are you gonna do to stop me??!! If I want abaddon and ahriman, do I care what you think? NNOOO!


Anyway, I just realized that I always tell people my list anyway, so I never have a problem with this anyway. After telling them, I usually realize that it was a dumb idea anyway, and I'm like, huh. For the price of abaddon, I could get a maxed lash prince and a khorne prince.

No contest. Special characters are only as good as the rest of your army. Case and point, the Nightbringer. Cookie-cutter builds with the nightbringer are NOT good lists just because c'tan is in there.

Well since I play Eldar, I'll watch Tigerius die to perils of the warp!

But honestly, yeah I will expect most people to overvalue these characters and rely on getting Calgar locked in and Tigger using his powers and having them buried in units to keep them alive. So how big is that points sink exactly? The look on someones face when you bladestorm to death (with 3 squads of dire avengers)Marneus and 7 THammer Termies is priceless.

I also will QFT that any character, even Eldrad, is only as good as the rest of your army! So bring on the 'cause I personally enjoy playing against the hardest lists my opponents can make, all it can do is make me a better player, even if I lose.

Ed_Bodger wrote:

focusedfire wrote:

Situation b) You both meet at your LGS and agree to a pick-up game. Befire you set a single model on the table you should have mentioned whether or not you run any SC's and asked if yout opponent is comfortable playing against your list. If he agrees then he has no one to blame but himself if he gets his keister handed to him. If you on the other hand spring a SC on him as a suprise then this would be a breach in ettiqiette. If your opponent does not want to play against a SC in a casual game that is his right to do so without any recriminations.

Most of these problems would never happen with good communication and a bit of man-training.

I don't really agree with this if you have turned up for a game with your normal army and someone wants to play you then you use your list there are ways round it but it would piss me off if someone said do you want a game but you can't bring Ragar or Ulrik (examples). I could understand if it was a new player and I have lists that are nice and friendly that will help people learn but if you are a regular player then play what is put on the table. As long as it isn't IA or Apoc then there should be no problem (these are a different subject). If a unit is in the Codex it is perfectly fine to take it otherwise people will winge if you take more than one Land Raider or Nobz on bikes etc. The etiquette should be a couteous explanation of your SC abilities to your opponent in a friendly game and nothing in a competetive game IMO.

Hi Ed, how's life?


I am a bit puzzled. What, exactly, are you realy disagreeing with? Your last sentence is pretty much a nice summation of my point about the issue being situational.

Is your argument that when you show up to the LGS/FLGS you are carrying one list and only the models for that list and that a person should have to play this list no matter what?
or
Is it your point that your opponent does not have the right to say, "Whoa, your running 4 deepstriking Land Raiders + Seth attached to Death Company, my Foot slogger theme army isn't tooled to handle that."?

My point here is that there is a difference between someone telling you that they play BA's while chatting each other up for a game and the act of dropping a full comp army on the table when it comes time to play. There should be a thourough discussion about what each of your expectations are concerning the game. That way if I tell you that I want to play a themed game where both sides are cut off from supply lines (limited armour, units, or special characters) you should know that I'm not the guy you want to play that night if all you have is your Seth & Land Raider Spam, Mechdar with Eldrad, IG leafblower, or any of the other such lists.

Again, thourough communication is important, especially between strangers that are engaging each other in a pick up match.

focusedfire wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:there is a difference between discussing what you enjoy and would like to participate in with a potential opponent and climbing on a high horse and demanding people play the way you want them to under threat of scorn and being labeled as TFG.

I just get the feeling that people place way too effort into making 40K "s3rious business1111" sometimes....

I absolutely agree with both of your statements. They are the reason why communication is important. The OP made a mistake by not adding a third,"Depends upon the gaming enviroment", answer to the poll. The answer to this question is very much situational.

Situation a)If you are at a tournament, then you should be aware of what the tournaments standards are. As long as your opponent and his army are within those standards, you need to shut up and play or if you do not want to play then forfiet without complaint(It is a game of consent)

Situation b) You both meet at your LGS and agree to a pick-up game. Before you set a single model on the table you should have mentioned whether or not you run any SC's and asked if your opponent is comfortable playing against your list. If he agrees then he has no one to blame but himself if he gets his keister handed to him. If you on the other hand spring a SC on him as a suprise then this would be a breach in ettiqiette. If your opponent does not want to play against a SC in a casual game that is his right to do so without any recriminations.

Most of these problems would never happen with good communication and a bit of man-training.

