PDA

View Full Version : Special Characters: Okay by me!



Thomus Darkblade
12-03-2009, 15:36
Browsing through this forum, I am constantly bombarded with just how broken special characters are. Can anyone really back this up? I mean sure, A lot of special characters are very powerful, on the flip side, nobody ever takes the vast majority of them, even though you don't need your opponents consent to use them ever anymore.

So yah, Kairos, Skulltaker, Thorek and Teclis are bad, but that's four out of the forty five or so special characters in the game. Compare that to the ratio of broken units to balanced units?

Saying special characters break the game because of 4 bad apples is like saying "rare units break the game" because of flamers and hydras. It doesn't hold up.

Discuss...

Cry of the Wind
12-03-2009, 15:45
I haven't used special characters until the new lizardmen book came out. I would agree with your last example there since really it is only a few chatacters that are really bad. Most special chatacters are a little pricy for what they do and people will lose out on taking things in their list that might make their army better against certain people.

W0lf
12-03-2009, 15:48
The problem with SCs is that because of the few offenders the whole lot get a bad name.

Its easy to say 'hydras are broken' but saying thorek/skulltaker/masque/kairos/franz on dragon/morgor/archeon/grimgor/teclis/caradyran etc are broken takes more effort then to simply just label as 'special characters'.

Plus alot of vets still dimiss special characters as being a broken as previous editions gave them a bad name.

I personally dont have a problem with any special character outside of Thorek. Hell id rather face any special character instead of a bloodthrister (and that includes skarbrand)

redben
12-03-2009, 16:05
I don't have a problem with any of the special characters. Even back in the day when they were an optional part of the game I liked them. I like using them and I like my opponent using them. I think they add layers to the game and depth to the background. I know people argue that some are too good and some armies don't have access to decent ones but in what way does that make special characters different from any other aspect of WFB?

_Kalas_
12-03-2009, 16:12
I've returned to hobby after few years gap, I've used to be Empire player in times of 6th edition, never used my special characters [there were only 2 of them, Luthor and Balthazar] but now, with 7th edition I'm a WoC player and I have 10! NAMED ;) charatcers to choose from.
The thing is GW decided to make those Named Characters just as an option for as players as special and rare slots are in our army books.
The difference between number of those characters in 6th and 7th edition is just huge.They wouldn't put as much effort into creating them if it would be just a friendly game fun option.It's a part of an Army Book, and we players need to face it.
Using the WoC as an example, we do suffer against gunlines, there are no furies or screamers available anymore, but we do have a Wulfrik...
He is a part of an army now, not just a fun option, it's our "wunderwaffe" against gunlines.
Of course I would prefer to have some regular core/special/rare slot troops/monster able to do the job.
What Thomus said in opening post, it's like discussion: are hydra/flamers/fleshhounds/steamtank etc. broken or not?

BTW I'm a great fan of Festus, both fluff and rulewise, cause what I'm looking for in named characters are ineteresting options, and nice fluff, not uber killiness.

garythewargamer
12-03-2009, 16:15
I have played Teclis and have been massacred. Poor generalship on my part and no mistakes from the other side.
Special characters add something to playing and style.

Greatest two statements that I have heard. Opinions are just like a--holes, everyone has one and they both smell the same.

That was a cheesy list because he beat me.

Crube
12-03-2009, 16:19
I have no issue with SCs nowadays, but I image many gamers like me have their opinions tainted by a previous edition.

I remember being a redshirt back in the day, and we'd run a games night on a thursday, where folks would bring in their models for a big bring and battle. Each night there'd be almost fisticuffs about who got to use the SCs and who got left with the units.

Each night there'd be a couple of Nagash, 2 or 3 Dieter Hellsnicht...it went on.

Now... there's enough balance in the game (as a whole, IMO) to think that most SCs are fine, and add some character to the games

DarkTerror
12-03-2009, 16:24
You're right, there are a few that give the whole lot a worse name.

However, I don't want to see special characters at all. Why? Because special characters are but a small piece of Hero-Hammer.

Special characters are meant do more extraordinary things at a more expensive price (in general), which is where Hero-Hammer comes from. Instead of putting 500 points into characters, suddenly you're up in the 750 range. And it can get much, much more extreme than that.

