[King Ulrik Flamebeard]

s a bit of a rant, but also more observation and opinion. Its just that ever since the newest books in 7th edition were released, special characters no longer require the permission of your opponent to be used. I know, they are mostly balanced - or supposedly - but now it seems you can't go three steps without an army having a special character in it. Something which I feel ruins the battle. I don't want to have to face Teclis or Mannfred in a 2000pt battle week in and week out. And I shouldn't have to!

I think that GW have taken a step back in terms of this ruling. It is my opinion that special characters ruin the game, if used all the time. Personally, I never plan to use one, unless its in a game of over 3000pts, a special campaign, special scenario or I had previously agreed on it with my opponent. I understand GW have taken steps to balance the rules for them, so the permission is now just defunct and it was likely that many opponents would have refused to fight them at any point (who'd fancy fighting 6th ed Teclis?). I can see why, but at the same point its now dumbed a lot of list down. There are many lists where the list is built around a special character - I can imagine Mannfred is very popular for VC, or the Thorek gunline for Dwarfs - and this is one of my main dislikes. It shouldn't be this way. In my mind a special character is just something extra and fun to have once in a while, and using them each game is lazy, boring and lacks fun/imagination. Why build a character when you can get a special character for more cost, but with special rules and would do the job better?

My other point, linking in with Elazar's post on fluffy armies, is that it is much more fun to build your own character. It raises more challenges than the cookie-cutter hero from the book, and you can add your own background to them. I have always found this to be a great part of the hobby, building an army and living with it. As you play, it begins to take on its own personality and honour roll. Its not "Remember when Teclis burnt that Treeman to a crisp?" and more "Remember when Leiun managed to get that lucky fireball off and killed the treeman?" Something you can get behind and enjoy - building their history.

Admittedly everyone has their own tastes, but I personally never plan to take a special character for any my armies unless its once in a while and for a bit of fun. I urge you to do the same.

Kuffy

 

[realitycheque]

It's the unique rules that make the special characters. If it wasn't for them rules, I'd totally agree with you - but until GW releases a balanced and flexible system for assigning special rules to our own homebuilt characters I don't see them becoming less common.

Of course even if they did release that, we'd end up seeing the same cookie-cutter "homebrew" characters all the time.

 

[Canew]

I can't speak for WHFB, but I can see what you're saying in 40k, too. Space Marines are a good example of the good and bad about characters. They are ubiquitous, in part as a way to get around the nerfing of the custom chapters. In the previous codex, you could build a special chapter with its own special rules, so you didn't have to play space wolves, black templars, etc. to have something that was unique in gameplay as well as modeling.

Now, that system is gone, but special characters convey global bonuses and other goodies that are, whether GW intended it or not, substituting for this system, albeit in limited fashion, so you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a marines army that isn't run by Vulkan or Kantor or Khan. That does sometimes get annoying, even just reading through the SM army lists here on LO, and seeing special characters appearing over and over and over.

But is that abuse of special characters, or players just trying to get back some of the fun rules they lost with the abolishment of the traits system? That's a very debatable topic.

Your point about home-made special characters is well taken: It is FAR more fun to make up your OWN character, with its OWN model, its OWN name, its OWN history, etc. Of course, there's something decidedly unthrilling about going through the trouble of making up a character, but then only being able to legally field it as a garden-variety "vanilla" force commander, chaplain or what-have-you, while you flip through the codex and find pages (in come codices, MANY pages) of characters with equally (sometimes less) interesting backgrounds than yours, but with stats that befit such a strong, stand-out character.

So I DO understand people doing the "counta as" thing. After all, why should GW characters have all the real fun? Take my army that I'm building. I won't bore you here, but it is a VERY fluffy army, with a whole planetary history behind it and its commander, but I use the rules for Pedro Kantor for my character, because it fits what I'm doing. If you saw my list, you'd also know that Kantor will NOT singlehandedly win any games, as much of the rest of my army is scouts. I feel this balances out nicely, and no one will cry "cheese!" because I'm running him.

