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'm a bit confused, soup lists (as in combining multiple armies using the detachment system) are common and competitive and will likely remain the best option, but they aren't what you are describing.
Superfriend armies which field multiple named characters, particularly from different factions, aren't that common or dominant. Sure, RG is a mainstay of the best SM builds, but you aren't running him and other UM characters or even CM from other chapters. Celestine is a fairly common addition to many imperial lists as is magnus for chaos, but even then the "main" force often only has a single named character to go with them.
Galas wrote: Aren't Soup armies, armies that mix many factions? I think they are a different concept that "superhero" armies that I assume are some kind of Herohammer style of building a list.
I thought he was talking more about Soup armies that do 3-4 characters of different factions, like Gman, St. Celestine etc.. in the same army.
It seems like an inevitable fate for any game system. You set a faction up with its base troop types, introduce a couple options a few years later, but then you hit a wall. There's only so many ways to produce those. But special characters? You can produce a bunch of them, sell them to experienced players who are happy with their troop choices, and produce even more with additional options.
Privateer Press, Wyrd, they've all run into this problem and GW is no different. I hate special characters but they are an inevitable part of the aging out of a game.
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
I mean, Characters are fun tho, and many players are playing with many troops now.
How is this really any different than many of the other editions? 5th i had always 2 HQ characters for every army, if i could take more i would have for sure, and i think everyone would have.
No one is complaining that Aeldari has, Troupe Master, Yvraine, Autarch and Farseer. Thats 4 characters from 4 factions, the difference? Its not winning game, but you bet if it was everyone would be mad.
Mixing characters isnt bad, imo and many players like it, if you dont like it... dont do it. As an example, if you HATE Eldar and love SM, do you ignore every Eldar player b.c you dont like the fluff/style of the army? no...
Remember this is not just a game to win, its fun, has story, has multiple hobby aspects etc... Can we balance the characters a bit more? Sure, would you still be mad if it was balance? most likely not. So truly are you mad that players are mixing characters? or are you mad that a few characters or under costed? We know the answer.
PS: Sorry if i'm redundant, English is hard for me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/14 19:14:53
Eh, I mostly just dislike having named characters I can't customize as basically my only option to take for HQ choices (looking at you, sisters and mechanicus).
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
When I first saw the Indexes (Indices?) I was pretty happy at how easy it was to mix and match things within a faction. So much BL fiction depicts a few squads of marines (or a few marines, period.) assisting a larger force of Guard, often with a sprinkling Sisters of Battle and the occasional Inquisitor. Chaos forces are almost always a mixed bag of traitors and mutants lorded over by Chaos Space Marines with the odd Daemonic incursion or summoning ritual. I like me some soup and I feel that if anything MORE cross-faction synergy should be in the game.
What I don't like is seeing Creed in every Astra Militarum army, Guilliman in every Space Marine army, or Celestine just wherever she can be pigeon-holed in. Special Characters should definitely bring something a bit extra to the table, but I strongly feel like the generic alternatives need to be close to on-par with them. I'm not saying a Captain should beat Guilliman in combat, but a few generic characters should be able to be a viable replacement in terms of supporting the rest of the force.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/15 01:31:59
Galas wrote: Aren't Soup armies, armies that mix many factions? I think they are a different concept that "superhero" armies that I assume are some kind of Herohammer style of building a list.
I think he meant "supe"
Yeah, maybe.
I took the idea for the poll from an article that I had read and from one podcast in particular that both used the term "soup" to describe their competitive supe-rhero tournament-winning lists.
So, I just put my thoughts as informed by those sources into the language of the poll.
I tried to make the intent of the question clear, in the original post and in the poll language, itself.
Sure, maybe 'soup' means different things to different people.
I just used the word as it has come to be used, and I am finding the different replies interesting,
especially those that want to attack the difference between the term as it has been used in those sources recently and the one that is floating around in their brains.
Anyways, I agree - 'soup' here may be better spelled 'supe' as it seems that the people using the term in those resources that inspired the poll are more interested in the meat and taters floating about (the main characters and their 'buffs') than the broth and seasoning (the troops and the units that hold it all together).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverAlien wrote: I'm a bit confused, soup lists (as in combining multiple armies using the detachment system) are common and competitive and will likely remain the best option, but they aren't what you are describing.
