Why Do People Have A Problem With Special Characters

[addamsfamily36]

Ok

So, some people seem to have a dislike towards Special characters. Now that the restriction of asking your opponents permission to use a SC has been removed, more and more people are using special characters.

Personally i like Special characters, they add a lot of character and fun to the game.

I agree that it can get boring when you see a lot of armies with the same character, but these tend to be in armies that are similar in construction anyway.

Special characters, are also just another unit within the army, if you take away their name and fluff, and make up your own or just have them as a chapter master/commissar/autarch/farseer or whatever the HQ
may be, then they are just a set of rules often only slightly better than the normal HQ choice, and sometimes A lot better, but you often play the price for this.

Take Eldrad Ulthran

his points cost, is fractionally more than taking a normal farseer which has been fully kitted out with the same powers and wargear. he also comes with some very nifty personal wargear etc. Now you could take him in your biel tann, army call him farseer aria, and change the names of his equipment and wah la, a HQ character that uses special character rules, but isn't eldrad ulthran. I say this because people who seem to dislike special characters, seem to dislike the fact there is only one of that character and why would they be on all these battles.

--Well, if u changed his name then yeh wouldn't be the same guy just using his rules as a base for your own character.

--All the games aren't happening for real or at the same time.

--why wouldn't that person be at that battle? if it needs winning send the best

Ok thoughts guys?


Like special characters?

hate them?

I will add here that, by know means am i saying everyone must like SC or dislike SC, my last thread sparked a few arguments, so i don't want to suggest that, as i would like a less heated debate/discussion.

[Nabterayl]

I don't mind them, and I certainly have no problem with people taking them in their own armies. I suspect that one of the root causes of the dislike is that they're package deals. So much of the appeal of 40K is customization, and the all-or-nothing nature of special characters runs counter to that. Suppose for instance I want a huge, beefy warboss on a bike leading an all-bike army. The ork codex gives me no such option. The only character who gives me that option is less beefy than a regular warboss and in compensation comes with a bunch of big guns. "But I don't waaaaant a shooty warboss leading my all-bike army!" I whine. "I waaaaaant a big choppy warboss leading my all-bike army!"

Lack of options leads to whining. Whining leads to nerdrage. Nerdrage leads to the dark side.

[addamsfamily36]

Lack of options leads to whining. Whining leads to nerdrage. Nerdrage leads to the dark side.

lmao


Yeh, it can be very frustrating when you want to create something but can't. I mean i used Alith Anar (sorry i know thats fantasy) but he fits in with my army theme, and well i love his background, and i tried to create him from the normal Lord choice(because theres an identical item in the magic section for his main weapon) and he ended up being worse and more expensive :(

[Lord Azaghul]

Q: Why do some people hate special characters?
A: Warhammer Fantasy Battles.


*********

In 40k its ok, only a few SC are really over the top. I've taken a few on occation, I really like Gunnery Stg Harker.
I tried Creed a couple of times, and I felt like I was cheating, he kind of took 'tactics' out of the game for me.
I do plan on taking Pedro in some of my SM list.
However I generally prefer to: 'let my army speak for itself' And for the most part I feel SC are a bit of a crutch for lesser players. I also feel like the army is 'mine' if I use my a standard HQ or whatever that I kit out as I wish. Fluff games are a different story though, but those are generally prearanged games anyway!

Its pretty simple: with a few exceptions 40k characters don't 'break' the game that they do on the level that fantasy does, but the taboo against taking SC still exists.

[Vhalyar]

Considering that WHFB is quite a bit less popular than WH40k I don't see how that holds any water.

The reasons against them that I've seen the most: 'they are too powerful' or 'this guy would never lead such a small army'. Personally I like them. They add some extra customization to armies and allow some interesting FOC changes and different tactics.

If a fluff zealot gets uppity about a SC, you can always give your characters new imaginary names.
On the other hand, it's true that some characters can be rather nasty depending on the point levels.

[wazatdingder]

There used to be a DIY spirit within the hobby, even at the corporate level player were encourage to develop their own armies. Most SCs were not that "special." Most players took pride in having unique and original characters Come 5th ed they began to do more. They allow you to do things with your army that you could not do otherwise. Now they are required to make the force some one wants. You need Vulkan and Khan to use the tactics of those armies. Every Salamander force must have Vulkan, no other option. I like how they affect the game, I hate that I feel strong-armed into taking them to have a competitive force.

[Darkriver]

The biggest thing I've seen personally with people running Special Characters is that they tend to build their army around and sink the most points into making him big and bad. What I mean by this is for example taking Abaddon with 4 termy champs of some various mark all kitted out and stuck in a land raider. While this is fine this is the only unit that the person focuses on and has no clue as how to play the rest of the army when that LR pops first turn and the unit inside is blasted to pieces. SCs are fun to play with and can add some great fluff to your army, but shouldn't be used as the crutch that I've seen them used as so many times. I have a buddy that only plays Imperial Marines and I have yet to play one game with him that he hasn't taken some special toon to focus on being the center of the army. Anyways, that's just my experience with them.

[addamsfamily36]

Interesting about the $0k vs Warhammer SC usage.

If anything, i have started notice a trend on the opposite direction. Warhammer Special characters (althought still powerful) have started to be less game deciding/powerful.

Tyrion is a prime example, in the last book he was almost un-killable, Even if you killed him, he returned with a 2+ WARD!!!!

Even though he is still hard now, once he's dead he's dead. he lost the 2+ beard ward when reduced to one wound. and if the new rules rumours for warhammer are anything to go by, all the saves he has will be pointless as you might only be able to use one.


As for 40k, SC seem to be getting stronger more important as well. whereas before a SC was a SC, now they are a key to unlocking an armies specific traits etc. Astorath gives you the red thirsts on a 1-3, and takes the limits off death company !!!! lol (im a blood angels player, but im resisting the death company army:D)

I'm interested to see how , with new codex's, how the SC evolve/change, will they get stronger? will they become game breakers?

[eagleboy7259]

Aren't they already game breakers? If you're doing tournament building you typically look at whats the most broken over powered unit in your book and then spam it, heck their power level is even the reason some of the older books can still perform. Think about DA and Eldar, for the most part whenever someone posts up a new list you always hear "don't play this book unless you take Eldrad, Sammy, or Belial they are the most powerful builds." Same thing with the newer books too, think about when demons dropped it was all Fatecrusher, or the new SM book is all Vulkan builds. Heck if you did a regular captain up like He'stan he'd be more points and he wouldn't have that awesome chapter tactics.

If every book had access to at least 3 or 4 awesome characters than there would be kind of a balance and we'd have like a warmachine deal going on here, but it feels like every new book has characters and units dialed up to 11.

[addamsfamily36]

Aren't they already game breakers?

mmm depends on the player.


as mentioned by darkriver, some people focus so much on their SC that once they've been removed they really have no idea what to do, or how to employ the rest of their force to its full effect.

As much as SC are good i don't think they are a game breaker as such. Eldrad as you mentioned is great, but put a couple of psychic hoods down, and all of a sudden it becomes a 50/50 chance of succesful casting. So then you got a very pricey individual model.

[zenjah]

I am not a big fan of how GW has implemented special characters. I would prefer that the special abilities, wargear, and stat bonuses be incorporated into the standard HQ choices of a codex. They could still highlight special characters with specific builds, but they should be built using the standard HQ choices.

However, given that GW has chosen the path they have, I do not care how my fellow player uses special characters, or counts-as versions of them. People should feel free to make armies however they want, using all the options in their codex. Meta-game taboos on using certain options in a codex, or whole categories of them, seems counterproductive to me.

[Melissia]

I don't have a problem with special characters, insomuch as I'm perfectly fine with killing them repeatedly.

