The Special Character Enigma

[greymeister]

People don't understand why I like special characters, they always reply with "Ok well fine then I'll bring my Nightbringer" etc etc. That, to me, displays the entire problem with some people and special characters. I'm not looking for some rediculous unit to be unstoppable and wipe the board, which is basically the point of bringing a C'Tan or nightbringer. I just like the models, the personalities, and the fluff it adds to battles.

I guess that's just my opinion on the matter, and apparently it isn't widely shared. If you think Special Characters are just ways to bend the rules and cheese out your army, go right ahead, make more people hate them. There are some characters, granted, that I agree are a little rediculous, but never would I tell someone "I won't play you because you are using unit xxx". Now, some armies that I see I won't play just on principles of who owns it and what I've seen of them so far. The only thing I would ask of a player who wanted to use a special character who was extremely powerful or hard to defeat, just let me have a little extra preparation. Most likely I'm not aware of all the rules for the unit, so if the player doesn't mind me moving a few points around (using the same army roster that I brought to begin with) to make my army more competitive, I'd be happy for them to bring their big baddies.

Then again, it may be a matter of perspective. In my first army, Blood Angels, I loved the paint job I'd done on Mephiston and Dante so I always wanted to use them for that very reason. Now, granted, those are some powerful units, but I don't think anyone would presume that they couldn't build an army to limit their effectiveness. Now I play Imperial Guard. Ok, so maybe a few people are afraid of Yarrick now after the Armageddon campaign, but really who else? Gaunt? A commissar who leads light infantry? Creed and Kell? Other than Kell's high WS they are basically a tooled up veteran sergeant and a HSO with one point of leadership more than normal. Schaeffer's last chancers can be very cheesey, but they are also very expensive. If there is one unit that I would think an opponent of mine would actually have to do anything extra to prepare for, it would be my Solar Macharius, and even then he's not that good.

So perhaps it is my IG perspective, perhaps I just don't play cheesey and broken armies like many of the other races can. If I was playing Necrons and my opponents were always sour about the Nightbringer and C'Tan, I might have a different perspective. But come on, we're ST 3 TO 3 guys who usually don't get saves against BOLTERS. :blink:

PS: Don't think I mean IG armies aren't cheesy and broken. The difference is that the way IG armies get broken is when people start having more basilisks than the other army has troops. :shifty:

[Jack Blood]

My personal objection with special characters is the standard one - they get used too often and thoughtlessly.

Yes they are probably 'balanced' these days and using them will undobtedly not give any specific advantage in thoughtful games so I will grant you that - no contest. I could not justify not playing against an opponent just because he was using a 'special' character.

But then again if the stats aren't that special as you say then why use them as special characters at all? Why not just use a standard general and make an interesting story around him?

The fluff contention can't stand. Yes they have good stories behind them but that's no reason to use them in every skirmish you engage in.

From a storyline point of view why not make your own characters and stories? Its more satisfying than using someone else's creative work - and bear in mind that the characters you see in the Codices are just army generals that the game designers have used in their own games and have decided to upgrade.

If you use like the models and the way you have painted them then use the figures and let them represent someone else who isn't 'special'.

At the very least think on this concept - the defining feature of Special Characters is that they are -SPECIAL-. Take this to extremes and accept that being special they should be used only in special situations within special campaigns and by special people.

So yes there is no reason not to use them as far as rules and balance is concerned - and people will either play you or not play you dependent on how they personally feel about specials.

But don't for a second think that everyone who turns you down over a special character has done so because he thinks you are getting a cheap advantage - often they might not play you just because they think you should be more thoughtful about just what you are doing. Think about it, people often spend just as long creating the history of their game as they do modelling their armies - I say they would have a good reason to feel let down by an opponent who doesn't take as much interest and love as they have done in bringing their creations to the table and would wander off to find someone who actually cares - because sure as sure not making your own storylines and fluff is in my opinion just as dreadful an insult as bringing a half painted army to the table.

[AC_Defiler]

I personally don't like using special characters but sometime It is quite fun to use them. even though they are often like superheroes. it is sometimes fun to see Red Terror eating a vindicare assassin or Kharn the Betrayer surrounded by geenstealers yet slaying them all in a single round of combat.

when all comes to term, special characters are used when all player agree to use them and only then are they used to their own terms, like Old one eye can only be used if the army size is 1500 point and no more.

but that is only my point of view.

[Carcaroth]

i have no problem with people using special characters as i see them all to be fairly balanced it's the fact that some people can't seem to come up with a reason why a special character is in their army or make an interesting story for their own custom colonel/lord/archon or whatever.

the one time i used a special character was the death company Tycho in a death company army(about 1500pts worth) against roughly 3000pts worth of Orks during the armageddon campaign. it was a great game and even though my ork opponent outnumbered me by about 4 to 1 i still managed to carve a path through his army to slay the warboss and hold up his forces long enough for my allies on another board to finish their mission to get their big guns in place to pound the ork defences into dust. it was a very cinematic game and definately my favourite of all time. what was really great was how it worked out exactly like in the story for Tycho's death with him being the last alive and holding off the orks for a long time(2 turns) before slaying the warboss then dieing.

it's when the character has a reason to be their and the game is themed that it works. simply throwing in a special character to make your army unbeatable is just lame.