IMO, it should be up to your opponent to inquire about special characters or what not, since clearly he's the person looking to play a game outside the normal conventions of the game.

If someone wanted to play a, let's say, pure footslogger game, I'd expect him to ask me, not the other way around.

I'm good mate how are you?

My point is really the former if I am going to a FLGS to play without having arranged something prior I would bring a farily balanced list that wasn't too cheesy but was reasonably competetive. The likelihood is that that list would include a SC. Now with your example of a very cheesy BA list and your opponent wanting to play a specific scenario I would say that a/ you shouldn't bring that sort of list for a pick up game and b/ a pick up game should be that a standard game of 40k not a sepcialised scenario that requires lists to be tailored to make it work.

The point I was disagreeing with you on was that if I turn up for a pick up game I don't think that I have any right to expect my opponent to not use a certain type of unit or vice versa unless that unit is a flyer/Titan/Superheavy etc that falls outside the normal FOC. In most cases I would say great bring it on but I know that there are a lot of armies that would require a specific build to deal with something like the Eldar Phoneix.

So just a quick question for those who say you should have to ask to play with special characters, how would you feel about someone dictating to you what you could or could not take from your codex?

Now, i don't mean to imply that there is a right or a wrong here, but is it fair or sportsmanlike to expect someone to know that you are invalidating part of their codex simply because you think they are unfair or unsportsmanlike units?

And does it matter if the character is required to allow armies to be built in the manner that is traditional for that army type?

Vulkan He'Stan for instance gives the exact same rules as the salamaders have had for years, from chapter approved, marine traits, etc.

He is high points to give them that advantage sure, but many long time Salamader players have had a similar list for years but now have to take the character to get access to this. Salamanders were my first space marine army in 1998, can I help it if now it is a great choice and many people want to play them?

I think some thought should be given to who should ask about things like this. I think it is those who don't want to face legal, and standard armies for some reason. And if you didn't play 3rd ed, which was the last time you had to ask permission for characters because some were so ridiculously over the top and other armies had nothing even close, why is it an issue?

CT GAMER wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Your attitude seems to be that you can do anything you like as long as it is in the codex or Forge World book.
----OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S WHY IT'S IN THE CODEX
What I am saying is that you need the co-operation of your prospective opponent in order to play a game. Being polite, and recognising that different people have different playing styles, is a good way to achieve this.

-------IT'S ALSO A GOOD WAY TO WIN

If your opponent says he doesn't want to play with special characters, just saying he has to because it is in the codex won't change his mind.
----THEN DON'T PLAY WITH HIM, SHEESH. WHO CARES WHAT HE THINKS IF HE'S TOO BIG OF A COWARD TO TRY TO KILL SC'S

It might be more productive to suggest a compromise whereby both special characters and tanks are dropped for this game, then play another game with them back in.

My attitude isn't that "I" can do whatever I want, it is that I don't force MY demands of what other people "should" play onto them, which is a subtle, yet distinct distinction (and which is the crux of this thread).

I think my 1:1 veto system is very much a compromise in response to those that want to dictate opponent's army composition...

I was just going to post on this guy too.

My comments are underlined.
Here's a good example I encountered just yesterday. I was running a CSM list with 9 Obliterators and a bunch of raptors. This guy was running no vehicles to speak of, just a giant swarm of Ork Boyz. I was running flamers in all of my Raptor squads, so he says my list is too spammy, and that he doesn't want to play. Just because I'd obviously kick his butt with flamers? Give me a break.

This is almost exactly the same as what you're saying. If your opponent doesn't like your list, then you should change it, just for him....what? If I spent 25 dollars on a special character, I'm damn sure gonna use him when I please. I could care less what some dude with a bug up his arse thinks.

Then when you run into the player with the same but opposite attitude to yours, neither of you will get a game.

Ed_Bodger wrote:I'm good mate how are you?

My point is really the former if I am going to a FLGS to play without having arranged something prior I would bring a farily balanced list that wasn't too cheesy but was reasonably competetive. The likelihood is that that list would include a SC. Now with your example of a very cheesy BA list and your opponent wanting to play a specific scenario I would say that a/ you shouldn't bring that sort of list for a pick up game and b/ a pick up game should be that a standard game of 40k not a sepcialised scenario that requires lists to be tailored to make it work.

The point I was disagreeing with you on was that if I turn up for a pick up game I don't think that I have any right to expect my opponent to not use a certain type of unit or vice versa unless that unit is a flyer/Titan/Superheavy etc that falls outside the normal FOC. In most cases I would say great bring it on but I know that there are a lot of armies that would require a specific build to deal with something like the Eldar Phoneix.