Finally, I think the 40k community overall doesn't make use of most of the special characters available. Like the army units themselves, there are some that simply are not popular. When it comes to points, most of them (like almost all the new IG characters, Eldar Phoenix Lords, etc.) are WAY too expensive to put in anything other than Apocalypse games or the occasional <2,000-point "fun" list that you expect to get spanked, which is even more motivation NOT to run with them. Why put a special character in a list that will wind up so "top-heavy" that the rest of the army will collapse in a stiff breeze?

 

[Acez]

I started ranting as well on this topic Kuffy then decided against it. Instead of all that, simply put, I 100% agree with you.

I would also like to make a challenge to anyone who reads this (myself included, I am no longer going to play with vulkan in my actual Salamanders list) to try not using a Special Character and to make your own. This goes for LotRs, Fantasy and 40K. Try using the generic Captain's/Hero option and play the game without it being HeroHammer

 

[Left of West]

s a bit of a rant, but also more observation and opinion. Its just that ever since the newest books in 7th edition were released, special characters no longer require the permission of your opponent to be used. I know, they are mostly balanced - or supposedly - but now it seems you can't go three steps without an army having a special character in it. Something which I feel ruins the battle. I don't want to have to face Teclis or Mannfred in a 2000pt battle week in and week out. And I shouldn't have to!

Three questions:

Firstly, why don't you want to play against special characters frequently?

Secondly, why do you feel like you're entitled to that level of control over your opponents' armies?

Thirdly, so what? What does it matter to you which set of rules my character uses? Is a character with Lysander's rules really less fun to play against than a standard Captain or Master?

I rather doubt it.

I think that GW have taken a step back in terms of this ruling. It is my opinion that special characters ruin the game, if used all the time. Personally, I never plan to use one, unless its in a game of over 3000pts, a special campaign, special scenario or I had previously agreed on it with my opponent. I understand GW have taken steps to balance the rules for them, so the permission is now just defunct and it was likely that many opponents would have refused to fight them at any point (who'd fancy fighting 6th ed Teclis?). I can see why, but at the same point its now dumbed a lot of list down. There are many lists where the list is built around a special character - I can imagine Mannfred is very popular for VC, or the Thorek gunline for Dwarfs - and this is one of my main dislikes. It shouldn't be this way. In my mind a special character is just something extra and fun to have once in a while, and using them each game is lazy, boring and lacks fun/imagination. Why build a character when you can get a special character for more cost, but with special rules and would do the job better?

I think it's a step forward--a recognition that the rules should generally strive to create a fair and balanced playing field and that, beyond that, players should be able to do what they want. Special Characters add flavor and a variety of interesting rules to their respective codices. What would anyone gain from their use being restricted, aside from the game being a little bit duller and less varied?

My other point, linking in with Elazar's post on fluffy armies, is that it is much more fun to build your own character. It raises more challenges than the cookie-cutter hero from the book, and you can add your own background to them. I have always found this to be a great part of the hobby, building an army and living with it. As you play, it begins to take on its own personality and honour roll. Its not "Remember when Teclis burnt that Treeman to a crisp?" and more "Remember when Leiun managed to get that lucky fireball off and killed the treeman?" Something you can get behind and enjoy - building their history.

Not everyone finds it more fun, which should be obvious to you by the number of times you've seen them played. They're not necessarily any less challenging to plan--some of them, really, are more challenging to use than a basic chaplain or librarian or captain. Heck, there's virtually nothing less challenging to use than a chaplain! Certainly Pedro and Lysander are more involved.

Who cares if your special character is Teclis, the Loremaster of Hoeth or Randall, the Not Quite Loremaster of Hoeth, or even Joey, the Guy who's Exactly as Awesome as the Loremaster of Hoeth? Honestly, if facing off against any one of these characters would be less fun for you than facing off against any of the others, you should really examine your approach to having fun with the game--and while you're doing that, you should consider not trying to ruin other peoples' fun by telling them what is 'fun' to play and what is not.

Admittedly everyone has their own tastes, but I personally never plan to take a special character for any my armies unless its once in a while and for a bit of fun. I urge you to do the same.

