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.

Most of the time I always skipped over warriors in the books but I am a bit curious to know if anyone here uses warriors, and do warriors in fow have the same negative views that other game systems with optional characters with special rules have?

I've never used them myself, they always felt a little 'gamey' for my tastes.

I've never used them either, I think they are very "gimmicky".

OTOH I dont think its in any way bad sportsmanship to use them. They have points costs just like everything else and just like everything else you have to judge whether the affects they give are worth the points outlay. As long as they are pointed correctly, it shouldnt make any difference if they are in.

I have never used them and I can't remember having played against one.

They aren't cheesy really but there is certainly an air of 'GWification' about them.

I never use special charactacters in any game where I'm not forced to, in Warmachine for example, and if I am forced to it I am less interested in the game.

It's an interesting idea, using Warriors to create a "realistic" unit that the warrior came from. Then again, they add some weird things....can be good and bad...

I like them for a casual game. Heck we have a few of our own that we made.but of course we like to play are games like a bad ww2 movie.

I've used a few of them (but then i often play frost's perimiter list) seen a fair few of them used in some lists (U.S para's to make easy company springs to mind!).

A fair few others seem popular to like peiper or van der heyte, I don't think they're game changers, but they give some nice options, just like some lists have other options

I love it when others use them, and you kill their hero with some ignominious end. Otto Carius bails, and then is captured by an advancing infantry squad or Recce Platoon .

Forget Characters, 90% of the time they just aren't worth the points. There are some notable exceptions, but even then you can usually buy something more useful for the points.

It's not 40k, it's about Teamwork, Heroes die as easy as everyone else.

I've used one or two and seen a couple used by soviets. Like anything else, you get what you pay for. They're rather situational so often they don't add a lot to the force. I would only bring them if I had spare points and nothing else to buy. Some of them give decent enough buffs to the army as a whole to make it worthwhile; Von Saucken lets you re-roll one reserve roll a turn.

I think they are fine to use, there is little in the way of balance issues in FoW in my opinion.

You have to win with what you take, wether it is a Tiger or a character, it is not going to win you the game.

I wonder if I could field Teclis as a German officer...

I have to say I despise Barkman and Wittman, though I have killed them both so I can't really complain. I'm an American player but I've only once used Lafayette Pool. I have Turner Turnbull for my paras and I haven't painted him yet!

I'm one of those players who doesn't even consider warriors most of the time; some are expensive, and I'd much rather have an extra platoon or upgrade existing ones. I have no problem with warriors, so long as my opponent doesn't use them all the time.

MAxwelll Taylor of the 101st. Is worth his points.

"Sgt herpityderp once helped a squad clear mines. Therefore, any squad he is part of can automatically clear mines with ease"

This sort of gak really puts me off using the hero characters. I intend to find just one that I like, and use their stats, cost, rules etc for a Captain America figure and leave it at that.

Although when I get around to making that SS force, perhaps another warrior can be a stand-in for the Fuhrer himself...

 Dakkamite wrote:
"Sgt herpityderp once helped a squad clear mines. Therefore, any squad he is part of can automatically clear mines with ease"

This sort of gak really puts me off using the hero characters. I intend to find just one that I like, and use their stats, cost, rules etc for a Captain America figure and leave it at that.

Although when I get around to making that SS force, perhaps another warrior can be a stand-in for the Fuhrer himself...

There's an interesting idea! Hitler was often thought of as being the architect of his own destruction, so why could you not have Warriors who were liabilities?
Warriors cost points, but maybe in the same way you could have "useless warriors", or "anti-Warriors" which are disadvantages to your army but gave you extra points! So Captain Psycho must always lead from the front. The platoon he leads must always advance towards the nearest enemy and assault if they are in range. He rerolls all saves because hes hyper aggressive. He costs minus twenty-five points.
All we got to do now is get a list of such people (whose relatives arent going to be upset at us libeling them)

For the most part they are fine. I dont think any of them break the game and most of the time just help to make a list playable that otherwise would be quite subpar in many instances

As for using units that offer a liability, you've got Biermeyers 3.SS panzer platoon that costs a fair bit less than the usual FV pzIV platoon for SS-Totenkopf. They MUST move towards enemies in the assault step and are hit on a 3+ like they were trained... a nice cheap combat platoon option for SS. Whose only real use is to mash them forward and assault stuff...