Are Unique Characters 'Good' for the Hobby?

[Khornestar]

@Deathspectre: That's fair, because you're talking about your preferences and the desire for extra options to make your own playable characters. Start talking about preventing people from doing anything and it's an entirely different conversation.

 

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, here. This is the hobby where we buy and paint little toys to push around on a table while we roll dice and have a good time but don't take it too seriously because it's a :cuss game, right?

 

What planet am I on, right now? I think I will bow out of this thread before I get mean and nasty.

[deathspectersgt7]

@Deathspectre: That's fair, because you're talking about your preferences and the desire for extra options to make your own playable characters. Start talking about preventing people from doing anything and it's an entirely different conversation.

 

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, here. This is the hobby where we buy and paint little toys to push around on a table while we roll dice and have a good time but don't take it too seriously because it's a game, right?

 

What planet am I on, right now? I think I will bow out of this thread before I get mean and nasty.

 Never would turn down killing Calgar or Khârn and I have killed Khârn 10 times and he keeps showing up everywhere I go 

No need to blow a gasket over this . Some people have opinions quite different from our own. And all the years(27) I have been playing with my toy soldiers there was 2 times I refused a game . Because they took the game too seriously and never liked to lose . 

[Khornestar]

I am fine with people having other opinions, that's literally the (admittedly poorly made) point of my argument. Just don't play with those whose idea of a fun game is different from your own, don't try to impose weird restrictions on top of GW's rules. An opinion in and of itself is fine. Attempting to restrict the actions of others against their will totally isn't.

 

I do need to chillax, I realize it, but it (probably obvious) strikes a nerve when people try to dictate the actions of others based on their own preferences.

 

*edit: "You" and "your" in a general sense.

[Jagus Kumkani]

I have to say, this escalated quickly haha. But I don't think SCs are detrimental to the success of an army. Last sunday, I played a game without He'Stan. My Captain and Lieutenant allowed me the re-rolls, plus my chapter tactic.

SC aren't unbalanced because my opponent had a Captain with a TH/SS, and the armor indominus and managed to kill my Company Champion and my Lieutenant before my Captain killed him.

I think it's just a matter of preference. I've never met anyone whinrefused to play because of SCs. A guy I play with always brings Magnus, he's hard to kill but I've killed him every time ive played against the guy.

I think people just need to relax and just enjoy the game. If you hate a style of play then play with like-minded people. Simple as that.

[totgeboren]

I think it's a pity GW have gone so far into pushing "x++" special characters.

Like, Calgar is a "Chapter Master++", Eldrad a "Farseer++", Ahriman a "Sorcerer++".

From a game-play perspective, those characters are an archetype of character that you want anyway, but simply more powerful that what you can make with normal rules.

 

These kinds of characters take away a bit from game-play in my opinion, since they flat out state that your 'Nova Flame Chapter Master' simply cannot go toe to toe with Calgar on the tabletop. By definition, GWs Chapter Masters are better than other peoples Chapter Masters. Is there any motivation for this from a game-play pow? Not really.

 

But there also other, much more interesting special characters, those that simply cannot be created by the standard mold. Like Snikrot, or Fabius Bile, or Marbo. These are not "x++", but rather "y" or "z". Those are much more interesting additions to armies in my view, and I hope GW goes more for them than just "We-can-make-a-dude-with-better-rules-than-your-dude" SCs.

 

Or characters with iconic gear, that are hard to justify within the points system. Like a Lord with a chainsword and plasmapistol. Why would anyone not upgrade the close combat weapon on their close combat characters? It makes little sense, but that leaves room for a special character imo. Tycho is one of those, a BA Captain with a combi-weapon. That's it really. The model looked awesome, but at least in previous editions, why would anyone simply give their Captain a combi-plasma and call it a day? Stuff like that is when SCs improve the game rather than make it same-same (I have almost never played a Eldar player that did not include Eldrad. That's obviously bad rule design for instance). 

[Schlitzaf]

You know, our heroes can get relics and warlord traits do a pretty good emulation of SC rules (Angel of Death and Rites of War, being some honestly pretty good examples, as well as the Warlord Trait that has allow others to use your Leadership), and most characters actually aren't that much better than generic equivalent. 

 

Honestly Special characters are more like paying for their cool abilities with points instead of command points.