Kuffy

You don't have to take a special character, but it's nothing less than rude to suggest that others shouldn't if they enjoy doing so. It doesn't hurt you if I play Teclis. It doesn't hurt you even if you're playing against me. It's just pointless, baseless griping.

What if I were to tell you that playing DIY characters was no fun? DIY characters should be by opponent's consent only! I should be able to reject those which I think aren't in line with the fluff of the game we're playing, or which I think are too powerful! Playing with DIY characters ruins the game for everyone and is fun for no-one!

If I made a post to that effect, you'd object, wouldn't you?

What you've done here is no better, no more noble, and no more reasonable. This dislike of special characters is irrational, and it's really time that complainers like you realized that.

 

[lewbot1]

Special characters are a game wreck when used all the time. End of. How is it concieveable that one character is fighting in the jungles of lustria against you one week, and the next is in the worlds edge mountains fighting as if they didn't suffer a scratch?

IMO the only people who spam special characters are just powergaming, not for the spirit or the game but just to win. These people completely ignore fluff and the laws of physics to play one man/woman/monster/thing in multiple battlegrounds every week.

Arrange a game without their beloved special characters and a screw will have come loose, they have played alongside the surity of their favourite character for so long that they have forgotten to game without them.

I have a solution to this, which my friends are perfectly happy to use. in the Warhammer Warbands rules (500pts or less), there is a wounded character table for use if your character gets wounded/killed in a battle, if my opponent's special character is wounded or killed, they must roll on the D66 table and see what happens, the result sticks and if they wish to play the character next time they must stick to the disability.

If the character is not dead but only wounded, and the table shows him as dead I may then chose one of the character's rules/special weapons to negate for the next game. It's quick simple and discourages from spamming specials.

 

[KevinJohnston]

First of all, I completely agree with everything Left of West says. I just wanted to address a few points raised by lewbot1.

Special characters are a game wreck when used all the time. End of. How is it concieveable that one character is fighting in the jungles of lustria against you one week, and the next is in the worlds edge mountains fighting as if they didn't suffer a scratch?

What happens when you're completely wiped out in a game? Do you no longer play because your the company or division or whatever you have created has been wiped out? Is it suddenly time to repaint or buy an entire new army? How is it concievable that one week the noble and prestigious knightly order let by Sir German McHolyRomanEmpires is wiped out to a man in Lustria, and next week is in the World's Edge mountains fighting as though they didn't suffer any losses? How does the generic commander you have written a background for suddenly make it to the next game?

You can of course, create narrative campaigns and as long as everyone is having fun and agrees, you can go with the above approach and make them redesign their army list. Or, like many, you can go with the suspension of disbelief that is a necessary prerequisite for enjoying plenty of fiction, and play against this Empire knightly order once more.

I use special characters myself because I enjoy the rules variations they provide. However simply because I use the rules for Grand Theogenist Volkmar or Marneus Calgar does not mean I am fielding these characters. Rules and fluff are altogether distinct entities. Perhaps the best way for some to represent Tim the Pontiff is to simply borrow an existing character.

IMO the only people who spam special characters are just powergaming, not for the spirit or the game but just to win. These people completely ignore fluff and the laws of physics to play one man/woman/monster/thing in multiple battlegrounds every week.

Arrange a game without their beloved special characters and a screw will have come loose, they have played alongside the surity of their favourite character for so long that they have forgotten to game without them.

I think this is a very narrow minded view. To label an entire swath of those that play 40k or Fantasy as powergamers because they use special characters is more than a little bit rude. Plus, ask anyone to change a key component such of their list and you may see a screw come loose. If someone games with a set list for a little while it's not hard to see them sometimes display more shakey play with their new units. Also, see above again for the thoughts regarding applying "laws of physics" to games based on fantastical worlds and galaxies.

I have a solution to this, which my friends are perfectly happy to use. in the Warhammer Warbands rules (500pts or less), there is a wounded character table for use if your character gets wounded/killed in a battle, if my opponent's special character is wounded or killed, they must roll on the D66 table and see what happens, the result sticks and if they wish to play the character next time they must stick to the disability.

