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.

liquidjoshi wrote:Does Dante even have EW? IIRC he doesn't.

no, I dont think he does XD all he can do is not scatter, nerf a HQ a little and look good while doing it :3

oh and he unlocks sang guard.....but no one cares about them

DPBellathrom wrote:

liquidjoshi wrote:Does Dante even have EW? IIRC he doesn't.

no, I dont think he does XD all he can do is not scatter, nerf a HQ a little and look good while doing it :3

oh and he unlocks sang guard.....but no one cares about them

So, you don't understand how to play him properly and therefore he's useless?

You also still have the option of declining to play against SCs, the entire game is opponent's conscent after all

Trench Raider wrote:Yes, you always have the "I'll take my toys and go home" choice. But that is what you call a "false choice" or "false delima" in that you offer an option, but it's an unacceptable option and thus not a true choice......It's kind of like when your wife tells you "You don't have to go to my friend's wedding if you won't want to", knowning full well that if you shouldd make that choice you will pay for it in the future.
What about in a competative play enviorment were making that choice would result in forfeiting the round?
It would be far better to return to "opponent consent only" and give players a real choice. As it is now, you pretty much have to deal with it or go home

So, you're saying people should be allowed to say, "I don't like your list because it has an SC, and since I refuse to not play you, you have to do an impromptu list revision"? The game is meant to be fun. If you can't have fun against your opponent's list, don't play him. If you can't do that, you're the one who's being WAAC.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

DPBellathrom wrote:

liquidjoshi wrote:Does Dante even have EW? IIRC he doesn't.

no, I dont think he does XD all he can do is not scatter, nerf a HQ a little and look good while doing it :3

oh and he unlocks sang guard.....but no one cares about them

So, you don't understand how to play him properly and therefore he's useless?

I've been playing blood angels for 6 years.....I think I know how to run them -.-

dante's only use is to drop him down with some meltas and wreck a tank and, like I said, nerf an HQ. after that he can skip around attacking stuff while trying not to die though it's a pretty safe bet that every melta and AP2 gun will be pointing at him when he's done melting stuff. dont get me wrong, thats not bad....only his >200pts price tag is, and makes him quite the point sink for what he does (not to mention he needs a squad full of men to keep him safe). I'd much rather have a libby doing the same thing only better (ok, it's not pin point but D6 scatter is still fine for the job and he's better in CC)

as for nipple wing.....over costed and pointless when you look at the other troops you could be taking

DPBellathrom wrote:as for nipple wing.....over costed and pointless when you look at the other troops you could be taking

Let's just agree to disagree, because I've seen some pretty nasty things done by nipplewing in 6th.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

DPBellathrom wrote:as for nipple wing.....over costed and pointless when you look at the other troops you could be taking

Let's just agree to disagree, because I've seen some pretty nasty things done by nipplewing in 6th.

Note to self: Do not fall for the temptation to create and convert a marine chapter named nipple marines.

gaovinni wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

DPBellathrom wrote:as for nipple wing.....over costed and pointless when you look at the other troops you could be taking

Let's just agree to disagree, because I've seen some pretty nasty things done by nipplewing in 6th.

Note to self: Do not fall for the temptation to create and convert a marine chapter named nipple marines.

Imagine the laughs it'll generate. Everyone will love it. People will talk about the unbelievably funny Nipple Marines. You'll be a hero at your club/store. I know you want to

fishy bob wrote:

gaovinni wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

DPBellathrom wrote:as for nipple wing.....over costed and pointless when you look at the other troops you could be taking

Let's just agree to disagree, because I've seen some pretty nasty things done by nipplewing in 6th.

Note to self: Do not fall for the temptation to create and convert a marine chapter named nipple marines.

Imagine the laughs it'll generate. Everyone will love it. People will talk about the unbelievably funny Nipple Marines. You'll be a hero at your club/store. I know you want to

And highlight the most essential parts of them so that every single opponent would be highly disturbed? A splendid idea lad. Psychological warfare in it's extreme form. Would work well with the muffin marine chapter I came up with the other day. "Behold the muffinators!"

gaovinni wrote:Psychological warfare in it's extreme form.

I thought that was just Slaanesh armies?

liquidjoshi wrote:

gaovinni wrote:Psychological warfare in it's extreme form.

I thought that was just Slaanesh armies?

Only if you hire a pair of belly dancers to stand on either side of you as you play.

DPBellathrom wrote:
as for nipple wing.....over costed and pointless when you look at the other troops you could be taking

6th ed's nerf to power weapons has actually gone a long way in making Sanguinary Guard much more viable than they used to be. They're obviously not going to be the top of the metagame, but nipplewing is certainly viable now.

Trench-Raider wrote:All of them.
I've always disliked special characters and the way that GW has mainstreamed their use in 40k. Back when the use of a special character required one's opponent's permision to field them I routinely declined to give said permission. I was certainly not alone. Back in the 2nd edition days, my local gaming group was pretty much unanimous in their condemnation of the use of special characters and would give those who wanted to use them grief. I still laugh at the time I heard someone saying "oh look, it's THE Marnious Calgar!!", acompanied by much eye rolling.