Why is it bad? Now you're polarizing the game more than before. When you have a character worth extreme amounts of points it becomes a hit-or-miss situation. It becomes more common that either you kill the special character and win or you don't and lose. That is not the direction I want the games I'm involved in to go.

So, yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but for me I'd rather just chuck all of the special characters out. As a whole they don't add much to the game other than on the extremes. Extreme wins, extreme losses...

Well, I would rather have a game played closer to the middle

Ixquic
12-03-2009, 16:27
One problem is that SC not only get access to more magic items and abilities than a standard character would have access to, but they do it for cheaper. For example look at Kurt Helborg. The Runefang was not designed to be used in conjunction with the Laurels of Victory since their points costs prohibit it. However if you take Kurt you get around that balance. If you add up the points you actually are getting Kurt for cheaper than it would cost to jam together an Empire Lord that had the same abilities.

Karl Franz is similar since Empire heroes shouldn't be auto wounding with no armor saves and D3 wounds along with a 4+ ward save and ItP leadership 10. I'm fine with Karl being an impressive person since he's so important, but he shouldn't be able to show up to every 2000 point game riding a dragon. The 6th edition style of multiple hero slots worked better since then it was people that really wanted to use the character either because they thought the model was cool or they had some sort of theme or story behind the army. Now that SC are just vehicles to jam as many points into powerful heroes it's becoming a problem.


You're right, there are a few that give the whole lot a worse name.

However, I don't want to see special characters at all. Why? Because special characters are but a small piece of Hero-Hammer.

Special characters are meant do more extraordinary things at a more expensive price (in general), which is where Hero-Hammer comes from. Instead of putting 500 points into characters, suddenly you're up in the 750 range. And it can get much, much more extreme than that.

Why is it bad? Now you're polarizing the game more than before. When you have a character worth extreme amounts of points it becomes a hit-or-miss situation. Either you kill the special character and win or you don't and lose. That is not the direction I want the games I'm involved in to go.

So, yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but for me I'd rather just chuck all of the special characters out. As a whole they don't add much to the game other than on the extremes. Extreme wins, extreme losses....

Well, I would rather have a game played closer to the middle

You beat me to the point but I mostly agree with you. I think SC add to the feel of armies but lately they've just been getting ridiculous since they are so much easier to incorporate into a list so I don't want them removed entirely. This crap lately of making up broken SC just for the new book like with demons should stop though.

redben
12-03-2009, 16:29
I've yet to field a special character over 185 points in any of my games (though some would argue that's because some of them were undercosted ;)). How is fielding a hard-to-kill SC worth 600 points different from fielding a Great Unclean One worth 600 points?

If the high cost SC gets bogged down fighting cheap units and doesn't gain anything like his points back while the rest of the army (which is smaller than it should be because of the investment in the SC) is wiped out by the opponent's elite troops then the battle is still lost even though the SC survives. It's nowhere near as HeroHammer as it used to be even with high cost SC.

Braad
12-03-2009, 16:33
If you think a model is cool, you can always use that model as a generic character. Or even as less... I got Badruk and Borgut acting as unit champions :p

Anyway, personally I don't have much troubles with. I tried fielding a few too, and since O&G special characters are not that powerfull, except maybe Grimgor, I don't really feel bad about it.

And both the models I got for Grom and Skarsnik are cool and can only be used for those specific special characters, so that's a nice excuse :)

Ixquic
12-03-2009, 16:38
I've yet to field a special character over 185 points in any of my games (though some would argue that's because some of them were undercosted ;)). How is fielding a hard-to-kill SC worth 600 points different from fielding a Great Unclean One worth 600 points?

If the high cost SC gets bogged down fighting cheap units and doesn't gain anything like his points back while the rest of the army (which is smaller than it should be because of the investment in the SC) is wiped out by the opponent's elite troops then the battle is still lost even though the SC survives. It's nowhere near as HeroHammer as it used to be even with high cost SC.

So how does Fateweaver get bogged down when he flies, doesn't charge units and can bubble his way out of combat? What about Karl Franz on a horse in a unit of Inner Circle Knights that can choose who it wants to charge? Or the Masque hiding in trees using her ability from out of sight?