If the character is not dead but only wounded, and the table shows him as dead I may then chose one of the character's rules/special weapons to negate for the next game. It's quick simple and discourages from spamming specials.

As long as everyone is happy with this, more power to you. I personally would not be happy with it unless it was applying to every command or prominent unit. No sense in just singling stuff out, but that's just my ancillary aside.

 

[Left of West]

At the risk of making exactly the same points as Kevin above me, I'm going to reply to lewbot's post as well.

Special characters are a game wreck when used all the time. End of. How is it concieveable that one character is fighting in the jungles of lustria against you one week, and the next is in the worlds edge mountains fighting as if they didn't suffer a scratch?

Tell me, do you play the same DIY character multiple weeks in a row? If so, how do you justify your character showing up in later battles without wounds from their previous ones?

Most people I know, even if they play DIY characters, generally consider their characters to be distinct characters with as much continuity within the fictional universe as a special character.

Frankly, if you have ever played a DIY character with the same build as a DIY character which has died in one of your earlier games, you're basically just being a hypocrite.

IMO the only people who spam special characters are just powergaming, not for the spirit or the game but just to win. These people completely ignore fluff and the laws of physics to play one man/woman/monster/thing in multiple battlegrounds every week.

This is obviously not true. Ignoring what I mentioned earlier, about virtually everyone doing this, even with DIY characters, there's the fact that not all special characters are better than their DIY counterparts. Obviously, people playing these aren't power-gamers, thus your sweeping generalization is wrong. And basically rude.

Arrange a game without their beloved special characters and a screw will have come loose, they have played alongside the surity of their favourite character for so long that they have forgotten to game without them.

Again, are you really going to tell me that you don't favor a typical DIY build? You don't have a non-special character you use repeatedly? What if I were to tell you you couldn't use it? Think how you would feel, and then tell me what the difference is, really, between that and what you're suggesting?

I have a solution to this, which my friends are perfectly happy to use. in the Warhammer Warbands rules (500pts or less), there is a wounded character table for use if your character gets wounded/killed in a battle, if my opponent's special character is wounded or killed, they must roll on the D66 table and see what happens, the result sticks and if they wish to play the character next time they must stick to the disability.

If the character is not dead but only wounded, and the table shows him as dead I may then chose one of the character's rules/special weapons to negate for the next game. It's quick simple and discourages from spamming specials.

And, finally, do you do this with every DIY character, too? If not, then, again, you're just being a hypocrite.

 

[Lost Nemesis]

Left of West, you're making some valid points, but I feel like you could probably do a better job. There's absolutely no reason to resort to name calling and borderline personal attacks (i.e., 'you're being a hypocrite' etc.) to get your points across. KevinJohnston's post should be taken as an example; the closest he came to any sort of the above was to claim that a point of view is 'narrow minded,' which it possibly could be, who knows? Just remember - we're all friendly here.

I personally just don't like the way GW has gone about including special characters to the extent they are included. If they weren't better in 100% of scenarios than vanilla characters (in some books, Space Marines as my primary example) then there'd be less of an issue, because they'd be used only in certain cases, for certain reasons. As it stands now, there is little point in, say, taking a vanilla Chaplain in your Blood Angels army, where for just a couple more points you can take Cassius, whose rules are far superior. It takes a lot of the flavour out of the game, and while I respect that that's fine with a lot of people, I'm sure there are better games out there to play entirely to win without any flavour or fluff in your force. GW has made an effort to make sure Warhammer isn't quite like that; this move towards special characters seems a move in the opposite direction for them.

 

[Left of West]

Left of West, you're making some valid points, but I feel like you could probably do a better job. There's absolutely no reason to resort to name calling and borderline personal attacks (i.e., 'you're being a hypocrite' etc.) to get your points across. KevinJohnston's post should be taken as an example; the closest he came to any sort of the above was to claim that a point of view is 'narrow minded,' which it possibly could be, who knows? Just remember - we're all friendly here.