Superfriend armies which field multiple named characters, particularly from different factions, aren't that common or dominant. Sure, RG is a mainstay of the best SM builds, but you aren't running him and other UM characters or even CM from other chapters. Celestine is a fairly common addition to many imperial lists as is magnus for chaos, but even then the "main" force often only has a single named character to go with them.
So yeah, honestly a bit confused here.
Please see my post, above.
Maybe this will clear things up.
Galas wrote: Aren't Soup armies, armies that mix many factions? I think they are a different concept that "superhero" armies that I assume are some kind of Herohammer style of building a list.
I thought he was talking more about Soup armies that do 3-4 characters of different factions, like Gman, St. Celestine etc.. in the same army.
Exactly this.
More focus on the tasty chunks that stand out than the base that holds it together.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: I mean, Characters are fun tho, and many players are playing with many troops now.
How is this really any different than many of the other editions? 5th i had always 2 HQ characters for every army, if i could take more i would have for sure, and i think everyone would have.
No one is complaining that Aeldari has, Troupe Master, Yvraine, Autarch and Farseer. Thats 4 characters from 4 factions, the difference? Its not winning game, but you bet if it was everyone would be mad.
Mixing characters isnt bad, imo and many players like it, if you dont like it... dont do it. As an example, if you HATE Eldar and love SM, do you ignore every Eldar player b.c you dont like the fluff/style of the army? no...
Remember this is not just a game to win, its fun, has story, has multiple hobby aspects etc... Can we balance the characters a bit more? Sure, would you still be mad if it was balance? most likely not. So truly are you mad that players are mixing characters? or are you mad that a few characters or under costed? We know the answer.
PS: Sorry if i'm redundant, English is hard for me.
Your English is clear for me - thanks for making the effort to learn the language so well!
I think that this is the main idea, here.
Mixing characters to maximize benefits is now supposed to be "fluffy", as if 40k is the new Avengers movie or something like that.
And, moreover, that GWwants40k to be like a new Avengers movie, with Iron Man(tm) and the Hulk(tm) playing in every game.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/09/15 01:48:09
I like the idea that characters can be buffers instead of combat oriented. It reminds me of movies when the leader is running up and down the line yelling things like "Choose your targets! The armor is weaker under the arm and the throat!" To me that is the essence of the space marine captain`s re-rolls of 1`s as he exorts his men to excel at their marksmanship.
I think that the primarchs are WAAAAY over powered and have no place in matched play. A 2000 pts game is supposed to be a company sized attack. Primarchs would be at the head of a massive interstellar army. A general doesn`t take an active role in small company or platoon sized battles instead they focus on the war in general.
Apocritas wrote: I like the idea that characters can be buffers instead of combat oriented. It reminds me of movies when the leader is running up and down the line yelling things like "Choose your targets! The armor is weaker under the arm and the throat!" To me that is the essence of the space marine captain`s re-rolls of 1`s as he exorts his men to excel at their marksmanship.
I think that the primarchs are WAAAAY over powered and have no place in matched play. A 2000 pts game is supposed to be a company sized attack. Primarchs would be at the head of a massive interstellar army. A general doesn`t take an active role in small company or platoon sized battles instead they focus on the war in general.
Ok, so I do not like huge characters, and I agree, but fluffwise, a 2000 point game can easily be a small skirmish in the middle of a whole world at war. They'd basically be his little personal garde and he has just landed to fight the enemy character and his entourage while further out beyond the borders of your table, a war rages.
Personally, I think the concept of the 'soup army' is a phenomenon which only applies to the Imperium of Man.
Chaos has always had various God specific Legions, undivided, etc., but they were just fundamentally the same.
However, with T Sons codex and now Nurgle Chaos is heading towards a 'quasi-uniform soup'. Just lots of special abilities. A bad analogy would be tomato soup with four spices.
IoM 'soup' however, continuing withe the bad analogy motif, is an absolute hotch potch of all the leftovers in your fridge thrown in a slow cooker.
Sorry, no real point just musing on what 'soup' really is.