However, I refuse to use them. They are not MY characters, and I will not use anyone else's characters for MY army. If I am to use any special characters, they will be houseruled versions of my own.

[addamsfamily36]

Melissia, out of curiosity what do you use for your HQ choices.

[Freefall945]

I figured people disliked seeing special characters because they are distinctive, and a pain in the arse.

I field Eldrad with my pointy heads often enough, and the sigh-and-eyeroll combo of my opponent is expected. They do this because they've seen him before, and they know what he does, and he's annoying and difficult to deal with.

If I fielded, say, Baharroth, a special character much less frequently used and who is less synonymous with migraine, I have no doubt my opponent would not care - or even be intrigued and enjoy the opportunity to shoot him down, even as he soaked up the sun's empowering rays.

It's the same as other rompastomp units, like the Nob-Bikers, or the Jetlock council, or (now) the Death Company Bonanza. "Special" characters who are common are boring and hard to deal with. Special characters which are not common will often not be so hard to deal with, and so cause less ire.

[LadasN]

My primary army is imperial guard, which I find personally, doesn't need any special characters to be unique, competetive or fun.

When I see a special character its no big deal really. They either do something cool or devestating in the first turn, get blown to bits for it OR just add some beef to the steak so-to-speak. I love SCs though, because they add some cool options to an army that are really special and most are balanced anyway. If one character has an epic ability, his stats usually opposite them. However, most of my experience is in guard mind you, so I'm used to squishy humans.

[TSINI]

I like the way special characters change the function of your army

I don't like the way the characters have no options. simple gun swaps would have been all that was needed.

although i like the new simplicity of 5th edition, i still think they went the wrong way with dropping doctrines/chapter tactics etc, it was like removing the spice rack from our army cooking kitchen.

[addamsfamily36]

The thing is, an opponent can sigh all they want, but every book/codex has its limitations. Eldar they have what, 3 HQ options--avatar, farseer , autarch.

An avatar the eldar have one for each of the major craftworlds, yet its a standard HQ choice! these are or should almost be as rare as SC, specially as they require an eldar sacrifice.

Why take a farseer when for a bit more you can get effectively a decent farseer?

Autarchs are the only nice option that you can customize a little bit more with wargear and thats it.

Then theres the phoneix lords half way between being HQ choice and SC.

Spam Units get boring too, but theirs no "taboo" agaisnt that lol. I just feel like im cheating when someone goes" oh your using a special character". In Recent codex's/books they have found their way into the normal FOC, but there is still a dissaproval/taboo feeling towards them from some players. I don't ask why they have 5 land raiders, or such, but i get to feel guilty about using one guy? lol

[Polonius]

First off, not all special characters are nearly the same. An SC like Belial isn't necessarily powerful, he's required to build a deathwing. Same with Sammael. A model like the Khan is the only way to have outflanking tactical squads.

Only a handful are among the strongest units in the game. Eldrad, Vulkan, and Possibly Fateweaver are great choices, guys like Sicarius or Yarrick are at best decent models.

All SCs in the current environment do is replicate the popular builds of the past. Yes, you see a lot of Vulkan today, but you saw how many terminator librarians with Fear/Fury in 4th, or Force Commanders with lightning claws and jump pack in 3rd?

My point is that there have always been common archtypes, and Special Characters simply kill two birds with one stone by representing them

[Melissia]

That's a long list. But let's see... for my Sisters army, I have three models, two of which are heavily modified.

One is a Seraphim VSS with Power Weapon and Bolt Pistol (Canoness w/Blessed Weapon, Jump Pack, Bolt Pistol, Mantle*, Cloak, Book, Frag Grenades) for use joined to a squad of Seraphim.
One is a Veteran Sister Superior w/chainsword and Bolt Pistol (Canoness w/Eviscerator, Bolt Pistol, Cloak, Book), for use with a Celestian Retinue.
The final one is a basic Battle Sister w/Storm Bolter, painted to look like she has ornate armor (Canoness w/Storm Bolter, Book) for cheaper lists or the extra faith points.
*Mantle = Mantle of Ophelia, Cloak = Cloak of St. Aspira, Book = Book of St. Lucius


For my Ork army... I mostly use a Big Mek with Power Klaw and Kustom Force Field. I occasionally houserule a Kommando Nob HQ for a fun Blood Axez list.


For my Guard army, I have actually been using my Primaris Psyker more often recently... even if she isn't the best choice, I like the fluff behind Primaris Psykers (from Dark Heresy: Ascension mostly), converted from a Warmachine model. I also have a CCS and Lady Commissar, the latter using this awesome model (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/DEATH-KORPS-OF-KRIEG-COMMISSAR-2.html).

[Vaktathi]

I don't usually mind them, however the more recent ones to tend to irk me because they end up all too often simply being just plain *better* than equivalent HQ's on a point for point basis, making them no brainers and they end up getting spammed, they no longer become *special*, but rather *default* HQ's.

Vulkan versus a Captain is a good example, even if you kit out a captain to be as close as possible, it's only like 5pts less without the army-wide rerolls, heavy flamer, etc.

Now, not all SC's have this issue, but many do, which is my primary problem with them.

[addamsfamily36]

Melissia, thanks for sharing, i like the sisters HQ options a lot.


I don't usually mind them, however the more recent ones to tend to irk me because they end up all too often simply being just plain *better* than equivalent HQ's on a point for point basis, making them no brainers and they end up getting spammed, they no longer become *special*, but rather *default* HQ's.

Vulkan versus a Captain is a good example, even if you kit out a captain to be as close as possible, it's only like 5pts less without the army-wide rerolls, heavy flamer, etc.

Now, not all SC's have this issue, but many do, which is my primary problem with them.

Yup, i mean technically they are now just named characters, not a lot special about them except their rules/bonuses.

[Vaktathi]

Exactly, and in doing so, it makes them less "special/epic" and they too often simply end up being slightly more expensive but more efficient and capable units, making the basic HQ's relatively extraneous.

I don't mind them too much, there's nothing wrong with them in principle, but when one goes for nearly a year without seeing an SM army without Vulkan and Eldrad in 2/3rd's of of Eldar lists, something is off :p

[scadugenga]

Ha, I love it when people who defend their use (spam) of special characters call "nerdrage" on people who dislike them.

Particularly because the people most likely to be asshats on the internet don't have the (metaphorical) balls to be a jackass face-to-face. Oh, well, I guess they have to compensate for something, right?

/rant

Now, as for the OP--why the SC dislike?

Imagine this:

Scene: Onboard the Ultramarine Battle Barge Vae Victus

Calgar: Okay, gentlemen, I appreciate your participation. We have a serious situation here, and it's going to take some good inter-chapter cooperation to see this through.

Sicarius: What's the situation, Lord?

Calgar: We need to retake a chapel currently being overun by the Tau.

Lysander: What chapel? On what planet?

Calgar: It's a small shrine dedicated to Rendrick the Misunderstood. Apparently, on some small forgotten mudball, the holy blood of St. Hortencia the Confused was spilled, and ratherthan it taint the earth, this Rendrick fellow threw himself in the path of those holy droplets. The..hrm...Ecclesiarchy felt that a shrine was needed to commemorate the event.

Vulkan: Yes, but precisely where?

Calgar: A planet called CF182466

Cassius: What, it doesn't even have a real name?

Calgar: Not yet. But it's our job to defend it people. Okay. Here's the plan. Lysander, you and your terminators are going to be the lynchpin.

Lysander: Aye, Lord Calgar, my squad "Every problem *is* a nail" will be ready.

Calgar: Good. Shrike?

Shrike (emerging from the shadows): I"m Batma...uh. Yes, here.

Calgar: Good, you'll be the outflanking force. Telion?

Telion: Aye, lord. Point me to the target.

Calgar: Good, I know I don't need to instruct you...Chronus!