[Marshal Loss]

I've never really had a problem with them. It can be a little annoying when they are objectively just superior to a vanilla version, but balance is never going to be perfect. I wouldn't mind seeing restrictions put back in place where they can only be recruited if your army is of a certain size.

[Kisada]

Played a 3v3 the other day ... each player on the other team had Roboute .. 3x Roboute on one side ... it was dumb

[Mileposter]

It does humor me that a grand majority of complaints about characters are Space Marine Characters. Fewer complaints about the other races. Still exist (I'm looking at you, Eldrad), but fewer.

 

I personally don't mind if a named Chapter Master is inherently more powerful than my custom generic Chapter Master. There's typically a balance for that in point cost - and if there isn't, then we're talking about an unbalanced model not an SC. If we're demanding the ability to make characters more powerful than Calgar or Shrike or Rawbutt, then... That's just trolling into special snowflake territory and has nothing to do with the game.

 

But the specific topic of making a game that's fun both with and without SC's, that's the discussion worth having. That's what I was getting to before with my feeling on them being a crutch - if just having them there or not there is a flavor choice then they add to the game. If it's "Take Vulkan or you can't win"... Crutch.

 

I don't quite understand the aversion to "Counts As" models, though. If I do my own sculpt and conversion of a Chapter Master, that seems cool - but if I do a custom sculpt and conversion of Helbrecht, it's not?

[MyD4rkPassenger]

Played a 3v3 the other day ... each player on the other team had Roboute .. 3x Roboute on one side ... it was dumb

I am generally easygoing when it comes to who and what I face, but I would have probably asked them to adjust their lists in this case unless this was a super goofy game meant to try things out.  Ignoring the rules advantage I cringe simply from the narrative aspect, although it seems he finally upped Alpharius by being a triplet 

 

As for SC, I got into this game for the fluff so I tend to base my forces along pre created factions.  I've ran Ahriman in all of my TS lists since 6th, and only now am I feeling he can be considered a crutch.  I think we pay the extra points or power for their abilities, but I see why it can be defeating for any who want to run generic versions of SC.

[D3L]

Can't say I can understand someone who wants to play with, or against SCs, but in 6 pages of dancing around the actual thread title, we've had plenty reasons why they're bad for the hobby, no terms as to why they are 'good' for the hobby

[Kassill]

Can't say I can understand someone who wants to play with, or against SCs, but in 6 pages of dancing around the actual thread title, we've had plenty reasons why they're bad for the hobby, no terms as to why they are 'good' for the hobby

They're only "bad" because some of you are apparently salty about a particular game. 

 

And just for the record, my main opponent I play against plays GK and has always fielded Draigo from the first day he started, because he likes the model. And I've always fielded my generic Wolf Lord (my persona on the table). I can't tell you how many fantastic games we've had of these two duking it out and coming down to 1 wound a piece. We've had games where I whiffed all my rolls, and games where he whiffed his., because it's a dice game. 

 

End of the day if you don't want to play against SC's then walk away, they probably didn't want to play against you either. 

[graysparrow]

I cannot like your post enough, D3L. 

[Shockmaster]

Can't say I can understand someone who wants to play with, or against SCs, but in 6 pages of dancing around the actual thread title, we've had plenty reasons why they're bad for the hobby, no terms as to why they are 'good' for the hobby

 

Some people love them, that is literally the only reason for them being good for the hobby that is needed to be said, anything else is just a bonus, sorry if it upsets people who want to control how everyone else personally enjoys this game but that is it.

 

So many of these complaints feel like they could be solved by just talking to your opponent or playing like minded players, as SC don't need to get the "opponents permission only" rule back because every unit in the game has that rule as you are never forced to play any opponent ever, if your own personal rules limit your number of potential opponents then that sucks but that is life.

 

The only atmosphere you might feel forced to play an opponent is in a tournament, in which case no sympathy, as you know what you are getting in to when the game is taken that seriously competitive.

 

This kind of debate reminds me of the argument I have seen that the new Power army building system should just be scrapped because it annoys some players, which is obviously nonsense, don't like it, don't play it but stop trying to remove options from fellow players when you are not forced to play them or in their preferred way.

[Calyptra]

I keep seeing people use the phrase "no name characters."

 

If your character doesn't have a name, it's because you didn't give them one. It's a thing you can do.