[karantalsis]

Originally posted by Jack Blood@Oct 26 2004, 04:24
because sure as sure not making your own storylines and fluff is in my opinion just as dreadful an insult as bringing a half painted army to the table.

[snapback]238079[/snapback]

Why? Personally I write a lot fof fluff for my armies, but why should you find it insulting that someone else doesn't do that? What if they enjoy the strategy of the game, but not the background and they see it more as an advanced form of chess or some other strategy game? And on the painting point of view, I personally am a very slow painter and so some of my armies are only part painted... I don't have time to paint often and when I do I take a long time, because I want to make my models look as good as possible and I'm not very good. So you would find playing my army insulting? (except the fully painted tourney one) that would mean I couldn't play an army for 2-3 years (the length of time it takes me to fully paint one) after I bought it? Thats just silly. I think as long as you see progress in the painting every time you play its fine, and with the fluff if they don't like it they shouldn't HAVE to write it, just because you enjoy writing fluff for your army.

[Jack Blood]

Because the strategy is less than half of the hobby to most people.

Against an unpainted army a game takes on overtones of humouring the other player - if you play with unpainted minis because you want to play at all costs then hell for those people who can't afford miniatures then why not just play with card counters? Going down that road is missing out on more than 75% of the hobby.

If you haven't painted then your army isn't ready. If your army isn't ready then whether you care or not and whether you get an opponent or not you should ask yourself whether you are being fair to the other player who undoubtedly does care and undoubtedly will be disappointed.

Its not that cut and dried though most people build their army up in sections anyway and so painting becomes irrelevant - if you have painted 500 points then play 500 pt battles - if you have painted 1000 pts then play that much - you don't have to buy 2500pts of lead and then whinge about how you don't have time to paint them.

But don't take my word for this - most tournament organisers as you have realised don't take undecoated models as an excuse for an army they have to be painted and in three colours at least as far as I have seen. They have seen the reality of what the game and the hobby as a whole should be. Okay that's an ideal I admit but its not an outrageous one and most people manage to keep the par.

Fluff? Well it a lot the same except you can play without a backstory and most likely no one will ever know unlike the painting issue. If you use special characters without good reason and wantonly though that is a blatant declaration of a lack of creativity.

It is disappointing to people who care about that sort of thing - and there are a lot more people about who do care about it than those who are just seeking the best and most elite army with which to 'own' their opponents.

[greymeister]

But then again if the stats aren't that special as you say then why use them as special characters at all? Why not just use a standard general and make an interesting story around him?

The fluff contention can't stand. Yes they have good stories behind them but that's no reason to use them in every skirmish you engage in.

First of all I didn't say I used them in every skirmish, I ony use them when the points values allow them to be used, which is almost always 1,000+, which I wouldn't call a multiple hour game a skirmish.

I really really despise the idea that I'm obligated to not use characters just because that means I'm taking shortcuts in my army's background information. So you've created a character out of a vanilla HQ choice or something. Good for you, that's something you can very easily do with wargear and upgrades and a custom paint job.

So basically the only thing that you are saying is because you put in effort to create a backstory to your characters, somehow by using official ones I'm cheapening your efforts. If you don't like "off-the-shelf" heroes, and you're not alone, that's fine by me, but I happen to. I like the stories that are written in the codices about each of my characters and I like to try to play out what would happen when they are pitted against a particular foe. However, that background fluff is just as valid as any story you concocted for your unit. So saying that isn't a valid reason to use them is actually incorrect.

But don't take my word for this - most tournament organisers as you have realised don't take undecoated models as an excuse for an army they have to be painted and in three colours at least as far as I have seen. They have seen the reality of what the game and the hobby as a whole should be. Okay that's an ideal I admit but its not an outrageous one and most people manage to keep the par.

This is another reason why regardless of how my 40k armies grow and my ability matures I never plan to go to an official tournament. The nit-picking of minituae like that just irritates the hell out of me. When it becomes rule lawyering it's no longer a game to me. If someone told me I didn't have enough painted or basecoats didn't count, I'd just bring three different colored paint markers and make 3 lines on them. "Now they've got 3 colors"

[Edicius]

I personaly don't like using the special characters GW has provided because i'm really picky about fluff and stuff.Special characters are just too tied into the important fluff for me to mess with and I don;t like having to alter my carefully thought out fluff to accomidate some big important person. I use my own special characters sometimes,but most often my special characters are only very slightly different from standard characters (like my Chapter Master), or use the stats of a GW character (Our DE wych chic)

[Bawdymonkey]

I have always liked special characters, they have always interested me and they are fun to play.

[Montford981]

Special Characters:

For my part I prefer not to use them. I have found them to be point-sinks.

My first revelation came with Man-O-War (Anyone still play that game? (Y) )

I was playing the Bretonians and for the cost of a Wizard I instead took another entire squadron and won a campaign.

In 40K it may be my reticence about spending so many ponts on a single figure but I don't see my Canoness or Inquisitor being all that effective. I have not and probably won't buy that Throne of Judgement with Inquisitor Karamazov (sp?) (It may be that I merely need more practice in using them. My Seraphim have become much more effective in their last two games as I have learned lessons and altered my tactics with them)

I took out one of those Chaos Demon Lord thingies (whatever you call them--looked like a Balrog) from 4 wounds to dead in one turn with a single volley of bolter fire from a Celestian squad. Of course it helped when my opponent made a nice yahtzee roll ( five ones! ) but it was still glorious!