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.

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...