[Khornestar]

Plenty of opinions why they're bad for the game, no problem with that as long as we're not mistaking them for solid arguments. Thankfully those opinions won't influence anyone's ability to play the game their way, much as no one is forcing anyone else to use special characters.

[Mileposter]

I keep seeing people use the phrase "no name characters."

 

If your character doesn't have a name, it's because you didn't give them one. It's a thing you can do.

His name was Robert Paulson.

[deathspectersgt7]

I keep seeing people use the phrase "no name characters."

 

If your character doesn't have a name, it's because you didn't give them one. It's a thing you can do.

I do not want to type out all their names  .

[TheFinisher4Ever]

As someone that got into the game in 6th, its kinda surreal to me to see so many people complain about the part of the game that brought me into it. The larger than life characters are a huge part of the game in my opinion. I run named characters in virtually all of my lists for one simple reason; I like the characters!

[deathspectersgt7]

As someone that got into the game in 6th, its kinda surreal to me to see so many people complain about the part of the game that brought me into it. The larger than life characters are a huge part of the game in my opinion. I run named characters in virtually all of my lists for one simple reason; I like the characters!

I thought the General figs and the Universe itself sold me SC were secondary . But after reading about some yeah cool I want to put some on the table for a beat down. But not every game .

[Ishagu]

Lots of people have the opinion that they don't like them.

Not a single objective argument against them.

 

Special characters are great, they sell great, most people love them and they'll play a bigger and bigger part on the tabletop.

[Commander Dawnstar]

Can't say I can understand someone who wants to play with, or against SCs...

 

And I can't say I understand someone who doesn't understand that.

 

Personally I never got into 40k to play "my guys." I'm the sort of person who gets attached to ideas and characters from the fluff but rarely goes beyond the most basic level of depth when it comes to fleshing out the narrative side of my own collection. My armies might have themes or play into big concepts that I like but they've never been orientated around playing games where every battle is part of the narrative arc for my force and my characters. I'm currently working on an Iron Warriors army where I have fluff, character motivations and such but none of my characters actually has a name at this point - they might not get them at all. The furthest I've ever really got into that sort of thing is with my Tau, but even Dawnstar herself is something of a cipher. She is whoever the situation needs her to be, more or less.

 

Commander Shadowsun gave me a big push to play Tau and I'd still like to make a stealth-centric force led by her at some time; Kyr Vhalen gave me a push to play 30k Iron Warriors and my army there originally started out themed around Paramar; my Black Templars are led by the Emperor's Champion; I've used Celestine and Greyfax alongside my Sisters, and I certainly would have considered taking Crowe and some Purifiers had his rules not turned out so incredibly lackluster in 8th. Perhaps you'll say I lack creativity - it's a genuine argument - but I attach myself to ideas and concepts that I find interesting and exciting rather than being someone who's always driving to carve out their own space. Being able to take big name characters to the field and play armies themed around their battles and tactics really appeals to me.

 

I definitely understand disliking Special Characters who become nigh-omnipresent because their rules are overtuned, but (post-Gathering Storm) Celestine aside - and I've always felt a little guilt for that - I've only played them because I've liked the characters themselves or because it felt thematically appropriate rather than because I was looking for something crazy powerful. I'm sympathetic if you find the presence of Special Characters immersion breaking, but that's really never been a problem for me. Some of my best memories of 40k are from games way back in 3rd Edition where my regular opponent frequently fielded some combination of Yarrick, Macharius and the Last Chancers against my Blood Angels.

[Arkangilos]

Can't say I can understand someone who wants to play with, or against SCs, but in 6 pages of dancing around the actual thread title, we've had plenty reasons why they're bad for the hobby, no terms as to why they are 'good' for the hobby

Who are you to say what's good or bad for the hobby? The hobby means different things to different people. Some people like painting "historical" figures and playing them. What makes them good for the hobby is that people like them, buy them, paint them, and play them because it's what they like. All of those contribute to GW continuing stories for those characters, sculpting them, etc. which contributes to their stuff.

 

Everyone on here that is against them have said things in the past I would consider bad for the hobby, especially competitive players. I think tournament mindsets are the worst thing this hobby has ever had.

[Sete]

I don't like the fact that majority is finecast.

[Ishagu]

What has irked me, personally, about the people in this topic is the Elitism and faux moral high horse the anti-SC crowd is riding on.

 

Get a grip people.

 

Ironically the only objective criticism thus far is that most of them are indeed made with crappy finecast lol