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.

CT GAMER wrote:
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.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but am I really understanding that my post made no sense because "they are legal"? I'm also guessing that the idea of the spirit of the game makes no sense as well then. By this logic, there's nothing stopping the Harlem Globetrotters from showing up to a public 5 on 5 basketball tournament, just because "it's legal" and it's a "public" game. Perhaps it's just me, or some kind of language/culture barrier, but to me, what you said made no sense. Do you also think that it's okay to shove 5 year olds down and take their candy, "because you can"? lol

No, you do not need permission. Yes, the characters should be known, just like I should be able to tell if it's a librarian or chaplain.

Polonius wrote:
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?

Off the top of my head, and this is just personal opinion, I think Mephiston, Swarmlord, Eldrad and a few others are too powerful.

For my personal preference, I like to see troops and tactics rather than an 'arms race' on putting the most hardcore individual model onto the table.

Do you guys play with other comp rules? I'm just curious, because most SCs aren't OP, and in fact unlock some really neat fluff armies.

Nope, not us, very relaxed games and attitude.

number9dream wrote:

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).

Wow was the first thing that I thought of too, that is exceptionally small of you.

So does the anti-special character crowd whine about non HQ specials too, or just the leaders?
Seems that you would have a great target in the Doom of Malan'tai for one.

Does the killing of a special character not make things a lot more epic?! I'm all for them. Watching the glorious Marnius Calgar get eaten by a carnifex is just plain awesome.

Compel wrote: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)

Which is what I'd rather see. Spend X points and all your bike units are troops. Spend Y points and sternguard become troop choices.

Its rather crappy to see Eldred or Marbo show up to EVERY battle. Doesnt the grandmaster of ravenwing have better things to do then show up to every battle? The should be renamed as not so special characters....

The poll is misleading. while I don't think you need to ask for permission to use anything in your army, I think you should tell your opponent what you are using and explain the special rules to them if they are not familiar with the model or unit.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Nope, not us, very relaxed games and attitude.

The fact you place arbitrary restrictions on what people can use seems to belie that statement.

carmachu wrote:Its rather crappy to see Eldred or Marbo show up to EVERY battle. Doesnt the grandmaster of ravenwing have better things to do then show up to every battle? The should be renamed as not so special characters....

Consider that first and foremost, this is a game. It's all about epic clashes and overcoming the odds to pull off your mission or survive. We don't necessarily game the mundane police actions and garrison duties that these imaginary armies encounter on a daily basis. Our games are representative (in my mind anyway) of the more important struggles that turn the tide of a big battle or decide victory or defeat for whole worlds.

If you look at it that way then it's not unusual that we see Marneus Calgar and Ghazkull Thraka. It would be unusual NOT to see them in such circumstances.

But ultimately the game is what it is and what is fun to you is what you should play. Like characters? They are there. Hate 'em? Don't take them.

My .02.

Lord Manimal wrote:
Do you also think that it's okay to shove 5 year olds down and take their candy, "because you can"? lol

Well since I have an ongoing Dakka blog in which I am playing 40k against a five year old and a nine year old in a friendly relaxed 40k campaign I think the answer to that is obvious...


So manimal, if you and I meet up for game you have no issue with me hitting anything in your list I find "against the spirit of the game" with a veto then right?

Permission to use special characters? Absolutely not, you might as well ask your opponent to write your army list for you while you're at it. As long as you are clear as to what characters you took if you're proxying units and arent using too many special rules than you can legally have with the units you brought. The only exception is if it was set out ahead of time that no named character were going to be used.

I am always in the habit of asking an opponent if they are using special/named characters. If they are I ask if they would mind using a list that doesn't contain said elements. If they are not comfortable with this I will politely decline to play against them. If further questions arise from this occurance I will always emphasise that it is a personal quirk of mine to not use or play against special/named characters and that it in no way should reflect badly upon my potential opponents.

I have a foot in both camps when it comes to my attitude towards special/named characters. From the fluff perspective I find it quite silly that said special/named characters are involved in every skirmish. I do also hold the view that a fair few of them are also unbalancing in terms of power. I do think that a select few are appropriately costed for thier power and that some are overcosted junk. I know that it is in part a holdover from previous editions but everyone has their quirks and I don't look down on people who use special/named characters whatsoever.

n.b. I use the term special/named characters as some people have tried to argue the toss that characters like Pask, Lemartes, Telion etc are "unit upgrades"

The only real problem with that philosophy is that it's going to restrict the armies you can play against. Not the players, but the actual types of armies. You'll never get to play against a loganwing, or deathwing/ravenwing. You'll never get to face a khan lead outflanking force or heavily red thirsted BA army.

Again, I contend that few SCs are no more unbalanced than the killer combos that existed before, and mostly look bad compared to laughably overcosted generic equivalents.

No.

Polonius wrote:The only real problem with that philosophy is that it's going to restrict the armies you can play against. Not the players, but the actual types of armies. You'll never get to play against a loganwing, or deathwing/ravenwing. You'll never get to face a khan lead outflanking force or heavily red thirsted BA army.

