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 myself love people playing special characters, more chance for everyone's favorite ork attack, Zogwort's Curse....better known as "Squig!!, Shut your mouth, he's a bad mother!" but honestly, if you offer him a look at your list and he passed it up, then it was his own damn fault that he lost, he addition to that. I think it is more then fair to play what you want when you want it as long as it is in the rules.

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

HA! ICwutudidthar.

Yeah,that actually totally makes him balanced. Haha

I have so far never encountered a Special Character that so completely broke the game that I would ban Special Characters from use.

I don't see why anyone wouldn't use everything available to them in their codex. I personally don't use Special Characters, but my TWO characters are both too expensive for my armies. All my friends, however, use special characters all the time. I regularly see Prince Yriel, Skulltaker, The Masque (to some extent), almost every SW and Guard hero, Doom and Parasite for nids, etc.

Honestly, I find games with special characters are much more interesting, and much less chess-like with the funky rules and wargear.

lokilokust wrote:...they really tend to come across as if they haven't really been playtested, at all.

You could probably apply that statement to most of the regular models as well.

Lol @ above

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...

Hyperboyle does not a valid argument make.

No codex nor special character in the game has a 100% guarantee of victory.

If YOU are losing every game YOU play, YOU might need to look inward for the answer...

I have yet to encounter that list/character/codex...

If you saw marneus calgar in a salamanders list,would you allow it, sine he's "Chapter Master of the uUtramarines!"?

Technically, you could,but it would be totally wierd. Should there be rules on this kind of thing? I think so.

Considering they state that you could use the rules for a specific special character as a "template" for your own...

If the model is heavily converted in line with Salamander iconography, etc and the backstory is fantastic?

I'd allow it.

CT GAMER wrote:

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...

Hyperboyle does not a valid argument make.

No codex nor special character in the game has a 100% guarantee of victory.

If YOU are losing every game YOU play, YOU might need to look inward for the answer...

I have yet to encounter that list/character/codex...

No hyperbole, I initially said that it was no bad thing to have an expectation that all codices have a good chance of achieving victory, all things being equal.

I'm wondering if you've taken the hypotheticals I've been talking about and mistakenly attributed them to me? I wonder this due to your fairly odd statement about a codex giving you 100% victory, followed by that sentence where you use YOU alot and then the sentence at the end about you not finding that in your life. To explain what I was saying, I was suggesting that all codices should contain in them the ability to grant a 50%chance of victory vs each other given no further variables such as player experience at gaming, understanding of the enemy codice/army synergy and likely composition etc.

Your post in response suggested that the social aspects and painting an army etc etc were more important. Those things are important to me as well.

I'm still saying the playing of the game should be enjoyable, one of the factors of that enjoyment should be the ability to bring an army that gives you a fighting chance of winning against your opponent's army.

You're taking my initial post at a cross purpose, I am saying balance is something that should be striven for in codices. I know about codex creep and power and balancing issues, but the design team should be, imo, working to make each army capable of victory on an even scale. Not like the situation currently in fantasy with the daemon army, which has not proven a good fit and seems to have been greatly overpowered in comparison with the rest.

Im 29.

And i chooese lists purley on whats best to paint snd convert.

I like the look of sanguinary guard, and I spend about 15-20 hours per guard to paint them up. (You can see my finished ones over in my blog in the painting forum, not hrd to find)

I couldnt care less if they have chainswords and weapon skill 1. I've been playing this game sincd 2nd ed, and all I care now is making fluffy armies. The idea of 30 sanguinary guard lead by dante descending from the heavens sounds awesome to me and is a perfectly valid choice.

And maybe I did sound a bit snooty, but you sound 100% more snooty. Sorry, all that hours of work and converting is invalidated because I am think this unit isnt balanced, wah wah.

We all have units we think aren't balanced. But I dont mind of my opponent fields them. I dont mind what he puts in his army. especially special characters. To me they just increase the flavour and fluff of the game, and makes things really, really enjoyable.

I almost never play games without special characters, unless it is a very small points cost game. I have converted half of the codex space marine special characters to be spesifically for my blood ravens to use in games. Many are pretty terribad rules wise, but I find it adds more flavour to use them.

Like I said, to me, banning special characters is liking banning every unit with a name that starts with L. Its just weird and arbitary

I am also taking from someone who has only really played a lot of 40k, I dont know what the special character situation is like in fantasy.

but i have never found any 40k special character overpowering to play with or against

Lone__Gunman wrote:My interpretation: in a 2000 point game, it would be kind of weird NOT to see a special character.

Thoughts?

Once upon a time, its WASNT weird to see no special characters in the game. They required permission to use.