I'm doing well, thanks.

I absolutley agree with you on both points, but with the following provisos:
1) That communication is paramount in determining these expectations in order to prevent problems.
2) That your opponent does have the right to ask for a compromise before saying that they do not want to play your list.
3) I never said anything about expectations. My point has been that for "any" reason a person has the right to back out of "any"game, in other words that you cannot force someone to play against a list they are not comfortable with.

I've seen misbehavior from both sides of this issue. I've seen the Powergamer agree to a limited match and then proceed to put his power list on the table just to create a problem and I've seen the casual gamer get upset because thay agreed to a game without making their expectations clear and afterwards engage in a smeer campaign against their opponent calling him TFG. Now when someone backs out of a game a certain amount of annoyance might be understandable, but trash talking them(calling them a coward/whiney quitter) for doing so is not and is unacceptable behavior.

Personally, I will face any list. I still would like to know what I am facing beforehand and will make sure that you know what I am running just to make sure that there are no issues. As a matter of fact, I make sure to hand my list to my opponents so that they can check my math and see that which units are armed with special equipment. If my opponent has a non-math/non-rules problem with my list I will listen to what the problem is and decide if I will compromise or, more likely, just drop the game. Seriously, if he is going to be upset at my list then the game is probably not going to be enjoyable and life is to short to waste on unnecessary drama/arguments. I find this stops many arguments before they even start.

number9dream wrote:
IMO, it should be up to your opponent to inquire about special characters or what not, since clearly he's the person looking to play a game outside the normal conventions of the game.

If someone wanted to play a, let's say, pure footslogger game, I'd expect him to ask me, not the other way around.

Your perspective seems a little skewed.

The full comp tourny players and their lists are what is outside of the norm. I can see where you feel that it is the norm if all you play are other tourney players, but the truth is that we who constantly play in tournaments are the minority and the casual gamer is the norm.

Honestly, your argument here comes across as a bit woman-like in that you expect the other person to know what is on your mind. It reminds me of dealing with an ex-girlfriend who would avoid responsibilty by leaving all of the prep work to others just so she couldn blame them when things went wrong.
Point I'm making here is that it is both of your responsibility to communicate. You can't expect the average opponent to be intuitive to your desires because most are guys that are in a rushing to just get a game in on thier one night off.

Samus_aran115 wrote:
My comments are underlined.
Here's a good example I encountered just yesterday. I was running a CSM list with 9 Obliterators and a bunch of raptors. This guy was running no vehicles to speak of, just a giant swarm of Ork Boyz. I was running flamers in all of my Raptor squads, so he says my list is too spammy, and that he doesn't want to play. Just because I'd obviously kick his butt with flamers? Give me a break.

This is almost exactly the same as what you're saying. If your opponent doesn't like your list, then you should change it, just for him....what? If I spent 25 dollars on a special character, I'm damn sure gonna use him when I please. I could care less what some dude with a bug up his arse thinks.

It is statements like these that, unfortunately, get applied to tourney players in general and because of such generalizations that so many tourney players get unfairly tagged with the TFG label. This attitude is also why we have so few women who participate in the game aspect of the hobby and why so many newer players leave the game/hobby.

That's true. I don't personally feel so inclined to ignore people's decisions, but if the person is a douche about it, then I do. If they kindly ask you if uou'd consider playing without the special characters, then sure. If they absolutely refuse and threaten to leave (as if I care), then you have every right to refuse them the liberty of playing their way.

Kilkrazy wrote:Then when you run into the player with the same but opposite attitude to yours, neither of you will get a game.

It's been my experience that there is a segment of the community, more centered on the hobby side of things, that seems pretty uninterested in getting in games at all. There's a lot more fun in feeling morally superior than I ever considered, apparently. You know that ork player went back to his small handful of regular gamers talking about this horribly cheesy list that he bravely refused to play.

If more people would simply play outside their comfort zone, they'd probably have more fun. But that requires time and energy, and also the risk of losing.

>2000 points - I expect there to be special characters, and will use them liberally.

<2000 point - I don't expect them in the game, but I don't complain if they are there.

If you complain and are unreasonable, I just don't play. If I'm pulling out all my toys and plan on playing a game, someone crying for the entire time isn't something I'm going to enjoy on any level.

nope.