Please note, for those of you who play Chaos Daemons as a faction the term "Daemon" is potentially offensive. Instead, please play codex "Chaos: Mortally Challenged". Thank you.
auticus wrote: I find in a competitive community (what many of us seem to live in) that this is just the way people are and you aren't going to stop it.
In my years of playing 40k I've learned that often people will lament something and then do the exact thing that they are lamenting.
I mean, of course they will. That's how basically all games work. People will do what the game wants them to do, and if what the game wants them to do isn't fun then they'll complain. Game designers need to think carefully about what behaviors they're going to incentivize.
Lists consisting of forces from multiple different organizations in the Imperium are undeniably fluffy.
However, I wouldn't say it should be encouraged, outside of narrative play.
As far as superfriends, I haven't seen any of it. It just isn't that good, I think. Having 1 is common, having more than one is much less so. And I don't think having 1 isn't fluffy, since I don't see why Guilliman wouldn't be leading a crusade battlegroup, or Celestine wouldn't see fit to appear to a mix band of desperate defenders in their hour of need, or Logan Grimnar or Belisarius Cawl or Knight Commander Pask wouldn't find themselves and their forces fighting alongside other organizations within the Imperium. In fact, I'd hazard that the heroes of the Imperium would probably be more likely to be involved in large scale actions with multiple forces taking part than otherwise.
However, I don't really like the meta of making lists consisting of tons of allied factions, so whether it's fluffy or not, I think SC's should be restricted to having the faction keyword of your largest detachment and that detachments should only have one faction, it would at the very least, put a stay on mix-and-match-for-maximum-power.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/15 13:10:32
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Apocritas wrote: I like the idea that characters can be buffers instead of combat oriented. It reminds me of movies when the leader is running up and down the line yelling things like "Choose your targets! The armor is weaker under the arm and the throat!" To me that is the essence of the space marine captain`s re-rolls of 1`s as he exorts his men to excel at their marksmanship.
I think that the primarchs are WAAAAY over powered and have no place in matched play. A 2000 pts game is supposed to be a company sized attack. Primarchs would be at the head of a massive interstellar army. A general doesn`t take an active role in small company or platoon sized battles instead they focus on the war in general.
So true.
It is interesting that as other areas of the game seem to have become less realistic, so too has this rise of the primarchs resulted in less realistic army composition.
I miss the old force organization chart, and was a fan of percentage points limitations with a general ban on named characters in standard games.
Apocritas wrote: I like the idea that characters can be buffers instead of combat oriented. It reminds me of movies when the leader is running up and down the line yelling things like "Choose your targets! The armor is weaker under the arm and the throat!" To me that is the essence of the space marine captain`s re-rolls of 1`s as he exorts his men to excel at their marksmanship.
I think that the primarchs are WAAAAY over powered and have no place in matched play. A 2000 pts game is supposed to be a company sized attack. Primarchs would be at the head of a massive interstellar army. A general doesn`t take an active role in small company or platoon sized battles instead they focus on the war in general.
Ok, so I do not like huge characters, and I agree, but fluffwise, a 2000 point game can easily be a small skirmish in the middle of a whole world at war. They'd basically be his little personal garde and he has just landed to fight the enemy character and his entourage while further out beyond the borders of your table, a war rages.
But then, Girlyman dies.
And see, in the "real world", he doesn't.
So, that is not a move that he is likely to make.
Sure, some possible world, some possible reality, may be said to exist in which he makes such a move, but this is far from what we might consider an 'actual" world, meaning here that 'actual' is a believable world.
And sure, people can play how they want to play, but then again there seems more substance in a setting that is more coherent.
For Girlyman to put himself out there, like that, after surviving for so long, being the right hand man of a galaxy spanning empire, only to die half the time, well... That seems pretty far from coherent, at least to me...
auticus wrote: I find in a competitive community (what many of us seem to live in) that this is just the way people are and you aren't going to stop it.
In my years of playing 40k I've learned that often people will lament something and then do the exact thing that they are lamenting.
I mean, of course they will. That's how basically all games work. People will do what the game wants them to do, and if what the game wants them to do isn't fun then they'll complain. Game designers need to think carefully about what behaviors they're going to incentivize.
This was a main point in the original post, and worthy of discussion.
