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.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

itisknown wrote:

DPBellathrom wrote:oh and +1 to crowe being useless :3

Haha, yeah. Was going to include him in a GK list, basically because I liked his model, but then I read his rules. Nope. You'd think that someone who doesn't have a power weapon in an army where even the lowliest foot soldier gets one standard issue would have some kind of buff to make up for it. But instead he gets drawbacks.

Rends on a 4+ and has Cleansing Flame; hardly worthless.

I dunno, he cant rend anything after being shot by a melta :/ if he could have a squad I would love to take him but for now, he just sits behind a rhino or walks up to my opponents gun line with a blindfold on and cigarette hanging out of his mouth

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Psycannons have the same profile as assault cannons (on Terminators) except they're S7 instead of 6. They're expensive on GMs because GMs are BS6 and because it's a damn good weapon.

Yes, GMs are BS6, and im pretty sure i pay the points for BS6 in the basecost already.

doc1234 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Psycannons have the same profile as assault cannons (on Terminators) except they're S7 instead of 6. They're expensive on GMs because GMs are BS6 and because it's a damn good weapon.

Yes, GMs are BS6, and im pretty sure i pay the points for BS6 in the basecost already.

Put it this way then: no other MEQ HQs get Assault Cannons as personal weapons. You get a BS6 weapon that gets precision shots and that isn't a one-shot weapon. The ability to threaten anything from 24" is very good. I'd probably agree that it's not worth 40+ points, but it's not monstrously overcosted.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

doc1234 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Psycannons have the same profile as assault cannons (on Terminators) except they're S7 instead of 6. They're expensive on GMs because GMs are BS6 and because it's a damn good weapon.

Yes, GMs are BS6, and im pretty sure i pay the points for BS6 in the basecost already.

Put it this way then: no other MEQ HQs get Assault Cannons as personal weapons. You get a BS6 weapon that gets precision shots and that isn't a one-shot weapon. The ability to threaten anything from 24" is very good. I'd probably agree that it's not worth 40+ points, but it's not monstrously overcosted.

moved it here http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/467416.page dont want to derail the SC thread

Draigoward... Simply NO!

do you have any clue how "juvenile" giving people a hard time over their choice of HQ is and making the game unpleasant for them, and how "silly" it is to assume that all people who use SC are power gamers? All because you think that named characters are a bad idea?

You know, I thought that "I know you are, but what am I?" sort of comeback was juvenile when I first heard in gradeschool. What does that say about you? Do you have something constructive to ad, or so you need to be dismissed as well?

Wouldn't it be better to buff generic HQ choices so they were tactically viable in comparison to the SCs? Space Marine Librarians are a good example, they're viable HQ choices despite not being SCs. Comparatively, Chaplains and Captains are gakky, because they don't add much (except Bike Captains).

I tend to agree. Aside from the tying them to army universal rule selection, the big thing that makes special characters so attractive to players is that on the whole* they are superior to the normal HQ choices.

The best solution is to go back to the old convention of making the use of special characters by opponent's consent only. That would remove them from competative play and encourage GW to balance special characters better as the more OP/cheesy ones would fall into disuse when most people refused to play against the worst offenders. Would you williing play against say Mephiston if given the option to politely opt out? Most would. It's not going to happen of course as that would cost GW money because the sale of certain over-priced character models would go down.

And "politely opt out" is the key here. That's how I routinely did it back then. I don't remember most of my opponents getting too bent out of shape when I simply stated that I would rather not play with special characters. Some players were even ready for such a thing, bringing out an alternate list they had broght along in case of such a refusal. In other cases, it took a few minutes to swap a couple of points around and they were ready to roll. No worries at all. I can only remember one occasion were I actually got a bit terse with a player about the issue. In this case the player had deployed his entire army without pointing out the special character he was using. I asked him "is that supposed to be x-character(I dont recall which one it was at this point and the detail is not important), or are you just using the model?" "it's him" my opponent replied. At this point I said something like "You know, you are supposed ask before fielding him and I'd rather not play with any special characters. Can you swap him out?" My opponent got whiney and petulant, stating that he wanted to use the character and that his list was built around it. He dug in is heels and was refusing to alter his list. I told him to "find someone else to play", packed my miniatures, and found another oponent in the shop. Now this was very much the exception. Most people in the 'use with opponent's permision" enviorment are awake enough to make plans in case someone actually refuses.