However that ship has sailed, especially in the latest edition. Now "special" characters, and I use that term loosely, are as common as alcohol is in Lindsey Lohan's blood stream.


Sad really, but no they dont need permission or even notification.

That time was also when special characters could shred through multiple units by themselves.

That ship, also, has sailed for the most part.

skrulnik wrote:
The Permissive attitude is an odd holdover from when they actual told us they didn't balance them. The game has changed. Keep up, people!

What makes you think they balance them now?

Roleplayer wrote:Im 29.

And i chooese lists purley on whats best to paint snd convert.

I like the look of sanguinary guard, and I spend about 15-20 hours per guard to paint them up. (You can see my finished ones over in my blog in the painting forum, not hrd to find)

I couldnt care less if they have chainswords and weapon skill 1. I've been playing this game sincd 2nd ed, and all I care now is making fluffy armies. The idea of 30 sanguinary guard lead by dante descending from the heavens sounds awesome to me and is a perfectly valid choice.

And maybe I did sound a bit snooty, but you sound 100% more snooty. Sorry, all that hours of work and converting is invalidated because I am think this unit isnt balanced, wah wah.

We all have units we think aren't balanced. But I dont mind of my opponent fields them. I dont mind what he puts in his army. especially special characters. To me they just increase the flavour and fluff of the game, and makes things really, really enjoyable.

I almost never play games without special characters, unless it is a very small points cost game. I have converted half of the codex space marine special characters to be spesifically for my blood ravens to use in games. Many are pretty terribad rules wise, but I find it adds more flavour to use them.

Like I said, to me, banning special characters is liking banning every unit with a name that starts with L. Its just weird and arbitary

I am also taking from someone who has only really played a lot of 40k, I dont know what the special character situation is like in fantasy.

but i have never found any 40k special character overpowering to play with or against

Roleplayer, you seemed to take personal offence about my post and decided to take a potshot over my group of friend being 'snobs' because we run a house rule.

So, let me explain how it would work if we met...

"Oh hi roleplayer, welcome to my house, hmmm? You play 40k, wow, that's great, so do me an a few of my mates. How's about a game or two of 40k. Tell me about your army?

Right, a blood angels army entirely of those golden guys with jump packs and Dante, sure, I'll give it a go, our lot don't usually use special characters but ok, I'll write a list with some in, I might try out big GT or Snikrott.

.../some time passes

Great, thanks for that game, was fun. How's about a game next week, same points value, without special characters to see how the rest of the army fares?

Oh? Won't work? Ah, due to your elites only working as troops for this special character... hmm, how about using half the sang g as elites then and half as phys reps for troop types? Hmm? No we're not anal about phys reps at all, a couple of weeks back those mounted skeles you see on the shelf were ork bikers for an afternoon, so i could playtest them.

And try a jaffa cake! "

See? Nothing snobbish about it, I'm surprised you think its all so odd since you've played since 2nd ed, where special characters were extremely unbalanced and were most decidedly 'by mutual agreement'.

I can see where you're coming from Stompa.

I didn't really take offence at your post,, sorry if you got that impression. I just find it odd.

Yes, in 2nd ed they were opponents permission as it said so in the book.

I actually dont allow any "this counts as this" in any of my games, unless a friend is just testing out one unit to see if he buys it.

I wouldn't have any problem with "Let's play a game without any special characters" if we agreed upon it the week before.

What i wouldn't want is to bring my Blood Angels army to a club and everyone refuse to play because special characters aren't allowed.

I actually own enough blood angels to field them without Sanguinary Guard as troops.

I object to the idea I need your permission to play that list, tho. I'm a decent guy, so if we're mates and you say, hey Aaron, I want to play a game without special characters to see what happens, I'd be down for that.

I'd be down for any suggestion or weird rule to make an interesting game. I'd even be fine with every second week being no special characters night, (or no tanks night, or no 2+ armor save night, or whatever people want to do) i'm totally down with everything like that.

I don't like the idea of people looking down on other people for using special characters, like they take them to powergame or there is something wrong with taking them.

Friendly games are whatever the two people agree on., I was a bit out of line to make asseumptions about the attitudes of your game club. But you were also a bit out of line to assume that people take special characters to powergame.

I also think you are flatly wrong that they are anywhere near as powerful now as you believe they are. I think when you see abaddon for example you still see 2nd ed abaddon in your head, the shock and awe is still there for you.

I've played against armies with special characters and used none myself and won easily, and be beaten easily when fielding my own special characters.

To me 'Sicarius" and "Space Marine Captain" are just two different choices in HQ. I dont see one being any different from the other, except one lacks customization ability.