I haven't actually called anyone any names or made any personal attacks, borderline or otherwise. I've made some purely factual statements (which include all of the statements which include the word 'hypocrite') and some statements of opinion, but no personal attacks. Read what I've actually said more closely.

Frankly, if you have ever played a DIY character with the same build as a DIY character which has died in one of your earlier games, you're basically just being a hypocrite.

I'm not saying, "you're a hypocrite." I'm saying, "given what you've said, if you've done X, that would make you a hypocrite."

That's not an attack, it's just an observation. Beyond that, it's an unarguably true observation--it's not an opinion. It's just a natural consequence of the nature of the situation and the nature of hypocrisy. The other statement I made which included the word hypocrite was of the same nature. Considering either to be a personal attack would simply be an error.

Anyway, I'm glad you think I'm making some good points, and I'm sorry you didn't like my post, but I disagree with your assertion that my post is inappropriate.

 

[sultansean]

I think it is sad that special characters are so prevalent but find absolutely nothing wrong with there use, they are "balanced" just like any other character.

Often times (I'm looking at you Codex Space Marines) they are the only way to make your army fit the fluff. With the loss of traits, if you want to play a chapter with a different feel than Ultramarines there is unfortunately no other way.

A further problem is the "count as rule" as in my DIY chapter has a Telion who is actually Veteran Sergeant McGruff, since my chapter is well know for their excellent scouts and proficiency at ranged combat. Now as good and plentiful as the fluff for McGruff is that I have posted on here, in the game I'm going to have to say "ok Telion is targeting your meltagun trooper" because if I said "Veteran Sergeant McGruff is trageting your meltagun trooper" people aren't going to know what I am talking about. 'Tis an unfortunate state of affairs.

There are some books that do not have overpowered specials, so it is not a universal move. Dark Elves for example you will normally see vanilla characters over specials, who will only make an appearance in fluffy lists.

It presents a predicament for a player like me who enjoys the variety provided by specials but not the fluff violations. However for the foreseeable future I will use specials if I feel they add to the flavour of the army.

cheers

 

[Da Mighty Camel]

What I dislike about the recent placing of special characters in the focus is that they have become necessary to play certain themes that you could play before without using special characters.

Want to make a biker Ork army? Wazdakk a it is. Liked to play a pure Clan Pestilence-army back in the 6th ed. book? Well you need Skrolk for that now!

I don't really mind special characters, but I dislike that they are needed to run certain themed armies. Even if you make your own model and "count as", it's still going to be Wazdakka, just with a different name.

 

[antique_nova]

Your point about home-made special characters is well taken: It is FAR more fun to make up your OWN character, with its OWN model, its OWN name, its OWN history, etc. Of course, there's something decidedly unthrilling about going through the trouble of making up a character, but then only being able to legally field it as a garden-variety "vanilla" force commander, chaplain or what-have-you, while you flip through the codex and find pages (in come codices, MANY pages) of characters with equally (sometimes less) interesting backgrounds than yours, but with stats that befit such a strong, stand-out character.

just quoting this post a while back. maybe they kinda redeemed themselves when they got the saga and stuff in the new SW codex. Also the main reason why i like guard the most at the moment, is because i can tool up my command squad with so many different guys with different weapons. it's just very versitile ^^ and fun .
thanks
antique_nova

 

[Akaroth]

I think when people are saying how can they be in 2 places at once they mean someone's at a table playing Teclis, and three tables down someone else is doing the same; then there is even the situation when your Teclis army is fighting another Teclis army (I just blew my mind). I know its still 'irrational', but I just don't like that image. Also these special characters are supposed to be the most powerful/influential members of their race, and by putting them in your army list it is a bit like saying your army is more important? And really, special characters should be by definition better than normal heroes, and with the point system the only way to do that is to make them overpowered in a way. Oh and fluff-wise, there is the problem of there being rules for dead characters (weird), and problems with special characters defined histories being ignored (i.e. Orion fighting in a campaign in Cathay). However, I can appreciate people making their own fluff for existing rules, but I personally wouldn't.

 

[ArchonFarseerGuy]

Right, folks, I ask that you keep the tone civilised, as this seems in danger of becoming a flame-fest. You have been warned.