TR
*-Note I say "on the whole". I have to laugh how many people are throwing out the "but..but such and such character is not OP at all!!1111!!!" card. I fully realise that there are examples of lackluster special characters out there. But they are the exception. Like most stereotypes, the perception that special characters are over-powered compared to normal chouces is based in reality and the rarity of the exception helps to prove the rule.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

itisknown wrote:

DPBellathrom wrote:oh and +1 to crowe being useless :3

Haha, yeah. Was going to include him in a GK list, basically because I liked his model, but then I read his rules. Nope. You'd think that someone who doesn't have a power weapon in an army where even the lowliest foot soldier gets one standard issue would have some kind of buff to make up for it. But instead he gets drawbacks.

Rends on a 4+ and has Cleansing Flame; hardly worthless.

Apparently he's good at dealing with hordes. Guard stance, cleansing flame. Wait for return blows, let 35/36 non powerfist attacks bounce off his 2+ save, laugh as you catch the horde in a sweeping advance. That's his only good application, aside from suici- Heroic sacrifice on an enemy IC or MC.

I still think he's useless though.

Trench-Raider wrote:

do you have any clue how "juvenile" giving people a hard time over their choice of HQ is and making the game unpleasant for them, and how "silly" it is to assume that all people who use SC are power gamers? All because you think that named characters are a bad idea?

You know, I thought that "I know you are, but what am I?" sort of comeback was juvenile when I first heard in gradeschool. What does that say about you? Do you have something constructive to ad, or so you need to be dismissed as well?

Wouldn't it be better to buff generic HQ choices so they were tactically viable in comparison to the SCs? Space Marine Librarians are a good example, they're viable HQ choices despite not being SCs. Comparatively, Chaplains and Captains are gakky, because they don't add much (except Bike Captains).

I tend to agree. Aside from the tying them to army universal rule selection, the big thing that makes special characters so attractive to players is that on the whole* they are superior to the normal HQ choices.

The best solution is to go back to the old convention of making the use of special characters by opponent's consent only. That would remove them from competative play and encourage GW to balance special characters better as the more OP/cheesy ones would fall into disuse when most people refused to play against the worst offenders. Would you williing play against say Mephiston if given the option to politely opt out? Most would. It's not going to happen of course as that would cost GW money because the sale of certain over-priced character models would go down.

And "politely opt out" is the key here. That's how I routinely did it back then. I don't remember most of my opponents getting too bent out of shape when I simply stated that I would rather not play with special characters. Some players were even ready for such a thing, bringing out an alternate list they had broght along in case of such a refusal. In other cases, it took a few minutes to swap a couple of points around and they were ready to roll. No worries at all. I can only remember one occasion were I actually got a bit terse with a player about the issue. In this case the player had deployed his entire army without pointing out the special character he was using. I asked him "is that supposed to be x-character(I dont recall which one it was at this point and the detail is not important), or are you just using the model?" "it's him" my opponent replied. At this point I said something like "You know, you are supposed ask before fielding him and I'd rather not play with any special characters. Can you swap him out?" My opponent got whiney and petulant, stating that he wanted to use the character and that his list was built around it. He dug in is heels and was refusing to alter his list. I told him to "find someone else to play", packed my miniatures, and found another oponent in the shop. Now this was very much the exception. Most people in the 'use with opponent's permision" enviorment are awake enough to make plans in case someone actually refuses.

TR
*-Note I say "on the whole". I have to laugh how many people are throwing out the "but..but such and such character is not OP at all!!1111!!!" card. I fully realise that there are examples of lackluster special characters out there. But they are the exception. Like most stereotypes, the perception that special characters are over-powered compared to normal chouces is based in reality and the rarity of the exception helps to prove the rule.

You're still dodging my question though: what SCs are OP? I'd personally just rather see normal characters as a viable choice and leave it at that. Why are SCs intrinsically bad?

You also still have the option of declining to play against SCs, the entire game is opponent's conscent after all.

Eldrad. Makes enemy psykers nearly useless, can use powers that allows units to reroll almost anything, has a 4+ invul and has an AP2 weapon in close combat. I've never seen an Eldar army list without him.