Well personally I run through my entire army with my opponent anyway. So that know what weapons are on vehicles or in squads. What's in the transports. Where my HQ choices are. It just means that if someone doesn't know what something does, then they can ask a question before the game starts, meaning that valuable time isn't wasted during the game goin "WTF!? How did that blow up my entire army!!!???"

Oshova

I think if a group wants to arbitrarily veto a unit type that is 100% legal (as special characters are in the current edition) then instead they need to incorporate a veto system:

So I show up and you say "no special character for you today" then I get to veto something from your codex/list on a 1:1 basis.

Ok I won't use unit x, but you can't use Land Raiders, etc., etc. Whatever I don't feel like facing that day.

Only seems fair...

I have responded this way in the past to such attitudes concerning my lists and it is funny how people are usually eager to limit other people's lists, but usually unwilling to have their own cheese and "go-to" units removed from their own lists...

Around here, they're fair game. The debate never comes up as people just tend to assume you are allowed them.

The way 40k effective works now is that Special Characters are just the same as any unit. For example, there'd be no functional difference between.

0-1 Imperial Commando
Type: Infantry

And

Guardsman Marbo
Type: Infantry, Unique


0-1 Ravenwing Captain
Type: Vehicle

And

Grandmaster Samuel
Type Vehicle (unique)

And, just because I can. "You may upgrade one Imperial Guard Colonel in your army to a TACTICAL GENIUS!" giving it these stats....

No awards to guess who that is

Plus, since this is in the GENERAL discussions for now

Doesn't AT-43 effectively function in the same way as the Ravenwing example? You picked a named character to lead your army, which defines specific things in your army.....

Here is my take on it. I do not think special characters need to be announced, especially in a tournament setting. If I see Mephiston on the board across from me my first reaction is to ask... "hey, is that Mephiston or are you just using the model to represent a Librarian?" If you don't ask, it is your fault.

Now, if it is thursday night and I am playing a fun game of 40k with friends or at a store with people I do not know, the last thing I do is plop a special onto the board. Doing that quickly makes you "that guy" and I really don't think specials should be used in a fun game.

They have their place and that placeis a tournament or a semi-serious game.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
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.

Just a question. What if somebody has an army based around said character? Such as, for example, a Dante Sanguiniary Guard army? Belial/Logan leading Deathwing/Loganwing? Is that also completely unacceptable?

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.

So if someone has an army that only functions because of said special character (Wazdakka + Ork Bikers, Kantor + scoring sternguard), you do what? Tell them to take a hike ?

EDIT: Serves me right for not reading the full thread before replying, someone else already asked you this

Now, if it is thursday night and I am playing a fun game of 40k with friends or at a store with people I do not know, the last thing I do is plop a special onto the board. Doing that quickly makes you "that guy" and I really don't think specials should be used in a fun game.

They have their place and that placeis a tournament or a semi-serious game.

This.

Unless we've agreed to a scenario, or otherwise "fluffy" casual game, such as "Lets see if Marneus Calgar can take on 1000 points of Gimp Guard solo!" then they have no place on the casual gaming table. Using special characters in casual games is powergaming in a non-powergame environment, and I really find it interesting that so many folks don't see it that way. If you're going to be min-maxing in a casual game, then it's not really a casual game is it? What's the difference between your min-maxing in a tourney, and at the casual table? None. It's a competitive play style; period. If you show up at the store to play a random casual game, and bring a tournament style army, you're a douche, plain and simple.

Lord Manimal wrote:

Now, if it is thursday night and I am playing a fun game of 40k with friends or at a store with people I do not know, the last thing I do is plop a special onto the board. Doing that quickly makes you "that guy" and I really don't think specials should be used in a fun game.

They have their place and that placeis a tournament or a semi-serious game.

This.

Unless we've agreed to a scenario, or otherwise "fluffy" casual game, such as "Lets see if Marneus Calgar can take on 1000 points of Gimp Guard solo!" then they have no place on the casual gaming table. Using special characters in casual games is powergaming in a non-powergame environment, and I really find it interesting that so many folks don't see it that way. If you're going to be min-maxing in a casual game, then it's not really a casual game is it? What's the difference between your min-maxing in a tourney, and at the casual table? None. It's a competitive play style; period. If you show up at the store to play a random casual game, and bring a tournament style army, you're a douche, plain and simple.

Wow.

Just wow. I don't get this at all. Old Zogwort is a special character and is about as far from a tournament character as you can get - the same goes for a LOT of special characters, there's really only a few that I think you see in most tournament lists (i.e Vulkan, Mephiston, Ghaz, et al).