Bravo. Exalted.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/15 13:26:11
Apocritas wrote: I like the idea that characters can be buffers instead of combat oriented. It reminds me of movies when the leader is running up and down the line yelling things like "Choose your targets! The armor is weaker under the arm and the throat!" To me that is the essence of the space marine captain`s re-rolls of 1`s as he exorts his men to excel at their marksmanship.
I think that the primarchs are WAAAAY over powered and have no place in matched play. A 2000 pts game is supposed to be a company sized attack. Primarchs would be at the head of a massive interstellar army. A general doesn`t take an active role in small company or platoon sized battles instead they focus on the war in general.
So true.
It is interesting that as other areas of the game seem to have become less realistic, so too has this rise of the primarchs resulted in less realistic army composition.
I miss the old force organization chart, and was a fan of percentage points limitations with a general ban on named characters in standard games.
I like having a literal angel lead my army. I am 99% certain that there wouldn't be a problem with me doing so if Canonii were more efficient that she is, but they're not [because they don't have jump packs], and she's good, so people have a problem with it. Nobody really cares if I field Yarrick, or Creed and Kell, or any one of the stack of Space Wolves special characters I'm in possession of. It's only a problem if I have Celestine, Pask, Harker, [and last edition, Bran].
However, I've long believed that Special Characters should not really be all that special, because you can only have one. It's hard to have a scalable strategy built around one-of-a-kind units. Fluffy personal abilities, like Celestine's ressurection or Bran's werewolf transformation, are fine as unique functions, but it's important to consider what really we want tactically out of the special character and make sure we can get it with a non-unique option.
Apocritas wrote: I like the idea that characters can be buffers instead of combat oriented. It reminds me of movies when the leader is running up and down the line yelling things like "Choose your targets! The armor is weaker under the arm and the throat!" To me that is the essence of the space marine captain`s re-rolls of 1`s as he exorts his men to excel at their marksmanship.
I think that the primarchs are WAAAAY over powered and have no place in matched play. A 2000 pts game is supposed to be a company sized attack. Primarchs would be at the head of a massive interstellar army. A general doesn`t take an active role in small company or platoon sized battles instead they focus on the war in general.
Ok, so I do not like huge characters, and I agree, but fluffwise, a 2000 point game can easily be a small skirmish in the middle of a whole world at war. They'd basically be his little personal garde and he has just landed to fight the enemy character and his entourage while further out beyond the borders of your table, a war rages.
But then, Girlyman dies.
And see, in the "real world", he doesn't.
So, that is not a move that he is likely to make.
Sure, some possible world, some possible reality, may be said to exist in which he makes such a move, but this is far from what we might consider an 'actual" world, meaning here that 'actual' is a believable world.
And sure, people can play how they want to play, but then again there seems more substance in a setting that is more coherent.
For Girlyman to put himself out there, like that, after surviving for so long, being the right hand man of a galaxy spanning empire, only to die half the time, well... That seems pretty far from coherent, at least to me...
But why wouldn't Pask or Harker be on the frontlines? Or Celestine, who appears in the hour of need and then disappears afterwords?
All things considered, Gulliman would probably take to the front lines too, and the hypothetical "fluff consequences" of him dying aren't really a factor. After all, we play games against other Guard/Sisters/Space Marines players, yes? It's just as incoherent for the Order of the Argent Shroud to be burning their way through the Iron Hands as it is for Gulliman to die on the battlefield.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/09/15 14:39:40
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Sure girlyman would fight but he can't be at every battle when your retaking a world there would be hundreds of skirmishes beneath his notice he'd be there for the major strategic fights.
Love fluffy "soup" armies, BL has enough material showing SM fighting alongside IG for example.
The issue is the internal balance for IoM is waaay off, as in. Non-existent. With the new keywords you cannot treat IG, SM, AS etc as separate factions anymore, you need to balance everything within it fairly.
With the new system, there is no real reason to take a LRBT over a Las-Pred, or a WW over a Wyvern. Or Tacticals when you can just field hordes of conscripts for a fraction of the price, with greater firepower.
With chapter tactics being greatly nerfed, there is no reason to really run a pure SM force anymore, the rewards are meh at best, and rubbish at worse. And the IG orders can be issued regardless of the detachment keywords.