You're still dodging my question though: what SCs are OP?

I'm not dodging anything. Most of them are OP. Would you like a detailed list of offenders? Shall I start with mephiston and work my way down?

. Why are SCs intrinsically bad?

I outlined the problems I had with special characters in my very first post on the thread. Shall I link or quote it?

You also still have the option of declining to play against SCs, the entire game is opponent's conscent after all

Yes, you always have the "I'll take my toys and go home" choice. But that is what you call a "false choice" or "false delima" in that you offer an option, but it's an unacceptable option and thus not a true choice......It's kind of like when your wife tells you "You don't have to go to my friend's wedding if you won't want to", knowning full well that if you shouldd make that choice you will pay for it in the future.

What about in a competative play enviorment were making that choice would result in forfeiting the round?
It would be far better to return to "opponent consent only" and give players a real choice. As it is now, you pretty much have to deal with it or go home.

TR

and....

I've never seen an Eldar army list without him.

You need to get out more. I ran one just last night without him!

Please, start listing them. All you've got so far is that you don't like SCs because you don't like that they're everywhere. If I want to play with Lysander, for example, why should I be limited from doing so? There are no arbitrary restrictions on Predator Destructors, why should there be for HQs?

Your special character, because it's probably xenos or traitor scum!

In all seriousness I hate Coteaz due to his cheap and spammy nature. Every list I see him in seems rather bland and full of .

To all the Eldrad haters, Eldar kinda need him to function competitively, or run 2 seers. Don't get me wrong, I went to a tourney with only a farseer, but that's coz everything else is so damn expensive.

Our farseers are over costed, like everything else, so Eldrad is one of the few choices for HQ that's a good price.

Also, ANY farseer can take the runes of warding to mess with other psykers, so don't hate eldrad for that


And Trench-Raider, for being supposedly mature and an adult, you have spent the entire thread calling people childish and therefore their opinion is invalid. Your opinion is your own, and I respect that, but because you have yours it doesn't mean everyone else is wrong.


OP: I hate the swarmlord. Not that he ever touches my eldar army, just what he can do... Also, I seen a warboss and a unit of 10 nobs charge into him, and I admit it was rather funny watching my friends face as he proceeded to ID the warboss and a few nobs, then run the rest down, while taking no wounds.


Von Chogg

It would be far better to return to "opponent consent only" and give players a real choice. As it is now, you pretty much have to deal with it or go home.

You have the choice now to decline anyone you feel like in any sort of match. What you really want is a "This rule benefits my own personal views, so thus I can tell you to off if I see a hint of a SC without social consequence of looking like a petulant child."

I'm pretty much forced to use my SC's however, the days of Master of Ravenwing or Master of Deathwing are long gone. Though I do use Azreal and Ezekial for fun sometimes, but I wish they would bring back Asmodai.

Von Chogg wrote:To all the Eldrad haters, Eldar kinda need him to function competitively, or run 2 seers.

Yes, but that is bloody annoying. You shouldn't need to use special characters for the army to function. Of course this is not so much of an issue with special characters themselves as with many standard HQs being lacklustre.

Trench-Raider wrote:

do you have any clue how "juvenile" giving people a hard time over their choice of HQ is and making the game unpleasant for them, and how "silly" it is to assume that all people who use SC are power gamers? All because you think that named characters are a bad idea?

You know, I thought that "I know you are, but what am I?" sort of comeback was juvenile when I first heard in gradeschool. What does that say about you? Do you have something constructive to ad, or so you need to be dismissed as well?

Wouldn't it be better to buff generic HQ choices so they were tactically viable in comparison to the SCs? Space Marine Librarians are a good example, they're viable HQ choices despite not being SCs. Comparatively, Chaplains and Captains are gakky, because they don't add much (except Bike Captains).

I tend to agree. Aside from the tying them to army universal rule selection, the big thing that makes special characters so attractive to players is that on the whole* they are superior to the normal HQ choices.

The best solution is to go back to the old convention of making the use of special characters by opponent's consent only. That would remove them from competative play and encourage GW to balance special characters better as the more OP/cheesy ones would fall into disuse when most people refused to play against the worst offenders. Would you williing play against say Mephiston if given the option to politely opt out? Most would. It's not going to happen of course as that would cost GW money because the sale of certain over-priced character models would go down.