Guardsman Marbo for the surprise win!
Take that orc ardboys mob.
*demo pack lob*

Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I found this inside of GW's Imperial Armor Apoc Expansion, and it really, really pertains to this. All you gotta do is add in the words "special character" and you can see that even GW USED to care about this type of powergaming:



Bringing the Doom to a game in which I'm unprepared for it is pointless. As I'm understanding it, the new Spearhead addendum now allows Baneblades to be used in normal games; and it's completely legal. I haven't read it front to back yet, but that's what I was told just yesterday, so don't beat me up, if I'm wrong. lol Long as you don't mind me sneaking in a Baneblade or three into my 2000 point list, then your "using special characters is fine" arguments hold. Otherwise...

@Lord Manimal The important part of "Rabbit out of a hats'" syndrome is that the game is about enjoying the game and playing a "fair" game. by that logic, no 5th vs 4th-2nd edtion codexes and no experinced players vs new players, sounds a bit rediculous doesn't it. I do see what they're getting at as a Titan would wipe my army no problem and a flyer has wrecked havoc on my army already, but these are also things that are not intended for use in "normal" games, while special characters being in the codex are. Argueably the doom and mephiston are broken, but each can easily be killed by something in the enemy army...

Lord Manimal wrote:Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I found this inside of GW's Imperial Armor Apoc Expansion, and it really, really pertains to this. All you gotta do is add in the words "special character" and you can see that even GW USED to care about this type of powergaming:



Bringing the Doom to a game in which I'm unprepared for it is pointless. As I'm understanding it, the new Spearhead addendum now allows Baneblades to be used in normal games; and it's completely legal. I haven't read it front to back yet, but that's what I was told just yesterday, so don't beat me up, if I'm wrong. lol Long as you don't mind me sneaking in a Baneblade or three into my 2000 point list, then your "using special characters is fine" arguments hold. Otherwise...

This argument does not work at all. A warhound Titan is not in any codex and is an Apoc unit. Special Characters are in codexes and are part of army builds. Anyone can deal with a Special Character it is simple there are so many ways to kill them it is not true. Sicarius dies from one lascannon/powerfist/krak missile shot as does Raganar, Shrike, Vulkan etc and these are just the ones I use. Abaddon is probably the hardest to deal with and he can be killed with a bit of focus. A titan/flyer/apoc deamon is very very different.

I think the permission to use special characters is a carry-over of GW trying to make extra "fluff" in the form of a character to further some story arc they have in mind.

Lately, the characters are just a unit they decide to give a name. If it is put in the list, the full intent is for it to be used. I get to use it or not, do I create two army lists in case permission is refused?

I do believe giving some warning of a "rabbit out of the hat" may be needed to ensure a good game for both players. It is a tough call if I field mainly tanks and my opponent goes hog-wild on loading up dark lances after I inform him. These games can be so much a rock/paper/scissors type of play that in the end to be safe, a good "all rounder" force I keep coming back to and these problems go away.

Human nature is to want to pull that uber all killing, cool model of doom that your opponent is helpless against. That is fun for the first 10 minutes then it gets old in a hurry. I would rather have a good scrap where I don't know if I will win or not until near the end. If a character destabilizes a game that badly, both players I am sure can decide that the game is done and then let's play for real.

If you sub out the word Titan with Special Character, it is, in fact the exact same thing. The assumption above is that you've both agreed to play an apoc game. The assumption as per our conversation is that we've agreed to play a normal game. In both cases, using titans/special characters is technically allowed. The argument is 100% valid, unless I'm missing something. Maybe if I re-write this in the context of a normal game.

"All gaming is a contract between two (or more) players for them to ALL enjoy themselves. It is not only about winning, although it is nice to win sometimes, it's about enjoying the game (cliche I know, but still true). Who wants to play the above game? It proves nothing except that a special character is a powerful thing and you need special equipment to take it on. Now, if my opponent had said he was going to use a special character I could have selected a different army and maybe put up a proper fight, and the game would have been more fun for me too.

This is entirely relevant; let go of the Titan example. The assumption in that writing is that you're going to be playing Apoc (it IS an apoc book) so taking the warhound is entirely legal. The assumption in our conversation is that we're playing a normal game, and therefor taking special characters is entirely legal. It's a direct 1 to 1 comparison; apples to apples.

So the Rabitty Hat thing . . . does this mean if someone uses a Land Raider and I have nothing that can take it out in my army this is unfair. Just watching the Land Raider cruise round my army blowing stuff up, then taking an objective at the end of the game (assuming it has a troop choice in it) . . . So no more Land Raiders for you sonny boy . . .