I recall when the very first 40k special characters (Yarrick and Gazgull) apeared in White Dwarf and thinking to myself "Why would anyone use these? Do they not have the creativty to thinkup a back story for their own character models?" You can imagine my distaste when a coupl of months later the very first Space Wolf army list apeared in yet another WD issue with most of the named characters that are still there today. My worst fears got confirmed just a few months later when I played my first game against someone with a brand new Space Wolves army and found that he had included all of them. Every. Single. One. That pretty much confirmed in my mind that these new named character models were a bad thing.

Like so many other questionable decisions that GW has made over the years, the lifting of restrictions on the use of special characters and newer codexes tying army build changing universal rules o their use is motivated by finanatial motivation: encouraging folks to buy horribly over-priced single models.

TR

But back in 2nd ed days SC;s werent anything special really, the mighty heros and Avatar and greater demons were beast back then so yes back then having SC's wasnt so much of a boost over mighty hero's so i cant see why you would have viewed people using them as a issue back in 2nd I know I never, as you should well know the stats changed massively into 3rd ed and thats when SC's were special.

Saint Celestine and Thawn. I hate characters that cannot be killed.

Necrosis wrote:Saint Celestine and Thawn. I hate characters that cannot be killed.

You forgot Yarrick.

TechMarine1 wrote:

Necrosis wrote:Saint Celestine and Thawn. I hate characters that cannot be killed.

You forgot Yarrick.

Yarrick can be killed. Once he fails his 3+, he is gone. Celestine and Thawn just keep on rolling till they get back up.

Necrosis wrote:

TechMarine1 wrote:

Necrosis wrote:Saint Celestine and Thawn. I hate characters that cannot be killed.

You forgot Yarrick.

Yarrick can be killed. Once he fails his 3+, he is gone. Celestine and Thawn just keep on rolling till they get back up.

If he was unkillable...hot damn would he find a place in my army. Probably a bit different model, but still.

Edited by Manchu.

The only two that really make me rage are Fateweaver (mainly because he makes a particular daemon army at my FLGS nigh-unkillable, especially in 6e) and Eldrad. Eldrad really only makes me sad because of the way Weirdboys work, since they have to roll a psychic test at the start of the shooting phase. Played a game against Eldrad recently, and my Weirdboy managed to get one power off on turn 1 before he nuked his brains out turns 2 and 3.

Locclo wrote:The only two that really make me rage are Fateweaver (mainly because he makes a particular daemon army at my FLGS nigh-unkillable, especially in 6e) and Eldrad. Eldrad really only makes me sad because of the way Weirdboys work, since they have to roll a psychic test at the start of the shooting phase. Played a game against Eldrad recently, and my Weirdboy managed to get one power off on turn 1 before he nuked his brains out turns 2 and 3.

Really, I think that Weirdboyz should be a little more fun when they perils. Now, I'm not saying there needs to be explosions, but I wouldn't be entirely opposed to a Weirdboy popping off the heads of a bunch of other psykers along with his own.

I disliked Trazyn so much that I came to love him.

Bjorn ..... That Space Wolf son of a Bitch is somehow immune to plasma shots .....i threw 90 dice at him......he saved ALL OF THEM

Kasrkin229 wrote:Bjorn ..... That Space Wolf son of a Bitch is somehow immune to plasma shots .....i threw 90 dice at him......he saved ALL OF THEM

For some reason I just imagine you getting frustrated and then physically throwing 90 dice at the Bjorn model.

In my local store everyone is encouraged to use special characters as a counts as generic captain/librarian/warboss etc...

So, you're saying people should be allowed to say, "I don't like your list because it has an SC, and since I refuse to not play you, you have to do an impromptu list revision"?

I see from your profile, you are new to gaming (2011) and I thus suspect are very young. So you may not know this, but "opponent consent" was the rule for most of four editions of the game. The "free for all" enviorment as to their use is a fairly recent development and tying army changing universal rules to their use is even more recent. When the rule was in place, people did exactly that on a regular basis. Also go back and actually read what I posted above. When "opponent consent" was the rule, most people who used special characters had the sense to bring along a second list in case they were not able to use their primary list.

I'm not saying that special characters should be removed from the game. Far from it. Some people like that sort of thing, and there is nothing wrong with that. But on the other hand there are those who see them as harmful to the game. Reverting to "ooponent consent only" is the way to go. It's a common sense solution that is the best of both worlds. They are still there for those who like that sort of play, but there is a legitmate mechanism to "opt out" for those who don't. It also levels the playing field a bit in the tournement enviorment as there is no way to include "opponent consent" in competative play, so they would (and were) banned in tournements. Clearly GW themselves agreed with that aproach at one point as the rule existed for over ten years.

and finally...

In my local store everyone is encouraged to use special characters as a counts as generic captain/librarian/warboss etc...