And "politely opt out" is the key here. That's how I routinely did it back then. I don't remember most of my opponents getting too bent out of shape when I simply stated that I would rather not play with special characters. Some players were even ready for such a thing, bringing out an alternate list they had broght along in case of such a refusal. In other cases, it took a few minutes to swap a couple of points around and they were ready to roll. No worries at all. I can only remember one occasion were I actually got a bit terse with a player about the issue. In this case the player had deployed his entire army without pointing out the special character he was using. I asked him "is that supposed to be x-character(I dont recall which one it was at this point and the detail is not important), or are you just using the model?" "it's him" my opponent replied. At this point I said something like "You know, you are supposed ask before fielding him and I'd rather not play with any special characters. Can you swap him out?" My opponent got whiney and petulant, stating that he wanted to use the character and that his list was built around it. He dug in is heels and was refusing to alter his list. I told him to "find someone else to play", packed my miniatures, and found another oponent in the shop. Now this was very much the exception. Most people in the 'use with opponent's permision" enviorment are awake enough to make plans in case someone actually refuses.

TR
*-Note I say "on the whole". I have to laugh how many people are throwing out the "but..but such and such character is not OP at all!!1111!!!" card. I fully realise that there are examples of lackluster special characters out there. But they are the exception. Like most stereotypes, the perception that special characters are over-powered compared to normal chouces is based in reality and the rarity of the exception helps to prove the rule.

Have to say mate, you are coming across as a bit of an obstinate . Just an observation.

Back on topic, if you can't defeat a SC, then your doing something wrong, usually not bringing enough fire-power. For a usual Uber-beatstick it's 250-275 pts. For that you could get 50 Guardsmen, an LRC or whatever; No one is immune to copious amounts of fire-power.

Futhermore, most people don't like being told that they can't use something they were most likely excited to use. The only one I can think of that are OP (IMHO) is Draigo.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Please, start listing them. All you've got so far is that you don't like SCs because you don't like that they're everywhere. If I want to play with Lysander, for example, why should I be limited from doing so? There are no arbitrary restrictions on Predator Destructors, why should there be for HQs?

I'll be waiting next to Almighty.
I guess all SCs might be a bit too much so I have another request, if I may. I've used Asurmen, Fuegan, Karandras and Maugan Ra in a single game. Could you rate those overpowered imbalanced four heroes next to weaklings like Rune Priest and Wolf Lord (I was playing against SW) on a scale from 1 to 10?

Why all the hate for SCs? Seriously, there is nothing wrong with them. They all have a weakness, and none are insta-win buttons, so quite what the problem is in terms of gameplay is a mystery to me.

Every single Necron SC. A million convoluted special rules that make them a pain to play against. Of course, that could be said about the entire codex.
The Stormlord also gets a special place on the list. As Vakathi has said, he's a massive crutch and nothing more. It wouldn't be so bad if he at least introduced a new way to play, or a new strategy to build around, but as he is, you just take him and he already turns the match in your favour.

I dislike Draigo's fluff intensely (also not a fan of his model, but I use a converted GKT anyway), but I need him for my Paladin list.

I can already tell the art I was planning to do for a 'Trials of Draigo' story-piece is going to be a big hit with all of you.

As in the internet cartoon "Trials of Draigo?" Those guys made him great. Carry on daedalus.

Well my main thing is the fluff and the only characters fluff I dont like would be

Magnus : I actually like the UM but this guy annoys the daylights out of me for some reason. I dont mind the other UM SCs (I simply need to ignore Ward's blown out of proportion fluff. I like the way "The Chapters Due" portrayed them all.)

Draigo : Again, fluff of him.


The rest, I dont really have an opinion on or I dont mind that much. (Minus Blood Angels as I hate everything about their fluff and proced to ignore it completely) Im sure there is one more character I dont like but I cant think of him now. *shrugs*

Trench-Raider wrote:All of them.
I've always disliked special characters and the way that GW has mainstreamed their use in 40k. Back when the use of a special character required one's opponent's permision to field them I routinely declined to give said permission. I was certainly not alone. Back in the 2nd edition days, my local gaming group was pretty much unanimous in their condemnation of the use of special characters and would give those who wanted to use them grief. I still laugh at the time I heard someone saying "oh look, it's THE Marnious Calgar!!", acompanied by much eye rolling.