It's REALLY hard now a days to bog down units if you aren't demons or undead. When a SC busts into a unit and kills a bunch of guys by himself and no wounds are done in return, the unit he's in will just keep going after running down the roadblock. One of the problems with 7th edition is that small elite armies crush ones with more troops for a variety of reasons. Spending lots of points on a SC that is worth more than that amount will generally be better invested than in a bunch of useless core units.

redben
12-03-2009, 16:46
The Masque costs 90 points (which you could say is undercosted but that's a different argument), keeping her alive doesn't exactly win you the game. Kairos taps into other debates about the overpoweredness of the DoC army list.

I was replying to DarkTerror's assertion that 600 point+ SC's turn WFB into HeroHammer in which the outcome of the game is determined solely on whether the SC is killed. Not as to whether particular SC's are overpowered.

Ixquic
12-03-2009, 16:52
But it does. When you have 600 points of SC that you can't get rid of for whatever reason (SC are almost always tougher than their average counterpart), you're going to be at a severe disadvantage when victory points are calculated at the end of the game. In 6th you ended up with about the same amount of points since taking Mannfred meant you were down 2 extra hero slots, but now I have spend 60% of my army allowance on characters with no problem.

redben
12-03-2009, 17:01
You cited Masque, Karl Franz and Kairos. I confess to not be being familiar with Karl Franz. The Masque only costs 90 points so keeping her alive does very little for your VP. I don't see how Kairos is different to a buffed GUO who is very hard to kill for most armies and costs about the same points.

If you're playing a 2000 point game and you invest close to 700 points in one model, whilst that model may survive, if it only accounts for 300 points worth of your opponent's army then that means your opponent has 1700 points worth of his army to take on 1300 points of yours. A good player should be able to crush the opponent in those circumstances.

Whilst a Kairos may still be able to wreak havoc no matter what the opponent does I don't think you could say that of, say, Archaon. Hard to kill? Yes. Guaranteed to mash up the enemy? Not at all.

Ixquic
12-03-2009, 17:11
You cited Masque, Karl Franz and Kairos. I confess to not be being familiar with Karl Franz. The Masque only costs 90 points so keeping her alive does very little for your VP. I don't see how Kairos is different to a buffed GUO who is very hard to kill for most armies and costs about the same points.

If you're playing a 2000 point game and you invest close to 700 points in one model, whilst that model may survive, if it only accounts for 300 points worth of your opponent's army then that means your opponent has 1700 points worth of his army to take on 1300 points of yours. A good player should be able to crush the opponent in those circumstances.

Whilst a Kairos may still be able to wreak havoc no matter what the opponent does I don't think you could say that of, say, Archaon. Hard to kill? Yes. Guaranteed to mash up the enemy? Not at all.

Archaon doesn't have to make up 100% of what he costs to be effective. If he's made it so that you can't get more than 1200 (or whatever is left) victory points, that's a good deal. If he's the last man standing and hasn't made up his points, then yes it's not a great buy but if the rest of his elite army does its job him holding onto his own point cost is going to be a huge bonus.

I've seen games where it looked like one guy won since he decimated what looked to be about 75% of the other player's army. However it turned out that the last 25% was actually 60% of the points due to tons of characters that didn't even get into the fight and it turned into a narrow victory for what we thought was the loser.

Thomus Darkblade
12-03-2009, 17:14
SC's aren't invariably tougher than thier regular counterparts. They do often have much more magical equipment than a normal hero or lord can take, but there are nearly always more defensive builds.

Volkmar pales in comparison to a normal arch lector, and malekith doesn't hold a candle to the regenerating pendant lord. kugath is easier to drop than a normal GUO, and the list goes on.



I've seen games where it looked like one guy won since he decimated what looked to be about 75% of the other player's army. However it turned out that the last 25% was actually 60% of the points due to tons of characters that didn't even get into the fight and it turned into a narrow victory for what we thought was the loser.