Seriously though, there is a massive difference between a Warhound Titan and an SC, a 'normal' army can't take out a titan, but can take out, or atleast neutralize an SC.

Oshova

Their special powers are often offset by their obscene costs.

Yeah that too. So come on guys, just lighten up, and stop being afraid of Mephiston . . . what can he do if he gets assaulted by terminators? . . . yeah that's right, 10 terminators =D Bring the pain guys!!!! =D

Oshova

Lord Manimal wrote: It proves nothing except that a special character is a powerful thing and you need special equipment to take it on.

This is a falsehood. Everything in the Codices can be dealt with with a properly balanced list.

Special Characters are merely commanders with set gear, an army wide bonus, and slightly improved stats.
None of these things puts them out of reach of an army that is properly set up.

I really don't get the argument.
Refusing a game due to a Special Character is tantamount to refusing a game because someone took Tactical Marines.
Both are valid codex entries that as an opponent you should be aware of.
Maybe you don't know the actual rules, but you know the character exists, so you prepare for that eventuality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oshova wrote:Yeah that too. So come on guys, just lighten up, and stop being afraid of Mephiston . . . what can he do if he gets assaulted by terminators? . . . yeah that's right, 10 terminators =D Bring the pain guys!!!! =D

Oshova

He kills 4 before you even think of swinging. Then you throw a couple wounds on him. He wins and runs you down. Then on his turn he flys to another assault and does it again.

You don't assault Mephiston. You shoot him. Preferably with high AP. He doesn't get an invulnerable save.
Just think of him as a Terminator squad with one base.

If I agree to play a normal, 2000 point game with my friends, I will not be surprised to see named characters running around. If it is in their codex, all is fair game. If you want to put 200+ points in a special character that doesn't have Eternal Warrior, then that's your call!

If I agree to a game of APOC with my friends, I'm prepared for anything. And it's happened:

A second super-heavy Eldar tank that my friend secretly put together.

A second super-heavy IG tank that my other friend secretly put together.

The IG bringing along some allies (Tyranids).

The Apoc sheets downloaded from the GW website.

Or I slap down the 40+ terminators I own but never told anyone about.

It's all fair game. And all of our games are friendly.

skrulnik wrote:

Oshova wrote:Yeah that too. So come on guys, just lighten up, and stop being afraid of Mephiston . . . what can he do if he gets assaulted by terminators? . . . yeah that's right, 10 terminators =D Bring the pain guys!!!! =D

Oshova

He kills 4 before you even think of swinging. Then you throw a couple wounds on him. He wins and runs you down. Then on his turn he flys to another assault and does it again.

You don't assault Mephiston. You shoot him. Preferably with high AP. He doesn't get an invulnerable save.
Just think of him as a Terminator squad with one base.

So 8x3=24 . . . so 12 hit, 6 wound, no save . . . remind me again how many wounds Mephiston has . . . I believe my point stands, special characters can be neutralised by an all-comers army. Obviously if your army is completely hordes and you face nidzilla, you're not going to do well, but that is a specialised list against what it's worst against. A standard list should be able to neutralise anything from any codex effectively.

Oshova

I personally like to bring up a previously discussed point where too many people have psychologically associated SCs with the ultra powerful characters in 2nd edition and a few of the bad ass SC in the current edition (Lysander, Abaddon, Nightbringer).

In my opinion SCs aren't game breaking, considering most characters short of 3++ EW are easy to kill with standard shooting and assault tactics. A lot of SC/HQs I deal with fall to my skull champ’s powerfist. Even the freaky SCs have weaknesses. Abby only has a 4++ save, Mephiston has no inv save, the Nightbringer can be killed with sniper/poison/rending spam. Most SCs also cost a fortune and can weaken an unbalanced army (such as Abby in a low points game), making a possibility of a win easier

If your afraid of an SC single-handedly white washing your army or have been white washed (and it wasn't caused by bad luck) than this was most likely caused by holes in your army/tactics.

Now if your gaming club has some kind of strict house rule where SCs need permission, that's cool, otherwise expect to see a SC in a list in any standard game as per 5th edition rules. The only time I believe people should ask permission for is when people want to use anything in a 40k expansion, such as FW, Spearhead, Apoc etc. Generally I would show my opponent my army list anyway before the start of the match. I play for fun and not for glory as it is a hobby with little plastic men.

Well, if we're requiring permission to use special characters, how about we start requiring permission for people to use dark eldar, because I never see them and am convinced that they are a figment of the worlds collective imagination (sarcasm). And how about permission to use necrons because they are cheesy. And lets make it opponents permission for melta weapons, dedicated transports, and nob bikers while we're at it.