Chronus: Time waits for no...uh, yes lord?

Calgar: You have the predator support section. Now, gentlemen, I know that we're all busy, and have pressing concerns like Tyranid invasions, Chaos incursions, and EVERYONE knows about Armageddon the umpteenth. But this little dirtball demands your utmost and immediate attention! Go out and teach those xenos what it means when you defile a shrine to....uh, what's the name again?

Khan: Does it even matter? just go kill them all.

Calgar: Right. Chop to it! Don't worry, Pedro will be monitoring your respective chapters to make sure you aren't missed or anything... Dismissed!

Why is there hate for SC's? Because that scenario right there, allows you to field 4 special characters from 3 different chapters for one stupid CF skirmish mission.

And also because, to quote The Incredibles: "When everyone is special...then *no* one will be..."

What's funny is that people who desperately want any edge they can, will find all sorts of reasons to explain *why* they have to use their SC, rather than copping to wanting "the edge." Because, you know, that awesome Lysander mini couldn't just be used to represent your own basic SM Captain w/Term Armor or anything...

[eldargal]

I dislike special characters because I prefer to make my own characters. I love the fluff SCs bring but I don't want to use them myself. I don't have a problem with other people using them, in fact I particularly love to see Abbadon as my farseer never fails to kill him.:rolleyes:

[scadugenga]

I dislike special characters because I prefer to make my own characters.

QFT

My regular group actually came up with rules to create your own special characters for this very reason. (And for me, because having so few options re: Eldar HQ's gets monotonous at times.)

Tired of playing the same farseer over and over?

Much more fun to have a force run by a Aspect Warrior shrine Temple Master. More interesting, variable, and thankfully, not OP'd to death like most newer 'dex SC's.

[Mike X]

My opponents usually field special characters, but I refuse to include them in my lists for fluff reasons.

My Space Marines are my own chapter, it wouldn't make sense to have Vulkan, Marneus, or Shrike lead my soldiers.

[addamsfamily36]

My opponents usually field special characters, but I refuse to include them in my lists for fluff reasons.

My Space Marines are my own chapter, it wouldn't make sense to have Vulkan, Marneus, or Shrike lead my soldiers.

Surely for fluff reasons you might want to include a SC? but if its your own chapter than yeh fair enough. But could you not jsut use the rules for a SC and give them a diffrent name?

It would be almost identical to taking a similar HQ

for example--space marines, you could take a normal captain, or tkae a SC captain like tycho for the blood angels, and just change his name to be brother captain brian lol. In the current codex's SC dont really exist anymore, more named characters that have a set of rules which you could techniqually use for anything.

Just a thought :)

[addamsfamily36]

Ha, I love it when people who defend their use (spam) of special characters call "nerdrage" on people who dislike them.

Particularly because the people most likely to be asshats on the internet don't have the (metaphorical) balls to be a jackass face-to-face. Oh, well, I guess they have to compensate for something, right?

Tad unnecessary don't you think?

[addamsfamily36]

I dislike special characters because I prefer to make my own characters. I love the fluff SCs bring but I don't want to use them myself. I don't have a problem with other people using them, in fact I particularly love to see Abbadon as my farseer never fails to kill him.

Hey eldargal, out of curiosity what do you take as your eldar HQ's?

[eagleboy7259]

First off, not all special characters are nearly the same. An SC like Belial isn't necessarily powerful, he's required to build a deathwing. Same with Sammael. A model like the Khan is the only way to have outflanking tactical squads.

Only a handful are among the strongest units in the game. Eldrad, Vulkan, and Possibly Fateweaver are great choices, guys like Sicarius or Yarrick are at best decent models.

All SCs in the current environment do is replicate the popular builds of the past. Yes, you see a lot of Vulkan today, but you saw how many terminator librarians with Fear/Fury in 4th, or Force Commanders with lightning claws and jump pack in 3rd?

My point is that there have always been common archtypes, and Special Characters simply kill two birds with one stone by representing them

Sammy in an AV 14 landspeeder = awesomeness. Belial isn't OP but if you gave a DA captain only his weapons options he would be running close to the same cost as Belial and he's without terminator armor. Sure some are decent models, and some are downright terrible like that special GUO in the demons codex but you don't see them on the board 99% of the time. However most of the characters are still a bargain although not all of them are OP

I will completely agree that there has always been archetypes for HQ's, but there has always been a measure of freedom. Lightning claw captain could be a biker, jump packer, terminator or joe blow. You could squeeze the points or spend large. In addition, the way the armory worked characters were priced out more fairly depending on their abilities, points costs weren't questioned as much. Everytime I play him, I can't help but walking away from the table after the game thinking that Vulkan should cost out like a Land Raider and not 10pts cheaper than Sicarus.

[AbusePuppy]

I don't think having "unique" abilities buyable from a list would be very workable, because you end up with stuff like the 4E Doctrines and Chapter Traits systems: poorly balanced and everyone either picks The Best Thing or complains about it. It is virtually impossible to accurately craft a system that reflects the synergies that occur when you combine wide-ranging effects on an army- imagine if SW were able to buy universal Ld10 via a character with Rites of Battle, or if you could shoehorn Saga of the Warrior Born onto Mephiston.

"Unique" characters, with pre-built setups that can't be altered, are much easier to balance. And, to be honest, most SCs just aren't all that impressive; Vulkan is the only SM character that can compare to the basic Captain in terms of efficiency and quality.


Now they are required to make the force some one wants. You need Vulkan and Khan to use the tactics of those armies. Every Salamander force must have Vulkan, no other option. I like how they affect the game, I hate that I feel strong-armed into taking them to have a competitive force.

I don't remember the part of the rulebook where you're required to take Vulkan if you play Salamanders. Is it under the Painting Green Men section or Painting Black Men section? The organization is kinda confusing and there's no table of contents.

Sarcasm aside, you aren't required to take special characters just because you're a particular chapter. Have you ever seen someone say "That isn't a real Ultramarines force, you didn't take Marneus Calgar!"? Of course not. Special characters exist to emphasize the strengths of a particular chapter. If all you do is take MM/Flamer in every Tac squad and MM/HF Dreads, you are playing a Salamanders army. If all your squads are on bikes or in Rhinos, you are entirely justified in saying you have a White Scars army. People in older editions of the game managed to somehow struggle by without giving special rules to everything under the sun, so I expect that if you really want to, you will find a way to do so as well.

I find it hilarious that many of the people who claim that SCs run counter to fluff entirely miss the fact that they are, in dictating what someone else's army must be, committing the very sin they so dislike. Maybe my Chapter Master does lead front-line assaults himself. Maybe that's not my Chapter Master, it's the commander of the 3rd Company who is just as good as him and grants the same bonuses. Maybe this is actually a super-important battle for control of a world-destroying artifact that I have to capture. Who says what my models represent, or whether or not the battle we're fighting is important or not? Why does our 1750pt game have to be piddly and meaningless? Fielding almost a full company of Marines seems like a relatively big deal to me.

40K is not a game of realism, it is a game of abstraction and imagination. If you don't like the fluff, rewrite it. You have no right to dictate what your opponent's imaginary spacemen are like any more than he has the right to do so to you. You can like or dislike their fluff, certainly, but to take something as arbitrary as that and decide "I am not going to enjoy this game because THAT SPACEMAN HAS THE WRONG KIND OF MODEL/RULES/STORY" is absolutely absurd.



Why is there hate for SC's? Because that scenario right there, allows you to field 4 special characters from 3 different chapters for one stupid CF skirmish mission.

And also because, to quote The Incredibles: "When everyone is special...then *no* one will be..."

What's funny is that people who desperately want any edge they can, will find all sorts of reasons to explain *why* they have to use their SC, rather than copping to wanting "the edge." Because, you know, that awesome Lysander mini couldn't just be used to represent your own basic SM Captain w/Term Armor or anything...