That happens all the time in my group. You don't need to have special characters to have that happen either.

sergio
12-03-2009, 17:24
maybe i skipped over the section a little quickly, but isnt teclis still only toughness 2 and no save?

i really wouldnt call him overpowered or broken if thats the case

BenTheRat
12-03-2009, 17:35
My biggest problem with SC's is while there may only be a handful that are overpowered, and there is an argument that it is a lot more than 4. Those are the only ones anyone ever brings.
I went through the Ard Boyz last year and played Thorek 4 times!!! Come on.
In addition, while they often have a weakness, ie. Thorek, get in and kill the squishy guy that gives him the re-roll. Teclis is T2 with no armor.

But when you sit down to play a game with someone, I have to have all 30+ special characters memorized on what they do and what their weakness is??

The Rat

GuyLeCheval
12-03-2009, 17:42
maybe i skipped over the section a little quickly, but isnt teclis still only toughness 2 and no save?

i really wouldnt call him overpowered or broken if thats the case

I'm sorry, but you are a real ***** if you let Teclis be tied up in combat. Teclis will alos always be in a unit because there is otherwise a little chance he will be shot.

Huh, I will just challenge him!

IF you manage to get in combat with him, and most likely, he'll just ignore the challenge and let the phoenix guard fight...

Think before you say something, please...

Thomus Darkblade
12-03-2009, 17:46
But when you sit down to play a game with someone, I have to have all 30+ special characters memorized on what they do and what their weakness is??

The Rat

That's somehow a problem, but memorizing all 150+ units in the game and their stats and weaknesses is not?

Gazak Blacktoof
12-03-2009, 17:49
I don't use special characters.

I don't think the newer special characters that can be used without opponent's permission are any more balanced than those that need consent. I'd rather people had their own theme and character or that I was warned if a special character was going to be played.

I wouldn't refuse to play people because they take special characters but I'd want time to check out the rules and work out how they would change the game.

If a special character gets used repeatedly they're no longer special and the game can stagnate.

Just a few of my thought on the subject.

DarkTerror
12-03-2009, 17:55
That's somehow a problem, but memorizing all 150+ units in the game and their stats and weaknesses is not?

Most units have 1 or 2 special rules to go along with a stat line. Many special characters have an entire page of special rules, and of those many make changes FAR more significant than something like "ITP".

I agree with the poster who said it can be difficult to know what all of the special characters do.

Vestigialante
12-03-2009, 18:03
Special characters are inherently more powerful than a standard character. It's always been that way. Some may have some built in weaknesses that are often just a gimmick, but for the most part, special characters exist merely to have heaps of special rules and "wouldn't it be cool if-"'s thrown on them. Look at Kairos, with his 8 spells he chooses rather than randomizes. That breaks more than a few fundamental points of balance for spellcasting, specifically the separation of spells into lores, and the method of randomizing spells. Why would you take a regular Lord of Change with Kairos available? Why take a regular sorcerer of Tzeentch when you've got the Curseling who can guarantee that you get the gateway? They go above and beyond simply adding "flavor", and outright replace the usefulness of standard choices.

Special characters steal the spotlight, and now the usability of non-special characters, in a way that breaks the background of the game with equal gusto. Do you really think Kairos was involved with as many daemonic incursions as he's being used in game-wise? Did he participate in more than all the other Lords of Change combined? Is Teclis everywhere at once? Special characters destroy one of the factors that makes Warhammer much different than similar games like Warmachine, where you can viably run YOUR army, without having to resort to pre-packaged characters and storyline. When suddenly everyone is showing up with Archaon's warhost, it feels like something intrinsic was lost.

LKHERO
12-03-2009, 18:07
I SERIOUSLY refuse to believe that special characters are broken. This is mainly because of two main reasons:

1. They fit the theme of my army
2. They are better by cost effectiveness.

When building an army, I keep two things in mind: An army without a theme lacks creativity. Likewise, a theme without an army lacks purpose. This is why my High Elf army frequently takes Teclis and Caradryan. I enjoy Warhammer because of the fickle nature of Magic, so I take what I believe to be, the strongest offensive caster in the game. He is extremely powerful when casting spells, but he is also the weakest caster in the game of his power level. He has 2 wounds, NO saves of any kind, and he's Toughness 2. This means that anything and everything has a chance to kill him with ease. I compensate such weakness with his bodyguard; Caradryan who can protect his Lord with a 4+ Ward Save and D6 no armor save wounds upon death.

