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.

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.