Alternatively, limit armies to only 2 detachment choices. Problem solved overnight.
Apocritas wrote: I like the idea that characters can be buffers instead of combat oriented. It reminds me of movies when the leader is running up and down the line yelling things like "Choose your targets! The armor is weaker under the arm and the throat!" To me that is the essence of the space marine captain`s re-rolls of 1`s as he exorts his men to excel at their marksmanship.
I think that the primarchs are WAAAAY over powered and have no place in matched play. A 2000 pts game is supposed to be a company sized attack. Primarchs would be at the head of a massive interstellar army. A general doesn`t take an active role in small company or platoon sized battles instead they focus on the war in general.
So true.
It is interesting that as other areas of the game seem to have become less realistic, so too has this rise of the primarchs resulted in less realistic army composition.
I miss the old force organization chart, and was a fan of percentage points limitations with a general ban on named characters in standard games.
I like having a literal angel lead my army. I am 99% certain that there wouldn't be a problem with me doing so if Canonii were more efficient that she is, but they're not [because they don't have jump packs], and she's good, so people have a problem with it. Nobody really cares if I field Yarrick, or Creed and Kell, or any one of the stack of Space Wolves special characters I'm in possession of. It's only a problem if I have Celestine, Pask, Harker, [and last edition, Bran].
However, I've long believed that Special Characters should not really be all that special, because you can only have one. It's hard to have a scalable strategy built around one-of-a-kind units. Fluffy personal abilities, like Celestine's ressurection or Bran's werewolf transformation, are fine as unique functions, but it's important to consider what really we want tactically out of the special character and make sure we can get it with a non-unique option.
Apocritas wrote: I like the idea that characters can be buffers instead of combat oriented. It reminds me of movies when the leader is running up and down the line yelling things like "Choose your targets! The armor is weaker under the arm and the throat!" To me that is the essence of the space marine captain`s re-rolls of 1`s as he exorts his men to excel at their marksmanship.
I think that the primarchs are WAAAAY over powered and have no place in matched play. A 2000 pts game is supposed to be a company sized attack. Primarchs would be at the head of a massive interstellar army. A general doesn`t take an active role in small company or platoon sized battles instead they focus on the war in general.
Ok, so I do not like huge characters, and I agree, but fluffwise, a 2000 point game can easily be a small skirmish in the middle of a whole world at war. They'd basically be his little personal garde and he has just landed to fight the enemy character and his entourage while further out beyond the borders of your table, a war rages.
But then, Girlyman dies.
And see, in the "real world", he doesn't.
So, that is not a move that he is likely to make.
Sure, some possible world, some possible reality, may be said to exist in which he makes such a move, but this is far from what we might consider an 'actual" world, meaning here that 'actual' is a believable world.
And sure, people can play how they want to play, but then again there seems more substance in a setting that is more coherent.
For Girlyman to put himself out there, like that, after surviving for so long, being the right hand man of a galaxy spanning empire, only to die half the time, well... That seems pretty far from coherent, at least to me...
But why wouldn't Pask or Harker be on the frontlines? Or Celestine, who appears in the hour of need and then disappears afterwords?
All things considered, Gulliman would probably take to the front lines too, and the hypothetical "fluff consequences" of him dying aren't really a factor. After all, we play games against other Guard/Sisters/Space Marines players, yes? It's just as incoherent for the Order of the Argent Shroud to be burning their way through the Iron Hands as it is for Gulliman to die on the battlefield.
I think that you don't understand what I mean by "possible worlds"...
And no, it isn't just as incoherent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/16 15:41:18
It's just my personal oppinion, but sticking to one faction should give you big enough benefits to be at least stronger/equal than mixed army.
Reason for this is simple - coherency - I can't believe few randoms can fight better together than legion that was fighting using same tactics for goddamn 10 000 years.
This argument is basically unbeatable.
It's like if you get together 11 good players to play football against 11 solid players who play with each other all the time.
They will wreck those good players without breaking a sweat.
mario88826 wrote: It's just my personal oppinion, but sticking to one faction should give you big enough benefits to be at least stronger/equal than mixed army.
Reason for this is simple - coherency - I can't believe few randoms can fight better together than legion that was fighting using same tactics for goddamn 10 000 years.
