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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's kind of a mess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to stop living in 3rd ed, eh?

Roleplayer wrote:

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

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

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

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

Time to stop living in 3rd ed, eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How old are you btw?

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

Broken with a 4+ save?

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

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

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

Valk

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

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

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

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

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

Let us not forget that toy soldiers are s3rious buizness111

Valkyrie wrote:

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

Broken with a 4+ save?

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

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

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

Valk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT GAMER wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just curious how other people rolled.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

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

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

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

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

Off the top of my head:

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

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

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

4. hanging out with friends

5. Blowing off steam

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

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

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Valkyrie wrote:

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

Broken with a 4+ save?

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

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

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

Valk

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

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

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

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

CT GAMER wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

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

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

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

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

Off the top of my head:

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

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

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

4. hanging out with friends

5. Blowing off steam

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

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

Have fun with that...

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

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

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

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