Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
By opponent's permission only
By point value of the battle only
By both point value and opponent's consent
No restrictions (yeah right)
Never used (SC's suck!)
I know I'm going to open up a big can of worms with this one. I did a search, but none of the threads had quite the direction I was going for. What I want is your opinion on how Special Characters should operate in games, not how GW has now had it written. In my opinion things that are special characters that don't require your opponent's permission is just like, WTF? What really makes him special then? Course, I grew up in 3rd ed, when all these C'tan were some fanboy's wet dream on how he could pwnzor teh Imp3R1uM.
But yeah, the increasing trend seems to be that SCs no longer require permission for use, just a limit on points, either above or below. What are your thoughts?
I really don't like any of the special characters at all really.They give you crap for wargear,you can't give him anything,and generally depending on the SC,gives you a higher LD,I would rather decide to give certain wargear items.IMO SC are basicly models you paint and put on a shelf.I have no use for any of them in the armys I play.
I play Guard so the Leadership bounes from a SC really dosn't help much unless you give the guy a vox witch in most cases you can't. Also I'm with what Mrgame said you spend so many points on him, then you can't give him anything more.
If you do things right people wont be sure if you have done anything at all.
i think that they are cool, but sometimes they can have pretty redundant wargear, and equipment. I usually only like the special models that come with them, and then just make my own character to my armies needs. I dont mind a opponent using them though, because if they were important enough to get "official" rules, then they must be balanced in some way.
"This sure ain't no pansy Eldar Armor, Son"
185th Cadian Armored Div.
"One Shot, One Kill"
Western Border Patrol of Athel Loren
I generally dont like using special characters in my general, take all comers army. I do use them, however, if i'm going for a fluffy theme, or in a campaign/battle that requires said character. Yarrick in Armageddon for example.
I prefer other people to do the same, but i dont make a fuss if someone does use one. I don't really like the way special chars are going at the moment. I think they should be an every now and then thing, to put a new twist on a game, rather than a permenant thing. Therefore i dont agree with the way that the new Eldar characters are incorporated into the game.
If you look down on me, you see a fool.
If you look up at me, you see a god.
If you look me straight in the eye, you see yourself.
- Charles Manson
Up until now, I've never had any problems with special character abuse in 40k. (That qualifier is the new Eldar Codex as I haven't faced any of them yet.) Using point size to keep SCs from dominating small games seems sufficient, so that's my vote.
I like special characters that alter how the game is played rather than simply bringing some fancy piece of wargear. Examples would be Fabius Bile and Commander Farsight. So long as the variant list isn't over the top--and, frankly, the two I mentioned are hard to use well--then I see no need for getting an opponent's permission.
On the other hand, I've seen some nasty things with WHFB special characters--the last was Neferata, who won a game against Chaos Hordes in 3 or 4 turns with practically no losses. Maybe special character abuse is more of a problem in Fantasy than 40k?
"My tanks have names, my men have numbers." -Col. Edmund Grahvess, 23rd Kronecker Prison Guard
I don't care what anybody says, I think SC's stink, and will NEVER use one.
One of the reasons I got into the game was that you could make up your own armies. I dumped the blood angels and got out of the game when they went from an anonymous chapter with only the armour scheme depicted, to psychotic vampires :x (I'm over it now, but I won't go back).
I like to use GW's frameworks, but I don't want to be handed the whole package. When I designed my current marine army I did it based on an army in the Index Astartes, using the Skull Bearers livery. A chapter with NO GW background, so I can play them as I like and not have to worry about the fluff gestapo correcting me on some niggling little details.
SC's are the epitome of having your army handed to you. AND with some of them, the special rules are stupid powerful (Eldrad???)
I know a lot of people like to use them, and I'm okay with that, but it just doesn't do anything for me at all.
Baby, when I'm the voice of reason, we've got problems!~artificerSomeone should stop
Jervis "let's make it easy enough for a 3 year old to play" Johnson
before he turns 40k into checkers~anon
I said no restrictions because if someones stupid enough to pour 150+ points for a character in a really small game, let them. They lose and you laugh. Would be better for fluffy armies. I never ended up using Calgar because I didn't get up to 1500 before I decided to switch chapters. But personally if you want to use a special character, call a model by that name and use the same-ish equipment. A Chapter Master with PF/SB and all that is still 20pts cheaper than Marneus.
Last edited by lordsauron; December 18th, 2006 at 17:29.
JOIN MY SQUAD IN THE SONS OF THE LIBRARIUM THREAD, I NEED TACTICAL MARINES! I PLAN TO CONVERT UP A SQUAD TO "COUNT AS" LoTD IN MY SMarine ARMY
This is my exact attitude toward special characters,
I have no problems with people using them against me, even though I never field them myself.
As I primarily play Lizards and Dwarfs I find Kroak and Kroq-Gar impractical in a 2250 point game (number i usually play).
Thorek is a bit too cheesy and the Dwarf King is a bit too expensive. Bugman's kinda cool but I still prefer the normal character choices from the book.
One thing I don't like though, is the idea of making up your own special character. I wouldn't begrudge someone fielding one against me (I'm not that competitive, so I don't begrudge a lot of things) but if I were to win using a character I'd made up, it would feel somewhat hollow. But only because I like the idea of winning using what is available to me.
But that is only in a game situation, obviously if you write fluff then your own characters are kinda essential^_^
I agree with Hambey for the most part. I'm ambivalent towards SCs. I mean if you think it'll help you win, go ahead, but the amount you dropped for an SC could probably have been put to use elsewhere in your army.
As for personal, home made SCs....I think they're cool so long as they stay within the rules and stay fluffy. Afterall fluff is the reason you created a SC.
Home-made SC's b/c ridiculous when people start putting extravagant and ridiculous upgrades/abilities on their people. I mean if they can justify something b/c it's in their 'Dex (and they just changed the name for fluff sake) go for. It's when people bring in stuff from other 'Dexs or make up new rules altogether that it starts to get out of hand.
So usually if someone wants to use a home built SC...I'm cool with it so long as it follows the basic tenets I outlined above.
If you win games against Nids with flamers (aside from the Inferno Cannon on a Hellhound), you're playing against opponents with stupidity of impressive magnitude.