Roleplayer wrote:I can see where you're coming from Stompa.

I actually dont allow any "this counts as this" in any of my games, unless a friend is just testing out one unit to see if he buys it.

I wouldn't have any problem with "Let's play a game without any special characters" if we agreed upon it the week before.

What i wouldn't want is to bring my Blood Angels army to a club and everyone refuse to play because special characters aren't allowed.

I actually own enough blood angels to field them without Sanguinary Guard as troops.

I object to the idea I need your permission to play that list, tho. I'm a decent guy, so if we're mates and you say, hey Aaron, I want to play a game without special characters to see what happens, I'd be down for that.

I'd be down for any suggestion or weird rule to make an interesting game. I'd even be fine with every second week being no special characters night, (or no tanks night, or no 2+ armor save night, or whatever people want to do) i'm totally down with everything like that.

I don't like the idea of people looking down on other people for using special characters, like they take them to powergame or there is something wrong with taking them.

Friendly games are whatever the two people agree on., I was a bit out of line to make asseumptions about the attitudes of your game club. But you were also a bit out of line to assume that people take special characters to powergame.

I also think you are flatly wrong that they are anywhere near as powerful now as you believe they are. I think when you see abaddon for example you still see 2nd ed abaddon in your head, the shock and awe is still there for you.

I've played against armies with special characters and used none myself and won easily, and be beaten easily when fielding my own special characters.

To me 'Sicarius" and "Space Marine Captain" are just two different choices in HQ. I dont see one being any different from the other, except one lacks customization ability.

You're entirely right, we do have this usual rule as a holdover from previous editions, but we're all comfortable with it. It's how we play and just how we've played for a very very long time and don't think, on a regular gaming basis, that we're missing anything.

You see, you're post and others commenting on what I've said shows me something clear about why so many of you have been aghast about our no special characters rule... We aren't a club! I am referring to a group of friends who play at each other's houses. We are friends who game, not gamers who are friends, most of these players I've known for years and years. I do know that our Eldar player has a big love of Eldrad (not really a surprise) but he's happy to not take the old fella to a game because it's just one of the things we don't do. I know he uses Eldrad at his local GW and fair play, hope he has good games there.

We physrep frequently, at least I certainly have as I'm constantly experimenting with new lists, vehicle heavy, dred n kan heavy, elite heavy etc. See, you find the no special characters thing aloof and arrogant and I find the attitude of many about physrepping to be elitist and strange.

The comparisons some have made to leaving out 'heavy support' or 'fast attack' aren't really fair, you still have the standard HQ choices without special characters. Specials take up HQ spots, they are optional HQ choices, we opt not to use them.

To the folks asking 'what do you do if someone shows up with a special character based army', dunno, we've never had the situation, noone in our group of friends has such an army, never built them and perhaps that's due to our age and our experience with previous editions. Besides, I much prefer a personalised army myself.

I'll repeat myself, again, if I were to attend an open club or play in a FLGS, I'd have no trouble with someone using a special character, they are a perfectly viable choice in the codices and are incorporated into the ruleset. And that's how I voted in the poll.

I'm not the biggest anti-specials advocate in the group, that's certainly our Ultramarines player, who, for fluff reasons, despises the 'mix and match' non-chapter based (but fluff chapter based) specials for Vanillas.

But times change, I'm certainly not against experimenting with the characters. Perhaps I'll look at greenstuffing a peaked bloodaxe cap onto ghazghkull thraka one day...

I don't require permission to field a special character. I do, however, feel the need to inform my opponent that I am fielding one, and what special rules apply to said special character. It prevents so many arguments.

The only exception to that is Shadowblade, the special Dark Elf assassin, because knowing about him pretty much negates the point of using him in the first place...

Lord Manimal wrote:

Now, if it is thursday night and I am playing a fun game of 40k with friends or at a store with people I do not know, the last thing I do is plop a special onto the board. Doing that quickly makes you "that guy" and I really don't think specials should be used in a fun game.

They have their place and that placeis a tournament or a semi-serious game.

This.

Unless we've agreed to a scenario, or otherwise "fluffy" casual game, such as "Lets see if Marneus Calgar can take on 1000 points of Gimp Guard solo!" then they have no place on the casual gaming table. Using special characters in casual games is powergaming in a non-powergame environment, and I really find it interesting that so many folks don't see it that way. If you're going to be min-maxing in a casual game, then it's not really a casual game is it? What's the difference between your min-maxing in a tourney, and at the casual table? None. It's a competitive play style; period. If you show up at the store to play a random casual game, and bring a tournament style army, you're a douche, plain and simple.