That's the way I use them. I actually like a few of the older special character models and use them as non-named characters. For example one of my Wolf Lords is a Calgar miniature that has had a bit of dremel work to remove the Ultramarine insignia and had his head replaced with a helmeted head.

TR

Trench-Raider wrote:

So, you're saying people should be allowed to say, "I don't like your list because it has an SC, and since I refuse to not play you, you have to do an impromptu list revision"?

I see from your profile, you are new to gaming (2011) and I thus suspect are very young. So you may not know this, but "opponent consent" was the rule for most of four editions of the game. The "free for all" enviorment as to their use is a fairly recent development and tying army changing universal rules to their use is even more recent. When the rule was in place, people did exactly that on a regular basis. Also go back and actually read what I posted above. When "opponent consent" was the rule, most people who used special characters had the sense to bring along a second list in case they were not able to use their primary list.

I'm not saying that special characters should be removed from the game. Far from it. Some people like that sort of thing, and there is nothing wrong with that. But on the other hand there are those who see them as harmful to the game. Reverting to "ooponent consent only" is the way to go. It's a common sense solution that is the best of both worlds. They are still there for those who like that sort of play, but there is a legitmate mechanism to "opt out" for those who don't. It also levels the playing field a bit in the tournement enviorment as there is no way to include "opponent consent" in competative play, so they would (and were) banned in tournements. Clearly GW themselves agreed with that aproach at one point as the rule existed for over ten years.

Well, now that opponent consent is no longer the rule, you can't expect people to bring a second list when they're using an SC, and, as I said, demanding an impromptu list revision isn't reasonable.

DOOMBREAD wrote:

Trench-Raider wrote:

So, you're saying people should be allowed to say, "I don't like your list because it has an SC, and since I refuse to not play you, you have to do an impromptu list revision"?

I see from your profile, you are new to gaming (2011) and I thus suspect are very young. So you may not know this, but "opponent consent" was the rule for most of four editions of the game. The "free for all" enviorment as to their use is a fairly recent development and tying army changing universal rules to their use is even more recent. When the rule was in place, people did exactly that on a regular basis. Also go back and actually read what I posted above. When "opponent consent" was the rule, most people who used special characters had the sense to bring along a second list in case they were not able to use their primary list.

I'm not saying that special characters should be removed from the game. Far from it. Some people like that sort of thing, and there is nothing wrong with that. But on the other hand there are those who see them as harmful to the game. Reverting to "ooponent consent only" is the way to go. It's a common sense solution that is the best of both worlds. They are still there for those who like that sort of play, but there is a legitmate mechanism to "opt out" for those who don't. It also levels the playing field a bit in the tournement enviorment as there is no way to include "opponent consent" in competative play, so they would (and were) banned in tournements. Clearly GW themselves agreed with that aproach at one point as the rule existed for over ten years.

Well, now that opponent consent is no longer the rule, you can't expect people to bring a second list when they're using an SC, and, as I said, demanding an impromptu list revision isn't reasonable.

Agreed, for instance I run deathwing, and if you do not want to play against an SC than put simply you are not playing against me.

Reverting to "ooponent consent only" is the way to go. It's a common sense solution that is the best of both worlds.

Here's the kicker, you can agree not to play him without that rule in the book, you have your consent regardless whether the book tells you to or not. The same applies whether you feel you don't want to play gray knights, longfangs, psykers, deathwing, forgeworld, etc. Nobody is going to force you to the chair and force you to game against someone against your consent.

This just makes it so that it isn't mandatory. Just say, I don't want to play against an SC, and walk away.

I hate them all because I play IG. All of my characters suck or are way overcosted for what they do. Nork Deddog at 110 points. Really? WTF? Love his fluff but would never use him except in Apoc game with lots of points to burn. Yarrick, love him. Had fun with him the few times I used him but can't get past his cost for what he does. For the same points, my opponents IC's come with force shields giving 2++, Int10, etc, and bitch slap my entire army in assault.

Cursed Dice wrote:I hate them all because I play IG. All of my characters suck or are way overcosted for what they do. Nork Deddog at 110 points. Really? WTF? Love his fluff but would never use him except in Apoc game with lots of points to burn. Yarrick, love him. Had fun with him the few times I used him but can't get past his cost for what he does. For the same points, my opponents IC's come with force shields giving 2++, Int10, etc, and bitch slap my entire army in assault.

65 points to put a demo charge anywhere on the board with BS5? Kill point or no, I'll take 2!

DoW

ere's the kicker, you can agree not to play him without that rule in the book, you have your consent regardless whether the book tells you to or not. The same applies whether you feel you don't want to play gray knights, longfangs, psykers, deathwing, forgeworld, etc. Nobody is going to force you to the chair and force you to game against someone against your consent.

This just makes it so that it isn't mandatory. Just say, I don't want to play against an SC, and walk away.

See my point a few pages back about "false choices". What if I'm a tournament? Can I just walk away then and loose my entry fee?
A false choice is not a choice.

It's a moot point of course GW will not re-introduce "opponet consent" as it would cost them sales of over-priced character models. It's yet one more example of how the game has changed for the worse.

TR