You... are awfully angry about the choices other people make for their armies. What difference is it to you if I field Blarneus Halgar or Tulkan Be'stan or any other character I want? If you are truly that fanatical about the "realism" of the rules, why doesn't it bother you that your own Unique and Special Snowflake Commander has been fisted, krakked, boltered, melta'd, plasma'd, shurikened, and miscellaneous sack-beat to death more times than an entire army of Rasputins, yet miraculously survives and is just fine for the next battle? Do you seriously think that when those Tyranids scythed him apart, they forgot to finish killing him? No, they scarfed his biomass down like so much Jell-o Pudding and moved on, but apparently his identical twin brother was ready to take over leadership of the battle barge the moment he was gone.

It's a game about beefy men IN SPACE fighting green SPACE retards while magical satanists FROM SPACE try to ruin the world before SPACE elves die off. And there are skulls on everything. Chillax and just enjoy the game.

[Paul]

You... are awfully angry about the choices other people make for their armies. What difference is it to you if I field Blarneus Halgar or Tulkan Be'stan or any other character I want? If you are truly that fanatical about the "realism" of the rules, why doesn't it bother you that your own Unique and Special Snowflake Commander has been fisted, krakked, boltered, melta'd, plasma'd, shurikened, and miscellaneous sack-beat to death more times than an entire army of Rasputins, yet miraculously survives and is just fine for the next battle? Do you seriously think that when those Tyranids scythed him apart, they forgot to finish killing him? No, they scarfed his biomass down like so much Jell-o Pudding and moved on, but apparently his identical twin brother was ready to take over leadership of the battle barge the moment he was gone.


My Guard commander can be replaced by the next bloke. There's more than one power weapon and plasma pistol in the Imperium. However, I go to a tournament and I have to kill Vulkan He'stan followed shortly by Gulkan Be'ston followed by Bulkan Ge'stan and it gets a little odd.

I've killed the CHAPTER MASTER OF THE ENTIRE SALAMANDERS CHAPTER like eighteen times. That means that, not only can you have Calgar running the show, but you can have Guardsman No. 1384772 - 4 kill him with a plasmagun.

You shouldn't be able to take characters who are suppose to be epic. Watching Vulkan He'stan die for the umpteenth time makes the Salamanders cry.

Oh, wait, you mean you were fielding Bulkan Ge'stan? Sorry. I suppose it's time to call Hulkan Fe'stan out of retirement then. Oh, he died? Whew, good thing you have all these OTHER goons with exactly the same (supposedly unique) skills and training. Let's see... Lulkan Sky'stan, Hankan Solo'stan, *reads other names off list*

Point being, it starts to get ridiculous when a goon (Guardsman number 1384772 - 4, from above) can kill Vulkan, or Calgar, or Shrike, or Khan. What gets more ridiculous is, after killing Khan, I go to the next game and VOILA, there's Khan again. Changing the name is a thin veneer over an otherwise HILARIOUS and irritating game-mechanic.

[scadugenga]

Surely for fluff reasons you might want to include a SC? but if its your own chapter than yeh fair enough. But could you not jsut use the rules for a SC and give them a diffrent name?

It would be almost identical to taking a similar HQ


Not really. It's just looking for ways to justify using SC's in a more "palatable" manner. To paraphrase/steal the term from Mellissia, that's just SC-wank by a different name.

[scadugenga]

You... are awfully angry about the choices other people make for their armies. What difference is it to you if I field Blarneus Halgar or Tulkan Be'stan or any other character I want?

You...are adding way too much personal emotional interpretation into my post. :)

I'm not angry about it. I"m disappointed in GW's paradigm shift that makes many people feel they "have" to take SC's. But clearly that's a decision I have zero potential to change as well, so I deal and move on.

But then, I've stated many times in the past that I'm a product from the RT days, before SC's were nigh-mandatory.

I will never refuse to play someone because they use a SC. But I will not believe them for a minute if they try to explain that they're using SC's for fluff reasons, and not because they're looking for the power boost.

[scadugenga]

Tad unnecessary don't you think?

Not really. Just doing my part to try and remove bs internet bashing. :) There's a definite lack of civility on the forums that needs to be rectified.

Now, the real question is this--out of that entire post, why did you focus on the part that has nothing to do with your question?

How about a response to that?

[Darkriver]

I think that the issue alot of people (not all) are having aren't just any special character but Space Marine Codex SCs specifically.

While I agree that Chapter Traits of 4th ed needed a revision, the solution in the 5th ed codex has caused some issues with character spam. For specific chapters to recieve some special rules to help make their chapter different than its brothers, you are forced to take a special character. At this point armies are being force to build around these characters. While these guys will be out and about fighting the good fight, they can't be at EVERY battle.

It doesn't matter how many different names you give him, Pedro is still Pedro, Khan is still Khan, etc, etc when you run them with their chapter.

I'm not going to sit here and say I have the answer to the issue with the codex, if I did, hey, I'd finally have a job again, lol. But seriously though it sounds like this is where most people are seeing a huge amount of SCs being ran, especially with Vulkan.

Special Characters are fun to throw in a list from time to time, but not as an every game occurrence. I personally tend to build some slightly effective but cheap HQs so as not to begin using them as a crutch for my army.

[Polonius]

There is a real reason for the current proliferation in SCs seen on the table top, and it has less to do with WAAC or a loss of respect than it does with the way the books are designed. In 3rd and most of 4th, Special Characters were just that: legendary heros with their own models that GW wrote some cool rules for. They were limited in use by points, opponent's permission, and often by army "type." So, you could only play Calgar in an Ultramarines army, etc. One of the reasons for that was that they were releasing rules for nearly every craftworld, chapter, legion, regiment and clan you could think of. So, when you picked, say, Uthwe for your Eldar Craftworld, you not only got access to Eldrad, but you had to live with the rules for Uthwe in Codex: Craftworld Eldar. Later, codices allowed you to custom build your own chapters and regiments, but there were still guidelines for how to custom build certain legendary examples.

In the current design, there are no ways, rules wise, to distinguish a Salamander army from an Ultramarines army. One of the ways they softned that was by including special characters, often with army wide special rules. So, we now have a weird situation: if you want to distinguish your Salamanders, you need Vulkan; but also if you want to represent your army as being "higher tech" or otherwise better with wargear, you also need Vulkan; and if you simply want the strongest option, you also need Vulkan.

So, we can try to deny people use of what GW considers totally viable HQ choices because five years ago they picked the wrong paint scheme (or for IG the entirely wrong model range), or we can simply accept that the Special Characters represent archtypes that every (or nearly every) chapter has access to.

Would Vulkan be more palatable if he were labeled "Master of the Armory", all rules the same, and the fluff changed to "a great example of a master of the armory is Vulkan H'estan of the salamanders..."? If yes, than you're problem is simply a matter of perception. If no, than your problem isn't with SCs, it's with game balance, which has long been a buggabo for GW.

[addamsfamily36]

Not really. Just doing my part to try and remove bs internet bashing. There's a definite lack of civility on the forums that needs to be rectified.

Now, the real question is this--out of that entire post, why did you focus on the part that has nothing to do with your question?

How about a response to that?

Firstly, i made a point about being civil at the bgining of the thread, like you have jsut mentioned yourself, but i found:


Particularly because the people most likely to be asshats on the internet don't have the (metaphorical) balls to be a jackass face-to-face. Oh, well, I guess they have to compensate for something, right?


to be not the most of civil repsonses lol. Dont know about you but im not to keen on been called a balless compensating ***. :D

But fair comment about focusing on that. So as for the rest of the post:


Why is there hate for SC's? Because that scenario right there, allows you to field 4 special characters from 3 different chapters for one stupid CF skirmish mission.