There are a lot of sweeping generalizations here that are simply not always true, and in additoin, ignore the fact that many of the nastiest units in 40k aren't special Characters. To say that bringing Sicarius (a very average SC) is powergaming, but not similarly having a rule against melta vets, min/maxed long fangs, bloodcrushers, etc. is just weird.

I asked this earlier and nobody responded, but what SCs are actually that unbalanced? At lower points values they can become a problem (nobody likes dealing with Lysander or Ghaz at 750pts), but at 1500pts what SCs really provide an unfair advantage?

I still contend that the best of the SCs only look unbalanced because they are compared to the ludicriously overcosted generic equivilents. I don't think Sicarius is unbalanced, but he's nearly a no brainer when compared to the basic captain, getting FNP, a 2+ save, a power weapon, a plasma pistol, a veteran skill for a tactical squad, LD10 to the entire army, and a re-roll on seize the initiative for 100pts. He's still barely worth playing.

that's not getting into armies like DA, which need SCs to operate Deathwing or Ravenwing, or IG which only bring SCs when the player feels like having fun.

Lord Manimal wrote:

Now, if it is thursday night and I am playing a fun game of 40k with friends or at a store with people I do not know, the last thing I do is plop a special onto the board. Doing that quickly makes you "that guy" and I really don't think specials should be used in a fun game.

They have their place and that placeis a tournament or a semi-serious game.

This.

Unless we've agreed to a scenario, or otherwise "fluffy" casual game, such as "Lets see if Marneus Calgar can take on 1000 points of Gimp Guard solo!" then they have no place on the casual gaming table. Using special characters in casual games is powergaming in a non-powergame environment, and I really find it interesting that so many folks don't see it that way. If you're going to be min-maxing in a casual game, then it's not really a casual game is it? What's the difference between your min-maxing in a tourney, and at the casual table? None. It's a competitive play style; period. If you show up at the store to play a random casual game, and bring a tournament style army, you're a douche, plain and simple.

This post above makes no sense whatsoever to me for a number of reasons:

1. They are legal: just as much so as Land Raiders, or Daemon Princes, or Storm Ravens, etc., etc.

2. They are often over costed for their true impact, and rarely perform up to their potential due to player error and the whim of dice

3. they are far less game breaking/altering then the netdecking and min/maxing done in every army by competitive players (spamming of key units, power combos, etc., etc.)

Casual gaming IS exactly the place to use such characters, because we are supposed to be playing for fun. It isn't life or death, nothing is at stake (prizes, standings, etc.) and since they are perfectly legal as per the rules, etc. then who cares?!? me thinks people are taking this game WAY too seriously sometimes...

I would argue that competitive play is the place that they DON'T belong. Why? Because most tournament players are so on edge and pre-occupied about balance, sportsmanship, competition,etc., etc. that the inclusion of them fosters a lot of added drama and so forth from overly-competitive types who play "sportshammer 40K" and think it is serious business.

Having played for a while now, I can tell you in the third and fourth edition days when special characters were "opponent consent" items the conversation usually went like this:

Q: You OK with XYZ special character?
A: No.

Therefore they rarely if ever got fielded. I understand the shift to the current codex stance that allows them by default; if you didn't they'd never get fielded and by extension never get sold.

Allow Special Characters = Moar GW Salez!

In all fairness they are fun to field, especially some of the game changers like Zogwart, Ghazkull and Mephiston.

malfred wrote:

lokilokust wrote:...they really tend to come across as if they haven't really been playtested, at all.

You could probably apply that statement to most of the regular models as well.

Werd.

The Green Git wrote:Having played for a while now, I can tell you in the third and fourth edition days when special characters were "opponent consent" items the conversation usually went like this:

Q: You OK with XYZ special character?
A: No.

Therefore they rarely if ever got fielded. I understand the shift to the current codex stance that allows them by default; if you didn't they'd never get fielded and by extension never get sold.

Allow Special Characters = Moar GW Salez!

In all fairness they are fun to field, especially some of the game changers like Zogwart, Ghazkull and Mephiston.

malfred wrote:

lokilokust wrote:...they really tend to come across as if they haven't really been playtested, at all.

You could probably apply that statement to most of the regular models as well.

Werd.

You can also partially thank Privateer press for the switch Though GW would never say so, and most GW fanboys will deny it):

many of the converts to Warmachine and Hordes from GW praised PP for not having any models that required permission, and liked having powerful named characters central in their armies. GW followed this lead when going back to no permission for special characters this edition, the same way they borrowed elements and concepts from FOW in the new edition (increased role and availability of cover saves for infantry,etc.)