Further, just a caveat,

s a bit of a rant, but also more observation and opinion.

This does suggest that there will be people that disagree with the view. Which does not warrant a condescending tone.

Now, onto my contribution to the thread...

Not everyone finds it more fun, which should be obvious to you by the number of times you've seen them played. They're not necessarily any less challenging to plan--some of them, really, are more challenging to use than a basic chaplain or librarian or captain. Heck, there's virtually nothing less challenging to use than a chaplain! Certainly Pedro and Lysander are more involved.

I disagree with this. I suspect the main culprits for the rise to prominence of special characters are two-fold: a) That they are particularly powerful and cost-effective. Case in point, Volkmarr vs an arch lector. Case in point 2, Kurt Helborg vs a templar grand master. Case in point 3, Skrag the Slaughterer vs a regular butcher or slaughtermaster. b) That the nature of a new Codex/Army Book necessitates it. From what I've seen, smurfs and spiky smurfs are epitomes of this view, with the rules for traits, legions, chapters and bonding clubs now removed. If you want your cool Salamanders force with scores of meltas, you'll need to take the head honcho of the Sallies who (if I am not mistaken) lets you take, well, scores of meltas.

However, the problem with this, as has been addressed a few times, is that seeing the head honco dude of the Sallies does get a little bit dull and uninteresting after a while. And that, to my mind, does detract a bit from the unique nature of said characters. Accordingly, I would be inclined to agree with Kuffy here: it is a step back.

Bringing it back to the quoted paragraph, I agree to an extent. There are definitely special characters out there that can be very challenging to use properly. Take Balthasar Gelt or Greasus Goldtooth. Those two require skill to use due to whatever reason. However, there are also characters that are rather point-and-click in nature. Again, take Helborg. Shove him in a unit of knights with the Steel Standard, deploy him opposite something you want dead, charge, and watch it die, most of the time on the charge. He is a MACHINE and any unit with him is so destructive that it is not funny. Tactically speaking, the progress of any army with him tends to depend on him. So while I agree with your thesis there, I also think it has limits.

***

To the "Counts As" concept, which appears to be the main rallying point that special characters can indeed be fluffy.

Let's have a look at Player A who takes Kurt Helborg, and a fairly balanced list; Player B who takes "Bob of the Black Tower" (who functions as Kurt Helborg) and a fairly balanced list; and Player C who takes "Wilfred of the Black Tower" (who functions as the less powerful Ludwig Schwarzhelm, counting his banner as Wilfred's inspirational presence, so Ludwig's rules are the best that fit Wilfred's fluff). The thing about Player B is that he's actually making an effort to inject some flavour into a cliched character, while it can be guessed that Player A is simply taking him because of that shiny sword and the laurels (for the record, most overpowered combination ever). Player C, however, is using a less powerful character's rules to make a flavourful character. I think this is where the main gripe comes into play, and the main gripe about the main gripe.

People don't tend to like Player A, as he's typically just using a powerful character because he's powerful. The main gripe is that there are several players that do this, while the counter-argument is that doing so is valid. Player B, people can appreciate a bit more. There's clearly more motive to his list than just winning. Player C, meanwhile, is applauded for taking a less powerful character (not to say that he's weak, mind) because it fits his fluff better. As the original intent of special characters was to have an interesting model with interesting rules that people can use once in a while instead of captains and generals all the time, Player C is seen as using them better. Meanwhile, Players A and, to a lesser extent, B, are using them to win. When lots of "Player A"s appear, this is when the nature of special characters becomes a bit redundant. However, it does beg the question: Is it the player's fault for taking advantage of a faulty book?

 

[magila]

Exactly, my new guard army uses Straken as it's leader because I want them to be lead by a renegade space marine. If someone thinks that it's cheese or 'power gamer' to do this, then I guess that makes me sad.

 

[nakaruru]

I have to agree with ArchonFarseerGuy in alot of ways. I find that people don't complain when I field the special characters that are not uncosted/overly powerful. My main army is eldar and I get alot of complaints if I field Eldrad and to a lesser extent Yriel. But I have never heard a complaint when I field a Phoenix Lord.