Again, I contend that few SCs are no more unbalanced than the killer combos that existed before, and mostly look bad compared to laughably overcosted generic equivalents.

This is true and is the major drawback of my viewpoint. I do see it as a snafu on GW's part not the players that alternative army lists are tied to special characters for the most part. I was a great advocate of the Space Marine Trait system in the 4th ed Codex as it allowed customisation without having to include special characters.

I don't use Special Characters. It just seems weird that the 'Prophet of the Waaaagh!' would rock up to a small 1000pt skirmish...

That said, I wouldn't try and stop any opponent from using them - they're codex-legal. I just don't personally use them.

Doesnt seem weird to me.

In my mind you're not playing a 1000 ot 'skirmish' there's a huge battle raging all around you, and the camera has zoomed onto this one peice of land, where our heroes meet.

I in fact as I said have modelled every special character in the Space Marine codex to be my own Blood Raven, and givent hem different names and histories.

In fact Telion, Sicarius, Lysander and Calgar are all the same character in my Blood Raven Fluff, Octavian. As he is in various stages of his career, first a scout leader(Using Telion's rulesand model), than a Captain of the 6th company(Sicarius rules and models), captain of the 1st company(Lysander rules and model) and finally Chapter Master of the Blood Ravens (Calgar's rules and models).

Lokdown wrote:I am always in the habit of asking an opponent if they are using special/named characters. If they are I ask if they would mind using a list that doesn't contain said elements. If they are not comfortable with this I will politely decline to play against them. If further questions arise from this occurance I will always emphasise that it is a personal quirk of mine to not use or play against special/named characters and that it in no way should reflect badly upon my potential opponents.

I have a foot in both camps when it comes to my attitude towards special/named characters. From the fluff perspective I find it quite silly that said special/named characters are involved in every skirmish. I do also hold the view that a fair few of them are also unbalancing in terms of power. I do think that a select few are appropriately costed for thier power and that some are overcosted junk. I know that it is in part a holdover from previous editions but everyone has their quirks and I don't look down on people who use special/named characters whatsoever.

And likewise fluff tells use how rare and valuable things like Land raiders and terminator armour is,so Anyone who uses these in less then a 3000pt. game is being "silly"...

Likewise anyone who runs chaos cult units (plague marines, Berzerkers, etc.) not in favored number size is being silly...

And anyone who doesn't run six troop choices of gaunts in a tyranid list is being silly as the fluff always speaks of endless hordes of gaunts...

And so on and so on...

Most armys that people run are rather silly in terms of fluff and what is being deployed in such small battles...

Chapter Masters fighting over a couple of piles of crates in a random forested area? Silly.

Elie troops with sacred relics risking their loss simply to kill some lowly pee on troops choices in what amounts to a skirmish? Silly

etc., etc.

Lokdown your logic can be appliedto most of 40K, and when we are done we have battles of scout squads fighting grots left as the only valid battles...

I want a SW terminator army, so no.

No it's not required to ask permission.

I don't play with them anyways because real men use Daemon Princes (and Khorne/Abaddon on occasion :p)

Whilst different people may have different rules in their gaming club, if I showed up at a LGS looking for a game, I would expect to be able to put down an army and play it exactly as the codex/rulebook allows me to, and not a single arbitrary rule more or less.
You may be remembering how special characters used to be permission only. They're not. Trying to force others you haven't met before to play like that is like telling them they must use Target Priority rules, or that they can't field land raiders. ESPECIALLY when certain army builds rely on certain characters to even be legal on the tabletop.
If it is a mutual agreement in your club, then sure, but for pick-up games, then no.

Bookwrack wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Nope, not us, very relaxed games and attitude.

The fact you place arbitrary restrictions on what people can use seems to belie that statement.

Nice flamebait. Both polite and insulting at the same time, kudos. Do you wear a large powdered wig and carry a fan by any chance?

Many scenarios have restrictions, many army lists have restrictions, all games restrict points used.

I have politely defended the choice we, my gaming group, all agreed on and haven't really bothered to review in 4 editions of the game.

Our group, by mutual consent, all chose to not use special character, none of us are bothered to start using them now.

We, as in the group of folks I play the game with, in our houses, get to choose what we do and don't put on the table.

We, as a group, all consent to play by the restriction, none of us owns 'special character restricted armies', so it remains a non-issue for us.

If the codex allows you to use it, then play with them if you want.

If you are a good player it does not matter if they roll a SC or not. Sounds like the guy needed something to blame for loosing...

Cheers

@GMS: His statement is false, it is not a fact that you placed an arbitrary restriction. Its his opinion based in ignorance of your reasoning. One should learn the difference between fact and opinion - it helps when debating.

I play with completely transparent army lists, so obviously disclosing which units (special or not) are being used is common etiquette.