I tend to stay away from them just cuz I like to make my own fluff. but if my opponent wants to use them then go ahead. just tell me if i ask about rules/stats on the guy.

Just air-dropping this in here. Don't bother paying any attention.

http://warhammer-empire.com/library/the-danse-macabre/comp-onion/

Lord Manimal wrote:If you sub out the word Titan with Special Character, it is, in fact the exact same thing. The assumption above is that you've both agreed to play an apoc game. The assumption as per our conversation is that we've agreed to play a normal game. In both cases, using titans/special characters is technically allowed. The argument is 100% valid, unless I'm missing something. Maybe if I re-write this in the context of a normal game.

"All gaming is a contract between two (or more) players for them to ALL enjoy themselves. It is not only about winning, although it is nice to win sometimes, it's about enjoying the game (cliche I know, but still true). Who wants to play the above game? It proves nothing except that a special character is a powerful thing and you need special equipment to take it on. Now, if my opponent had said he was going to use a special character I could have selected a different army and maybe put up a proper fight, and the game would have been more fun for me too.

This is entirely relevant; let go of the Titan example. The assumption in that writing is that you're going to be playing Apoc (it IS an apoc book) so taking the warhound is entirely legal. The assumption in our conversation is that we're playing a normal game, and therefor taking special characters is entirely legal. It's a direct 1 to 1 comparison; apples to apples.

No your argument has no validity whatsoever if I can't take an SC then you can't take any Elite choices (example) Get your head out of third edition and into 5th SC's are a basic part of the Codex you need no more permission to use them than you do to use troops choices or anything else in the codex. There is only one exception to this and that is when a TO says that there are to be no special characters but that is a totally different topic than the point of this thread.

I think with the codexes special characters are just part of the army and something you should expect. I mean I'm not going to tell my opponent about every other powerful unit in my army. The special characters do seem balanced though.

Lord Manimal wrote:Bringing the Doom to a game in which I'm unprepared for it is pointless.

Why would you not be prepared for it? It's a standard unit in a standard codex. If you are not prepared for it then the failure is yours. If you all-comers army list cannot fight reasonably well against all codex units then you have a problem.

As for your titan example - do you expect to see a titan in a 1500pt game? The answer to that would be no since it's a war machine choice and illegal in 40K armies. So to bring one without warning and expect to play it would, rightly, be unreasonable.

Also, you mentioned spearhead. A single war machine may be taken. If you've got an army geared to handle anti-tank (which you ought to for spearhead) then it's not a problem, is it? Especially since you knew full well that it was a possibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Manimal wrote:If you sub out the word Titan with Special Character, it is, in fact the exact same thing. The assumption above is that you've both agreed to play an apoc game.

Did you even read what you quoted? It talked about a titan in a 1500pt game - clearly not apoc.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Lord Manimal wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Manimal wrote:If you sub out the word Titan with Special Character, it is, in fact the exact same thing. The assumption above is that you've both agreed to play an apoc game.

Did you even read what you quoted? It talked about a titan in a 1500pt game - clearly not apoc.

In regards to this statement, if you have a problem with the quote, take it up with GW; they wrote the book. Matter of fact, Warwick Kinrade himself penned that bit, so feel free to send him a letter about it. Insulting my intelligence based upon his example of a 1500 apoc game doesn't really make my argument invalid. The book is Imperial Armor Apocalypse released October 2007 (not apocalypse 2 as I thought earlier).

Also, calling me a "comp onion" might be fair, as I believe in the "spirit of the game"; another imaginary construct in which both parties are entitled to have fun playing a "game". I happen to prefer playing scenarios in which things are not balanced, for this very reason. For those of you that need your daily sense of self worth from winning a game of Warhammer at all costs "because it's legal", we definitely do not need to be at the same game table, and I will politely decline your offer of a game.

However, maybe this bit, also from the same book sums up the arguments of both sides better than I can:


If it's codex legal; then go for it; feel free to ignore the idea that your opponent is entitled to have fun at the game too. After all, the concept of "fun" isn't in the codex, despite it being referenced time and time again in publication after publication. But hey, lets only pay attention to the parts that support our argument, eh? For those of us that appreciate a good game, then just don't play with most of the people posting in this thread. Just as they like to forget that "fun" is an integral part of the game, they're probably the same folks that tend to forget certain rules that don't work in their favor.

As long as we're being insulting, of course.