Which scenario? if you play a standard mission game (which most tournaments and gaming stores use), limitation is still only 2 HQ.

I do agree that there should be a limit though on the amount of SC you could take specially if using the space marine codex you shouldn't be able to mix different chapters SC to gain a further set of abilities.

"heres my salamanders army with vulkan and khan" say what? lol



What's funny is that people who desperately want any edge they can, will find all sorts of reasons to explain *why* they have to use their SC, rather than copping to wanting "the edge." Because, you know, that awesome Lysander mini couldn't just be used to represent your own basic SM Captain w/Term Armor or anything...


It's also funny, how people desperately try to make a person using a Named character or SC feel like its a taboo. Why? scared? probably not, but i dont see a difference between a player spamming out on an army that includes numerous landraiders, or imperial guard tanks all equipped the same (the same with units), yet you put on guy on the table and its like OMG:eek: i can't believe he/she's here. (BTW im not saying you spam out on units, i was just using that as an example)

I personally use Mephiston, always have done (its jsut nice hes gotten a lot scarier :D). I'll admit i was disappointed that he became so "lovable" with the new release as now everyone seems to be taking him. but i certainly don't use him as a crutch for my army. He rides alone, gives no benefits to my army, can't be joined, no invulnerable, (yes hes a nutter and toughness beard) but at the end of the day, taking a different normal HQ would probably save me a lot of points and serve me better in the long run, But i like his model and my conversion for him, and his background, so why not. I had him shot to death recently by like turn 2. I still won the game though.

My argument, is that if you were to open the codex, and remove every name above the rules and statline and simply but librarian, farseer, autarch, etc etc No one would complain.

[eagleboy7259]

My Guard commander can be replaced by the next bloke. There's more than one power weapon and plasma pistol in the Imperium. However, I go to a tournament and I have to kill Vulkan He'stan followed shortly by Gulkan Be'ston followed by Bulkan Ge'stan and it gets a little odd.

I've killed the CHAPTER MASTER OF THE ENTIRE SALAMANDERS CHAPTER like eighteen times.

Vulkan's not the chapter master, he's a former company master appointed with the scared task of hunting down the primarch's lost stuff and returning it to the chapter. If anything he's more like an inquisitor with his ability to requisition any force within the sallies than anything else. =D

[Sangre]

Vulkan's not the chapter master, he's a former company master appointed with the scared task of hunting down the primarch's lost stuff and returning it to the chapter. If anything he's more like an inquisitor with his ability to requisition any force within the sallies than anything else. =D

And Paul's killed him eighteen times!

[Paul]

Vulkan's not the chapter master, he's a former company master appointed with the scared task of hunting down the primarch's lost stuff and returning it to the chapter. If anything he's more like an inquisitor with his ability to requisition any force within the sallies than anything else. =D

Conceded. lol :)

I still am frustrated with having killed him so much. And if GW made him generic, it'd be fine, because GW wouldn't be pretending that he's somehow unique or special.

If recent games are to be believed, he isn't. He's just like every other chapter's "Master of the Armory" or whatever. Which makes him FAR FAR less cool, and I think it's a pity that a character needs to be less cool to fit in with the army-building.

[Duke]

While I agree that sc spam can be irritating I don't think it is really that big of a problem. Generally speaking they are a points sink and don't do muchin the long run because of said guardsman who insta-kills dante. Long story short, stop whinning and just kill the sc already.

Duke

[eagleboy7259]

Conceded. lol :)

I still am frustrated with having killed him so much. And if GW made him generic, it'd be fine, because GW wouldn't be pretending that he's somehow unique or special.

If recent games are to be believed, he isn't. He's just like every other chapter's "Master of the Armory" or whatever. Which makes him FAR FAR less cool, and I think it's a pity that a character needs to be less cool to fit in with the army-building.

Vulkan spam is single handedly the most frustrating thing about playing against C:SM. Even if he had the title "Master of the Armory" or something like that I still believe he needs a massive points adjustment. Compare him to every other character in that book, only He'stan, Sicarus, and Lysander come with t 2+ save standard, only He'stan and Lysander have a 3++ save, and He'stan is the only doucher running around with a Relic Blade. Your Chapter Master with a Relic Blade, Storm Shield, and Artificer Armor prices out just 5 pts cheaper and he's got no heavy flamer, no chapter tactics and oh wait if you gave him Vulkan's Digital Weapons he's now 5 pts more. Not to mention he makes the best unit in the book, TH and SS Assault Terminators twice as good, and the most lethal armor popper in the game more accurate.

Did I mention I HATE Vulkan? If I see Sicarus, Calgar, or any of those other SC I get down right excited cuz they are fairly priced and their special rules don't really bother me. Fleeting Vanilla SM's? Really, who's that scaring?

[Lerra]

At the end of the day, 40k is just a game, and it's supposed to be fun. If you have fun by running outflanking bikes with Khan, then play Khan! You can always invent your own name/backstory/fluff.

Special characters add a lot to the game. Take a look at the space marine codex - how boring would it be if everyone ran the same vanilla troops? Special characters allow you to alter the feel of the whole army with one small addition. You could take three identical space marine lists and add Shrike to one, Khan to another, and Tigurius to a third, and they would play quite differently.

Imo, fluff is only good if it makes the game more fun. Fluff should not hamper your enjoyment of the game. Whenever I hear stuff like, "We can't play this 2v2 game because we have one chaos player and three imperial players" it makes me want to go on a crusade to throw off the shackles of fluffiness. Fluff should serve the game, not the other way around.

[Paul]

At the end of the day, 40k is just a game, and it's supposed to be fun. If you have fun by running outflanking bikes with Khan, then play Khan! You can always invent your own name/backstory/fluff.

Special characters add a lot to the game. Take a look at the space marine codex - how boring would it be if everyone ran the same vanilla troops? Special characters allow you to alter the feel of the whole army with one small addition. You could take three identical space marine lists and add Shrike to one, Khan to another, and Tigurius to a third, and they would play quite differently.

Imo, fluff is only good if it makes the game more fun. Fluff should not hamper your enjoyment of the game. Whenever I hear stuff like, "We can't play this 2v2 game because we have one chaos player and three imperial players" it makes me want to go on a crusade to throw off the shackles of fluffiness. Fluff should serve the game, not the other way around.

SCs add no more to the game than Doctrines or Chapter Tactics did.

And fluff should serve the game, but also, maybe the game could at least try to be consistent? If I was a new player, and I saw "Vulkan" as "Unique," I'd be like "cool, that guy's a badass!" Until I saw fifteen of him at a tournament with twenty players. Then I'd be like "wtf this makes no sense, unique my ***."

[Vaktathi]

SCs add no more to the game than Doctrines or Chapter Tactics did.

And fluff should serve the game, but also, maybe the game could at least try to be consistent? If I was a new player, and I saw "Vulkan" as "Unique," I'd be like "cool, that guy's a badass!" Until I saw fifteen of him at a tournament with twenty players. Then I'd be like "wtf this makes no sense, unique my ***."

Agreed, they just stuck the old differentiators onto a new mechanic.

It gets problematic when you've killed Vulkan more often in Ultramarines blue than in Salamanders green, and killed this great epic unique hero of the Imperium more times than you can remember (and have gone nearly a year since playing a vanilla SM army that *didn't* have Vulkan). Vulkan gets picked on because he's the most likely to be used like this, with Eldrad probably 2nd (I remember an event where all 5 Eldar players had Eldrad). When this occurs, it really cheapens the immersion factor and fluff feel. It's one thing to have generic guardsmen 9829830284-98349 kills Vulkan in an epic battle where the hero is laid low after carving through a mountain of foes against impossible odds, it's another when it happens on a weekly basis in normal pickup games and he's not even in his proper colors most of the time :p


SC's are cool and have their place, but when used basically just as alternate basic HQ's, it really does cheapen them sadly. Most aren't abusive in any way, but it's the handful of ones that are that give the rest a bad name.

