Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.