A group of players adopting any convention (such as disallowing special characters) is their right, and begrudging them for playing that way is a waste of time and energy. Expecting an outsider to automatically adapt their convention, or that group refusing to acknowledge that it is not a universal convention is also incorrect.

Universally speaking, there is no need to get permission to play with special characters. However, universally speaking, is it necessary to get permission to play the game at all. Adapting a convention you may not normally use or be familiar with may be part of getting permission to play the game at all. Accept or not at your will, but don't resent another person for your choice.

Lord Manimal wrote:I don't mean to be argumentative, but am I really understanding that my post made no sense because "they are legal"? I'm also guessing that the idea of the spirit of the game makes no sense as well then. By this logic, there's nothing stopping the Harlem Globetrotters from showing up to a public 5 on 5 basketball tournament, just because "it's legal" and it's a "public" game. Perhaps it's just me, or some kind of language/culture barrier, but to me, what you said made no sense. Do you also think that it's okay to shove 5 year olds down and take their candy, "because you can"? lol

Wow, dude. This guy...

First of all, comparing taking a special character to abusing a child and stealing from him? Seriously? Why not just go all the way and call them Nazis, too, you know you want to.

Second, I'd argue that you're the one who doesn't understand the concept of the "spirit of the game". There's no reason to ban the use of named units, it's just a personal preference of yours that you've carried over from an older edition of the game where they weren't balanced for casual play and required permission because of that. What you're doing is no different than banning land raiders or even basic troop choices, you're the one being a douche by telling me I can't field a perfectly legal army that has nothing wrong with it.

You're being pointlessly and needlessly restrictive about what I can and can't use, and yet trying to argue "casual" play at the same time. That makes no sense, how can you claim to be "casual" when you're so hard-assed and take the game so seriously? Let me play with my freaking toys man.

Finally, as far as "balance" goes...you can say what you want about GW, but honestly I don't trust any of you to do a better job than them. If you have rules in your club/store/tournament banning certain units then I won't be there, because some people just really have no idea what they're talking about and just say all characters are "broken" simply because they're characters. It's also been proven that every time a new codex comes out and the internet pisses and moans about "broken" new characters and units, they're almost always wrong. Case in point, the Doom of Malan'tai didn't end up being as game-breaking as everyone expected.

The only real problem with that philosophy is that it's going to restrict the armies you can play against. Not the players, but the actual types of armies. You'll never get to play against a loganwing, or deathwing/ravenwing. You'll never get to face a khan lead outflanking force or heavily red thirsted BA army.

Well, that's exactly what they want, to play the same thing over and over again and never have to change their armies or buy new models (participating in the "arms race"). No challenge, no variety.

CT GAMER wrote:

Lokdown wrote:I am always in the habit of asking an opponent if they are using special/named characters. If they are I ask if they would mind using a list that doesn't contain said elements. If they are not comfortable with this I will politely decline to play against them. If further questions arise from this occurance I will always emphasise that it is a personal quirk of mine to not use or play against special/named characters and that it in no way should reflect badly upon my potential opponents.

I have a foot in both camps when it comes to my attitude towards special/named characters. From the fluff perspective I find it quite silly that said special/named characters are involved in every skirmish. I do also hold the view that a fair few of them are also unbalancing in terms of power. I do think that a select few are appropriately costed for thier power and that some are overcosted junk. I know that it is in part a holdover from previous editions but everyone has their quirks and I don't look down on people who use special/named characters whatsoever.

And likewise fluff tells use how rare and valuable things like Land raiders and terminator armour is,so Anyone who uses these in less then a 3000pt. game is being "silly"...

Likewise anyone who runs chaos cult units (plague marines, Berzerkers, etc.) not in favored number size is being silly...

And anyone who doesn't run six troop choices of gaunts in a tyranid list is being silly as the fluff always speaks of endless hordes of gaunts...

And so on and so on...

Most armys that people run are rather silly in terms of fluff and what is being deployed in such small battles...

Chapter Masters fighting over a couple of piles of crates in a random forested area? Silly.

Elie troops with sacred relics risking their loss simply to kill some lowly pee on troops choices in what amounts to a skirmish? Silly

etc., etc.

Lokdown your logic can be appliedto most of 40K, and when we are done we have battles of scout squads fighting grots left as the only valid battles...

You know what's really silly? Focusing on one (albeit poorly chosen) word in my post and then using out of context examples to try and undermine it. Sure using Land Raiders or the like in 1000 point battles can be a bit "silly". But then again there is more than one Land Raider in the galaxy.

Lokdown wrote:
You know what's really silly? Focusing on one (albeit poorly chosen) word in my post and then using out of context examples to try and undermine it. Sure using Land Raiders or the like in 1000 point battles can be a bit "silly". But then again there is more than one Land Raider in the galaxy.

The idea of Land Raider rarity is a lie, there are millions of them, they reproduce like tribbles. Ask the Blood Angels, they have so many they even throw them out of thunderhawks moving at high speed to try and reduce the numbers.