Spoiler:

I recall when the very first 40k special characters (Yarrick and Gazgull) apeared in White Dwarf and thinking to myself "Why would anyone use these? Do they not have the creativty to thinkup a back story for their own character models?" You can imagine my distaste when a coupl of months later the very first Space Wolf army list apeared in yet another WD issue with most of the named characters that are still there today. My worst fears got confirmed just a few months later when I played my first game against someone with a brand new Space Wolves army and found that he had included all of them. Every. Single. One. That pretty much confirmed in my mind that these new named character models were a bad thing.

Like so many other questionable decisions that GW has made over the years, the lifting of restrictions on the use of special characters and newer codexes tying army build changing universal rules o their use is motivated by finanatial motivation: encouraging folks to buy horribly over-priced single models.

TR

I disagree in the extreme with most of your points.

I love using characters like Fateweaver and Skulltaker, and while I've received flak for using them, I love the backstory to them. I already have an army with my own background to it, but I highly enjoy usage of the characters because I ether love the background or the models. I'm in no way a WAAC player, and am terrible at the game.

I'll agree with the use of characters by players who don't care for the games background or use it just to win, but it doesn't make me a bad person to use a character I like?

Abaddon, because he's totally incompetent. Although, at this point, I feel it'd be like hating a small animal, or young child. He's just too stupid to succeed, so how much can you blame him?

As for which I hate to see on the table, none of them. There are no special characters that are any kind of problem for the game.

Really/? We're insulting poor poor 'Baddy now? Poor sod...

I would argue that every Black Crusade so far has been a success. Abaddon is cool in my books.

DarknessEternal wrote:Abaddon, because he's totally incompetent. Although, at this point, I feel it'd be like hating a small animal, or young child. He's just too stupid to succeed, so how much can you blame him?

How has he failed? None of his Black Crusades so far has been intended to take Terra if that is what you are judging them by. The Gothic War (12th BC) got him exactly what he wanted and given where they left the 13th BC off his forces are winning.

Trazyn. I loathe WBB with every fiber of my being, and he basically has super-WBB.

To those decrying that SC are not overly powerful, i list this, lysander, for 200 points you get a 2+ armor 3+ Inv, twin linked bolters, Bolster defences, EW and str 10 TH that is master crafted
Whilee Khan is 205 points and he gets a bike, power armor and a sword that on a hit of 6 cause Instant Death.
Now this may be me being biased, but its seems kinda overly powerful for 200 points.

hotsauceman1 wrote:To those decrying that SC are not overly powerful, i list this, lysander, for 200 points you get a 2+ armor 3+ Inv, twin linked bolters, Bolster defences, EW and str 10 TH that is master crafted
Whilee Khan is 205 points and he gets a bike, power armor and a sword that on a hit of 6 cause Instant Death.
Now this may be me being biased, but its seems kinda overly powerful for 200 points.

Lysander is very powerful for 200, no question. But tell me how balanced Long Fangs are next to some other HS, especially when SW codex was just released. Would it be OK to say that HS is broken and you should not play with HS at all? Or maybe that in every part of the game there are some things incredibly powerful for their cost, some are appropriately priced, some are meh, and there are some just damn awful?
Why can't I use something good (or sometimes bad) because in the same category exists something insanely powerful. Let's ban the whole game then.

hotsauceman1 wrote:To those decrying that SC are not overly powerful, i list this, lysander, for 200 points you get a 2+ armor 3+ Inv, twin linked bolters, Bolster defences, EW and str 10 TH that is master crafted
Whilee Khan is 205 points and he gets a bike, power armor and a sword that on a hit of 6 cause Instant Death.
Now this may be me being biased, but its seems kinda overly powerful for 200 points.

And Outflank to the entire army. And bikes as troops. Besides, stubborn (which you forgot on Lysander) is really pointless over ATSKNF in 6th and the Bolter Drill only works for the squad he's in. Lysander's a beatstick with almost no utility, whereas Khan unlocks a completely different type of list.