[scadugenga]

to be not the most of civil repsonses lol. Dont know about you but im not to keen on been called a balless compensating ***. :D

Fair enough--not calling anyone a ball-less compensating *** . ;) Just tired of all the b-s attitude that gets copped on the internet by people who don't have the stones to be like that irl. I know, it's a personal failing on my part. :)


But fair comment about focusing on that. So as for the rest of the post:



Which scenario? if you play a standard mission game (which most tournaments and gaming stores use), limitation is still only 2 HQ.

The "narrative" scenario I scripted above used, I believe, 4 special characters: HQ: Lysander (Imperial Fists) HQ: Shrike (I mean, 40k's version of Batman--Raven Guard) Troops: Telion (U-Marines) Heavy Support: Chronus (U-Marines)

4 SC's, 3 chapters, for one skirmish.

But it's not just the basic SM dex that has that capability. IG is worse: 10 potential SC's in 1 FOC HQ: 4 total: (Straken, Creed for HQ company commander replacements, And Kell & Nork Deddog for attache's.) Elite: 1 Marbo; Troops: 4! (CHenkov, Kamir for platoon leaders, and Harker & Bastonne for vet squad upgrades) Heavy Support: Pask. And that's 4 separate regiments (Cadia (Creed, Kell, Pask, Bastonne); Catachan: Straken, Marbo, Valhalla (Chenkov) Attila: Kamir (if that's even the spelling--don't have the 'dex nearby) Plus the wherever he wants to go Nork Deddog (the only SC that's just too loveable to ignore...)

Tyranids have the same thing going for them. (Swarmlord, Parasite, DLeaper, Stupid 'thrope of Doom, Old One Eye...) it's the "new revolution" of 40k.

I am *all* with you with a proposed limit to the amount of special characters one can use in a given game. Makes more sense that way.



It's also funny, how people desperately try to make a person using a Named character or SC feel like its a taboo. Why?[\quote]

I've already acknowledged my reasons--(RT era player and in 2nd ed-SC's were verboten! I still rarely, if ever, use Phoenix Lords for that reason.) Not scared in the least, actually. Annoyed that they are so undercosted as to make the "generic" HQ's pale in comparison.


[quote]My argument, is that if you were to open the codex, and remove every name above the rules and statline and simply but librarian, farseer, autarch, etc etc No one would complain.

If you did that, of course there would be no complaints--as there'd be no reference point for contention. :)

My personal (and again note--personal!) feelings are that special characters should be that--special. Used for special occasions/purposes, and not for every single skirmish out there. From my perspective, that does not make logical sense. Of course, I'm in the minority--particularly with the competitive/tournament crowd.

[addamsfamily36]

My personal (and again note--personal!) feelings are that special characters should be that--special. Used for special occasions/purposes, and not for every single skirmish out there. From my perspective, that does not make logical sense. Of course, I'm in the minority--particularly with the competitive/tournament crowd.

Agreed, it was nice to see special characters only coming out on big games held on a saturday etc. Maybe if they could limit certain characters to apocalypse size games. people like chapter masters etc. Other named characters more common, and then normal HQ.

so in effect (personally i would like to see this)

A three tier structure for HQ

Special (and i mean really special) characters--limitations on when and how you can take them

Named characters--what we have currently but a limitation on the number you can use like we suggested(no taking 4 different named characters from 4 different chapters under one chapter banner)

Normal Hq--Options for more creativity. not fantasy level options, but a little bit more freedom. (especially in certain armies such as eldar,necrons,etc)

[Freefall945]

Just a couple of things.

There's no way to say this without it sounding condescending, so I'll throw some smilies in here: :):):):)

I hope everyone knows they're not actually killing Vulkan. Like, when you pound him to mush on the tabletop? Your army has not actually killed him. The game you are playing does not represent the path of action he takes in the lore. Within the context of the setting, Vulkan won't do the stupid things that players might do with him and accordingly get himself offed like will happen to him a dozen times in a tournament.

This is the same frustration people feel when they complain that, lorewise, Eldrad is dead - he died in the 13th Black Crusade worldwide campaign, and was the rightful trophy skull for the chaos player's relentless dedication to falsely reporting victories.

This is also flawed because, even though I might field Eldrad in my list, against ANOTHER guy fielding Eldrad, we are not forced to decide which one is the true Eldrad. He is neither! These Eldrads do not actually represent the actions taken by that (dead) character within the Lore and it is necessary to separate ourselves, when fielding special characters, from the kind of self importance that suggests we somehow represent a significant slice of the hobby's legacy right there in the board.

Most fielders of SC's do that fine, but opponents of them, for whatever reason, seem to suffer, and I suggest it is simply because of unit repetition as I mentioned in my earlier post.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that particularly the space marine codex considers all special characters inside its cover generic templates for use by all chapters. This is because if I choose to play Blood Angels I get a big ol' sack of characters, and likewise for any other more "definitive" codex - but if I choose to play White Scars, I only get access to one.

This is a problem the codex writers easily overcame by separating the army you play from the codex you use - while you're a White Scars army, you are a C:SM army and all its SC are fair game, making it balanced (theoretically) against the other codecies. If one grimaces and snorts because Carneus Malgar keeps turning up for the Super Marines, understand this is not an attempt to devalue Marneus Calgar as a fictional warrior: Rather, it is an attempt to make a Codex which the great wealth of (non DA, BA, SW, BT) space marines players can use to represent their hundred and hundreds of different chapters without short-changing them on firepower.

[DarkLink]

Vulkan spam is single handedly the most frustrating thing about playing against C:SM. Even if he had the title "Master of the Armory" or something like that I still believe he needs a massive points adjustment. Compare him to every other character in that book, only He'stan, Sicarus, and Lysander come with t 2+ save standard, only He'stan and Lysander have a 3++ save, and He'stan is the only doucher running around with a Relic Blade. Your Chapter Master with a Relic Blade, Storm Shield, and Artificer Armor prices out just 5 pts cheaper and he's got no heavy flamer, no chapter tactics and oh wait if you gave him Vulkan's Digital Weapons he's now 5 pts more. Not to mention he makes the best unit in the book, TH and SS Assault Terminators twice as good, and the most lethal armor popper in the game more accurate.

Did I mention I HATE Vulkan? If I see Sicarus, Calgar, or any of those other SC I get down right excited cuz they are fairly priced and their special rules don't really bother me. Fleeting Vanilla SM's? Really, who's that scaring?

Don't forget Vulkan's master crafted weapon:p. So a Chapter Master is 15pts more expensive.

[BuFFo]

And fluff should serve the game, but also, maybe the game could at least try to be consistent? If I was a new player, and I saw "Vulkan" as "Unique," I'd be like "cool, that guy's a badass!" Until I saw fifteen of him at a tournament with twenty players. Then I'd be like "wtf this makes no sense, unique my ***."

LOL

You actually mixed the concept of Fluff with a tournament.

-s******s- :D

- edit -

Wow, really?

[murrburger]

@Freefall

Truth.

[eagleboy7259]

Don't forget Vulkan's master crafted weapon:p. So a Chapter Master is 15pts more expensive.

And the flames of rage grow...

[Liazardman]

I don't really like SCs as a matter of personal taste. If you play CF and run Kantor doesn't bother me. \it might be a little annoying, However, if it is a sub-chapter using him but it really annoys me when i see lists that cram 2 or 3 SC from different chapters or factions into one big game break.