I do get tired of killing lysander, and pedro and can't remember the last time I faced a marine scout squad without having to kill telion. I've even run into two telions and 2 lysanders in a 2 v 2 game. But in the end the codex and rules allow them to be fielded. With my friends we talk alot and if something is really bugging the rest of us it tends to get sidelined for a game or two to give us a break. If it isn't a game with friends then I have nothing I can rightfully complain about.

 

[CrimsonAngel]

Up until I made my WH40k Ork Biker army, I had never used a special character. Now for the first time, I'm using one. Pretty much because it's the only way to have an all-bike army for the Orks, which is the theme of my army. (Of course I call the special character in question by a different name, and I'll get to why I do that in a second.)

With that one exception though, I never ever use special characters. I'm not opposed to others using special characters, it's a game after all. Besides, it's quite a bit of fun to see my army make roadkill out of somebody famous. =)

The reason I don't like to use special characters in my army, is because I want it to be MY army. I still remember reading the old rulebooks that said the general of the army represented you on the battlefield. This is not Teclis' army, or Calgar's army, or any other person's army. MY character will lead it because he is me out there, and no other heroes will get in the way.

 

[Glavas]

I personally dislike a lot of fantasy special characters just because they are over powered. Playing against Teclis several times over does get repetitive.

In 40k, this stands to some point. Ever seen fateweaver in action? He's absolutely out of this world. you CANNOT build a Lord of Change nearly as god as him.

Fateweaver is 333 points

360 points to make an equally well equiped Lord of change who does NOT reroll his 3+ nor does he let all those around him do it.

Facing Fateweaver often would be ridiculous. I luckily am the only daemons player in my gaming group.

Some special characters I do encourage though. ESPECIALLY Shrike, Khan, Vulkan ETC. They add a special "chapter touch" to marine armies which makes them fun to play against and assumably more fun to play than vanilla marines.

A few months back I watched a 3v3 at my local gaming club. 3 marine players against rons, eldar and marines. All younger players. We're talking 13 - 15.

4 Calgars, 2 Lysanders and Tigurius. On the field. Not to mention 2 Calgars were flying their white scars colours while 1 thought today would be more of a black day.

Combat? Great fun. Our two Calgars will attack your....Calgar.

The characters that AREN'T over powered and over used OR that aren't a fluffy "quirck" to an army are just point sinks.

Oh you brought Tigurius? That's great. He's a 230 point librarian! OH too bad for you he still doesn't have ++ save or the eternal warrior soon.

So either they're;

Okay. Fluffy addictions, especially in SM armies.

Overpowered and/or over used. Calgar + Fateweaver.

Not worth it. I.E Tigurius.

Worst of all, younger players see people taking these overpowered characters and want to do as their elders, but also want to be different, so they take things like Tigurius. Who doesn't perform well for them and makes the game less fun and morale lower.

That's all I've got to add I think.

Glavas

 

[kevin vanrooyen]

Exactly, my new guard army uses Straken as it's leader because I want them to be lead by a renegade space marine. If someone thinks that it's cheese or 'power gamer' to do this, then I guess that makes me sad.

My all scout army is lead by shrike, he is the only HQ that can infiltrate and I don't want to send in an unsupported command squad in a drop pod. Besides shrike allows my scouts to fleet which is a fluffy rule for genetically modified lightly armoured scouts who specialise in hit and run attacks. What I don't do with shrike is abuse his rule to bring in a non-infiltrating squad in with his and go grab a 10-man assault terminator unit who can fleet into 1st turn combat. That being said I am thinking of getting a squad of shrikes wing, 5 vanguard vets with 2 LC's each, that comes to...375pts if i added correctly. Hardly game breaking.

My scout army also includes Telion, these characters aren't in my list because of how powerful they are, they're in there because they make sense and suit the fluff of my army. If I was trying to powergame i wouldn't be using an all scout army, (with the exeption of shrike and possibly some of shrikes wing in the future) would I?

The Emperor Protects