This argument is basically unbeatable.
It's like if you get together 11 good players to play football against 11 solid players who play with each other all the time.
They will wreck those good players without breaking a sweat.
Good point. Realism is realistic. Realism is not Nuhammer's selling point, however.
I personally have no problem with it.
For my Tzeench marines i will probably always run them alongside a small contingent of tzeench daemons.
For example including say a herald and the changeling in a list where im running lots of csm demonic units can actually help me out greatly (herald buffs their strength changeling makes them harder to hit).
mario88826 wrote: It's just my personal oppinion, but sticking to one faction should give you big enough benefits to be at least stronger/equal than mixed army.
Reason for this is simple - coherency - I can't believe few randoms can fight better together than legion that was fighting using same tactics for goddamn 10 000 years.
This argument is basically unbeatable.
It's like if you get together 11 good players to play football against 11 solid players who play with each other all the time.
They will wreck those good players without breaking a sweat.
Good point. Realism is realistic. Realism is not Nuhammer's selling point, however.
haha thanks, btw I know noone gives a gak about realism or coherency. But I will build fluffy army. Even if it won't win tons of tournaments.
mario88826 wrote: It's just my personal oppinion, but sticking to one faction should give you big enough benefits to be at least stronger/equal than mixed army.
Reason for this is simple - coherency - I can't believe few randoms can fight better together than legion that was fighting using same tactics for goddamn 10 000 years.
This argument is basically unbeatable.
It's like if you get together 11 good players to play football against 11 solid players who play with each other all the time.
They will wreck those good players without breaking a sweat.
Mainly agree, but wouldn't say it's unbeatable. Real world examples include US military forces from different arms beating the Taliban who had fought together for years against Russian Forces; Joint British, Portuguese and Spanish armies beating Napoleonic French Corps who had conqured the majority of Europe over years in the 1800's; Tribes who had fought against each other uniting and overunning Roman Legions in Germannica, Britannica and Judea (amongst other regions) on multiple different occasions; recently united Mongol Tumans overrunning the majority of China, Korea, the Middle East and Eastern Europe and demolishing their standing armies etc.
I play inquisition, our models from last edition went from our army to three or four other armies, and I want to play inquisition proper I'd need to run
All of the stuff we used to have has been so splintered that an inquisition army done proper has to be soup. Its fluffy yo, because I'm playing an army that used to actually be unified but now I have to pick and choose.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/18 19:04:44
Vaktathi wrote: Superhero armies are...to me, uninteresting, and fly in the face of what 40k. 40k is all about an uncaring, grinding, grim universe where everything is getting worse and nobody cares what happens to you. That's the whole shtick put forth in the intro of every rulebook of every edition.
Bring them out for special games, lets not have Primarch's or Eldrad or Vulkan or whoever else in every...single...game. I can't recall how many times I've killed the latter two characters in particular over the last decade, along with probably a dozen others, and it *really* detracts from their "special"-ness.
I kinda agree, however I think that this is an issue with the rules rather than the players.
In an edition where a lot of stuff has been cut to the bone, special characters are often the only models that bring any interesting rules to the table. Or the only ones who fit certain builds.
For example, if a SoB player wants a flying HQ to accompany some Seraphim, then they have to take St. Celestine. There's literally no other option available. This, to me, smacks of bad rules.
If an IG player wants a more survivable HQ, then he has to take Yarrick. There's literally no way to make a Company Commander or Lord Commissar more survivable, and a Tempestor Prime isn't even allowed an invulnerable save.
If a Necron player wants to use MWBD on Triarch Praetorians, he has to take either Szeras or Anrakyr.
etc.
Honestly, I'd actually like to see special characters become far less special. I'd rather see more options and customisation for regular characters, rather than all the best rules and gear being given to special characters.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Yea. The old way of doing Special Characters, where they offered a wargear combination or like 1 special rule that wasn't available anywhere else, was neat.
Now, the new way of doing special characters, where not only is i a unique combination of wargear but is actually straight-up unique wargear, with several unique special rules found nowhere else... well, it's not surprising they're giants among men when compared with other things.
Look at Celestine compared to a Canoness. look at it. It's ridiculous.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
750 