If you play ultramarines there is no reason for you to use vulkan, if you play steel legion why is Creed leading your army? While specifically about 40k (which I have less problems seeing special characters in) a few people have mentioned fantasy as well. Couple things to set straight in regards to that:

1. Most Fantasy SCs are underpriced and over powered
2. Many of these characters do break the game
3. Fantasy is still quite popular but often for different reasons than in 40k
4. WHFB allows more "HQ" level characters - with 4 Slots at typical tourney level you could have such a combination that it breaks the game unintentionally.

Beastmen just got a character who forces every enemy unit within a massive radius at the start of the game to roll a 50% chance of taking wounds before the battle begins... That is not "balanced" that is removing models before the game begins.

I Liked when you needed permission it was almost like there was some form of gentleman's agreement about the matter - it wasn't about super combos and spam

[AbusePuppy]

My Guard commander can be replaced by the next bloke.

I thought Guard officers were supposed to represent heroes of the Imperium, men and women who have performed well above and beyond the normal call of duty and represent the top tier of what an unenhanced human being can realistically expect to ever achieve? Even a "normal" Guardsmen is a soldier with years or decades of combat experience. None of that really screams "we just cram another nobody into the position" to me.


I Liked when you needed permission it was almost like there was some form of gentleman's agreement about the matter - it wasn't about super combos and spam

I'm not sure if you're talking about WHFB here, but in 40K taking multiple special characters is a pretty terrible idea. I can practically list the number of worthwhile SCs on one hand.

Forcing people to get their opponent's permission to play an army is a poor idea. What if every unit had a line in its description saying "You can tell your opponent they aren't allowed to use this unit if you want to." Do you have any idea how terrible that would be? 90% of games would start with your opponent listing off all the things he doesn't want you to be able to use. Why are SCs any different in this regard? While it's true there needs to be a certain amount of agreement between you and your opponent as to what sort of game you're playing in order for it to be fun for both players (i.e. is it going to be competitive, narrative-driven, casual, etc), that is a very different animal from me being allowed to deny you the army you built. This is doubly true for characters that unlock army builds- how wonderful would it be to show up with LoganWing for a tournament, only to be informed that your first round opponent doesn't like that guy and now your army is illegal because it doesn't have any troops in it.

[Kahoolin]

Has anyone ever thought that maybe Privateer Press is to blame for this weird unlocking named character thing? Warmachine and Hordes use named characters only, there are no generic commanders, and they unlock things in similar ways (I think, I've only read the book once).

PP is the only real commercial threat to GW. To me, as a GW player for ages now, the lack of an option to use a generic commander stood out as one of the biggest differences when Warmachine appeared. GW has always had generic commanders to encourage player imagination and modeling. PP on the other hand has repeatedly stated that they will never allow generic HQs as they want their game to have an epic feel where each hero is famous and unique.

I reckon the blokes at GW thought "here we go, let's steal this neat idea. We take some of the shine from our competition, our sculptors get to go nuts on awesome characters, we sell more models, but we'll still keep the generic option for the oldies.

The problem is in WM all the battles are taking place in one continent in one medieval world. It makes sense that each nation only has a few outstanding commanders. The same format for characters in 40k just doesn't ring true though, as the 40k 'verse is defined by it's massive scale.

I really don't think it's a coincidence that special characters in their current army-influencing form emerged after PP's games started getting a significant market share.

Oh and as to the topic, in my opinion people have a problem with special characters in GW games for one of two reasons: Either they are an old player having trouble adjusting to the new fashion, or they are essentially moaning because they don't like their opponent picking what is seen as an easy strong option. The second kind would complain just as much about any so-called cheesy selection, it's just that some special characters happen to be cheesy.

[Grabula]

My impressions is there is still some carry over from when SC were optional, approved by your opponent only editions.

In 40K I'm not finding SC to be overpowering really at all. I play a Nurgle themed CSM army with Typhus as general, and he's certainly been my MVP in some games but he's not unkillable. While he's scythed his way through tons of opponents, he hasn't honestly been the reason I've won the few games I have.

On the opposite side of the table, the few characters I've faced haven't been too bad. I'm hearing nasty things about Mephiston but my guess is, much like Typhus, he's a boon for any army but won't be winning every game on his own, say like SC used to do in 2nd ed.

I've never felt they were over the top in WHFB either to be honest. I rarely play with them in Fantasy because they're always a larger point sink but the few I've seen on the table just never seemed to be out of control for me.

The article posted about SC making some lists sort of cookie cutter holds some truth. For example, I imagine any army with Typhus like my own is probably going to be nurgly themed. Why pay the points for Vulkan if you're not going to take advantage of what he gives you? I think the way they are built now and the changes they affect on an army keeps the game interesting. Sure a Salamander army is a Salamander army is a Salamander army but so what? Death Wing armies have always been the same no matter who's playing them. Blood Angels full of assault troops..no way?! now instead of Assaulty BA and some high speed DA as the only real alternatives to SM armies, we're seeing Sal armies, Crimson Fist armies, White Scar armies etc...I think it's a good thing and I wish some of the other armies, for example the Eldar or Orks had characters that changed the nature of their armies slightly.

[Grabula]

I reckon the blokes at GW thought "here we go, let's steal this neat idea. We take some of the shine from our competition, our sculptors get to go nuts on awesome characters, we sell more models, but we'll still keep the generic option for the oldies..

Actually, more logically if you look at how GW markets miniatures there's a more obvious answer. GW charges more money for models who have a greater affect on the game. They've had SC laying around for years that people really barely use because they've always had to be approved and very rarely could be used in official events. anyone halfway intelligent would realize that they could sell more expensive SC models just by making them more playable in the game.

I think it's a good move no matter what they're motivation. As you pointed out, one of the strong points of GW's games is it's a mainstream game that still allows a lot of player imagination to take hold. Now I can create my own SM Captain or Chapter Master the way I want OR I can buy a fluffy model that creates a twist on my army that makes it interesting.

[Rapture]

The problem with special characters is when they become an obvious choice. Almost every marine list gets pushed to the next level by Vulkan. He twin-links half the valuable weapons in the codex. Also, he costs pennies more that a generic captain without a heavy flamer and none of his special abilities. I am so tempted to model up a Vulkan and use him. Why not? It will certainly help me win.

The reason I don't is because he is just too good. Any character that is an obvious choice as an HQ takes away from the game. I don't like characters because I don't want to be locked into a certain build to be competitive. If anyone is skeptical, play a generic HQ list against a Vulkan list. Combat tactics won't make you feel better when the Vulkan player is rerolling to pop you tanks and roast your troops.

[addamsfamily36]

Beastmen just got a character who forces every enemy unit within a massive radius at the start of the game to roll a 50% chance of taking wounds before the battle begins... That is not "balanced" that is removing models before the game begins.


slugtongue is who your talking about, and its nice but not a game breaker, neither is it a guaranteed effect. on a 1-3 it does nothing, on a 4-5 it does d3 wounds no armor saves (so averagely killing 1-2) on a 6 it does d6 wounds no armor saves. range 36 inches. what else does he bring to the game? hes a level 2 brayshaman with no scrolls no magic items and costs just under 200 points. Ok he has regenerate to protect him a little bit but he's not worth his points cost. Infact most of the Beastmen SC are pointless, except morghur or one eye.

As a beastmen player i much prefer to make a standard wargor or warlord, as the options in fantasy are just greater than in 40k.

[Melissia]

Why are we talking about WFB? WFB's balance is quite dramatically different, in cimparison to 40k's balance.

In the sense that 40k actually has some balance.

[AbusePuppy]

The problem with special characters is when they become an obvious choice. Almost every marine list gets pushed to the next level by Vulkan. He twin-links half the valuable weapons in the codex. Also, he costs pennies more that a generic captain without a heavy flamer and none of his special abilities. I am so tempted to model up a Vulkan and use him. Why not? It will certainly help me win.

The reason I don't is because he is just too good. Any character that is an obvious choice as an HQ takes away from the game. I don't like characters because I don't want to be locked into a certain build to be competitive. If anyone is skeptical, play a generic HQ list against a Vulkan list. Combat tactics won't make you feel better when the Vulkan player is rerolling to pop you tanks and roast your troops.

Vulkan may seem like an "obvious choice," but the truth is he's actually not all that amazing. You have to have a very special build for him to really be worthwhile, and even then you are giving up the option to have much long-ranged firepower in your army in return for added close-range ability. Space Wolves and SoB both do that better than vanilla marines do. I'm not saying he's bad- far from it, he can be a powerful tool in the right army, but he is far from an auto-include even in "standard" SM builds.

(And comparing Vulkan to a tricked-out Captain will always be a losing proposition for the latter, because Vulk gets a discount due to his inability to customize gear. A captain can ride a bike, or fly, or take various other options- although, to be fair, Vulkan has several of the best ones already- but that ability to pick and choose the gear you want is what captains get out of the deal. You might note that Space Wolves pay an even higher premium for this on their HQs.)


And anyone who thinks GW has any kind of master plan to make the new models they produce have super-good rules in order to sell tons of them: Pyrovore. Thunderfire Cannon. Tervigon. Storm Raven. What was that again?

[Melissia]

I wouldn't know about the pyrovore (as I ahven't seen it used), but the Thunderfire, Tervigon, and Storm Raven are all qutie damned useful. The Thunderfire Cannon especially has a very strong amount of anti-horde ability.

[Gnoblar with Pointy Stick]

On the one hand S.C.s break the game in Fantasy.
On the other hand Skrag the Slaughterer is the coolest thing ever...

http://www.hobbymetal-iconoclasm.com/image/gw/ogre/Ogre%20Kingdoms%20Skrag%20the%20Slaughterer.jpg

Besides, the way to win WHFB isn't fielding special characters, it's fielding Daemons of Chaos.

And I think it's OK to discuss Fantasy on the 40k Forum a little bit. It certainly isn't being discussed on the Fantasy Forum, and there is enough of a relationship and interplay between the two to warrant some discussion (they do borrow from each other regularly).

As far as S.C.s in 40k, I don't think any of them are balanced enough to complain about. Lists with game breaking special characters are so top-heavy they don't pose much of a threat anyway. For the most part, S.C.s belong in Apocalypse, but if someone wants to sink a quarter of their points into one dude that I can shoot the ghoulies off of on turn one, they can be my guest. :D

[eagleboy7259]

Vulkan may seem like an "obvious choice," but the truth is he's actually not all that amazing. You have to have a very special build for him to really be worthwhile, and even then you are giving up the option to have much long-ranged firepower in your army in return for added close-range ability. Space Wolves and SoB both do that better than vanilla marines do. I'm not saying he's bad- far from it, he can be a powerful tool in the right army, but he is far from an auto-include even in "standard" SM builds.

(And comparing Vulkan to a tricked-out Captain will always be a losing proposition for the latter, because Vulk gets a discount due to his inability to customize gear. A captain can ride a bike, or fly, or take various other options- although, to be fair, Vulkan has several of the best ones already- but that ability to pick and choose the gear you want is what captains get out of the deal. You might note that Space Wolves pay an even higher premium for this on their HQs.)


And anyone who thinks GW has any kind of master plan to make the new models they produce have super-good rules in order to sell tons of them: Pyrovore. Thunderfire Cannon. Tervigon. Storm Raven. What was that again?

The options argument doesn't really make it for me. OMG Vulkan can't take a bike or a jetpack or terminator armor to teleport? and he's not good unless you build an army specific build out? For the most part, Vulkan has the ideal combat set up, most people won't waste the I5 on a Power Fist and master-crafted digi weaponed relic blade beats any power weapon set up in my book. Usually you can find a way to make him work in your army even without the ability to give him a bike, jetpack or terminator armor. If you really have you're heart set on taking bikes as troops then by all means take a regular company master, of better yet, take Khan on the Moondraken. Sure not being able to deepstrike hurts, but most people deliver their Assault Terminators by means of Land Raider anyhow and Vulkan can simply ride along.

Saying that Vulkan doesn't help the usual SM player is like saying that melta isn't the cat's pajamas of armor popping in 5th ed. Even in a typicall vanilla vanilla SM set up you will include usually around half a dozen Melta type weapons and usually a TH and SS Assault Terminator Squad since they are generally considered the best hammer unit in the book. In retrospect, I would actually like to see the competitive SM army that DOESN'T benefit in some way by taking Vulkan.

[addamsfamily36]

The "narrative" scenario I scripted above used, I believe, 4 special characters: HQ: Lysander (Imperial Fists) HQ: Shrike (I mean, 40k's version of Batman--Raven Guard) Troops: Telion (U-Marines) Heavy Support: Chronus (U-Marines)

4 SC's, 3 chapters, for one skirmish.

Just an additional note on this. I was sifting through the FAQ's earlier and noted that if you take more than one SC only one of their abilities replaces combat tactics. or whatever the term is called. So you have to choose which is the leader lysander over shrike for instance. which then makes the other SC a expensive HQ.

You probably already knew this as does everyone else, but i didn't and thought i would share incase anyone else didn't know either.

[Denzark]

Lets go back to Second edition. 'A Tallarn Army may include Al'Rahem...' 'A Valhallan Army may include Chenkov...'

step forward blah years...

'A SALAMANDER Army may include Hestan...' 'A CADIAN Army may include creed' etc etc

Characters 'unlocking' special powers is dump becuase it takes away from exclusive armies - every vanilla marine with anti armour on the mind has Hestan.

Do you take Kahn because you are White Scars, aka Space Mongols? No because you want your hello kitty marines (or whatever) to have the tactical advantage of outflanking etc.

Lets put a stop to it 6th ed, please.

[eagleboy7259]

Lets go back to Second edition. 'A Tallarn Army may include Al'Rahem...' 'A Valhallan Army may include Chenkov...'

step forward blah years...

'A SALAMANDER Army may include Hestan...' 'A CADIAN Army may include creed' etc etc

Characters 'unlocking' special powers is dump becuase it takes away from exclusive armies - every vanilla marine with anti armour on the mind has Hestan.

Do you take Kahn because you are White Scars, aka Space Mongols? No because you want your hello kitty marines (or whatever) to have the tactical advantage of outflanking etc.

Lets put a stop to it 6th ed, please.

You know I wanted to say "Nah it's adding something to the game at this point, whether thats favorable or not depends on fair pricing and effect. Every army book has balancing issues and some level of brokeness that will be abused by players on the competitive level. If SC's were given fair pricing in comparison to their effect than the number of people upset would drop considerably." but then again I had a thought, you CAN'T price Vulkan fairly. That kind of advantage should be paid for on a unit basis and not as a one time fee associated with a mandatory unit in the FOC. That's were the problem is. If you paid a couple of points every time you wanted to twin-link a MM or master craft a hammer then you wouldn't see such abuse. That's why you see 30 meltas in a 2000pt list, because there's nothing stopping you from doing it after you bought Vulkan.

[Kahoolin]

But then again I had a thought, you CAN'T price Vulkan fairly. That kind of advantage should be paid for on a unit basis and not as a one time fee associated with a mandatory unit in the FOC. That's were the problem is. If you paid a couple of points every time you wanted to twin-link a MM or master craft a hammer then you wouldn't see such abuse. That's why you see 30 meltas in a 2000pt list, because there's nothing stopping you from doing it after you bought Vulkan.That's genius. If the rule was something like "an army led by Vulkan may twin-link all meltas for 10 points per unit" then there wouldn't be a problem.

In fact that's how Chenkov works in the IG dex. You have to pay extra on your conscripts to get Send In The Next Wave, and you can't get the option to do so unless you have Chenkov.