In this list, I also play with Banner of Sorcery so Teclis can generate up to 10+2(in the pool) for a total of 12 power dice per turn. All of which are Irresistable on any doubles and I can ignore the first miscast of each turn.

Powerful? Yes. Cost effective? Most certainly. Weaknesses? Yes, but being a strong general means you know how to amend such weakness with strong list construction.

Special Characters are certainly not invincible considering there's options like a Prince on Star Dragon, Dreadlord on Dragon, Slann in Temple Guard, and a Bloodthirster with Obsidian Armor, Firestorm Blade and Immortal Fury. All of which are common Lord builds without a particular name.

Special Characters for me, are just a name and nothing more.

The Red Scourge
12-03-2009, 18:17
There's just something odd about Karl Franz duelling Vlad Von Carstein or Kairos blasting it out with himself :)

redben
12-03-2009, 18:23
Special characters are inherently more powerful than a standard character. It's always been that way. Some may have some built in weaknesses that are often just a gimmick, but for the most part, special characters exist merely to have heaps of special rules and "wouldn't it be cool if-"'s thrown on them. Look at Kairos, with his 8 spells he chooses rather than randomizes. That breaks more than a few fundamental points of balance for spellcasting, specifically the separation of spells into lores, and the method of randomizing spells. Why would you take a regular Lord of Change with Kairos available? Why take a regular sorcerer of Tzeentch when you've got the Curseling who can guarantee that you get the gateway? They go above and beyond simply adding "flavor", and outright replace the usefulness of standard choices.

Special characters steal the spotlight, and now the usability of non-special characters, in a way that breaks the background of the game with equal gusto. Do you really think Kairos was involved with as many daemonic incursions as he's being used in game-wise? Did he participate in more than all the other Lords of Change combined? Is Teclis everywhere at once? Special characters destroy one of the factors that makes Warhammer much different than similar games like Warmachine, where you can viably run YOUR army, without having to resort to pre-packaged characters and storyline. When suddenly everyone is showing up with Archaon's warhost, it feels like something intrinsic was lost.


I no more believe that Kairos has been involved in as many DoC incursions as he has been played on the tabletop than there have been as many battles in the Warhammer world as have been played out on a tabletop.

Why would I play a LoC over him? Only if I didn't quite have 625 points to spare and wanted a L4 Tzeentch Wizard in my army. But that isn't quite the point. The point is Kairos is badly designed because he is too powerful for his points and makes you not want to take a regular LoC in his place that you could customise yourself. That is not the same as saying all SC are overpowered.

Would you ever take a GUO over Ku'Gath or a BT over Skarbrand? I've certainly taken a HoK over Skulltaker and a HoS over Masque many times. The game-balance points you raise about Kairos are a problem with Kairos in particular, not with SC's in general.

theunwantedbeing
12-03-2009, 18:24
2 problems with special characters.
Firstly, they are often a cheap way of getting something your list already can have, but better.
eg. Teclis. 475pts, Archmage level 4 with the book of hoeth 360pts.
Teclis gets ld10, somthing you generally have to sacrifice when taking the Archmage, plus Teclis knows 2 more spells, generates an extra D3 power and dispel dice for the army. He also has a scroll and get's to ignore a miscast a turn.
For 115 extra points. Better than you can do with 2 mages infact.

Obviously Teclis is an extreme example of things being better than a normal character but he isnt the only offender in this practice.

The second problem with Special character's is that people often use them in "themed" armies, which are merely an excuse to use a particular character in a lot of cases.
eg. to use teclis as another example
An army of Hoeth. So obviously Teclis HAS to be in the army. Being the only mage from Hoeth....

Whether or not a special character is beatable or not doesnt matter.
That said, a special character who is seemingly balanced to the same amount as the army they are with is going to seem less rediculous than one that isnt and seems to have been allowed a lot of benefits over everything else.

Draconian77
12-03-2009, 18:25
I don't use special characters.

I don't think the newer special characters that can be used without opponent's permission are any more balanced than those that need consent. I'd rather people had their own theme and character or that I was warned if a special character was going to be played.

I wouldn't refuse to play people because they take special characters but I'd want time to check out the rules and work out how they would change the game.

If a special character gets used repeatedly they're no longer special and the game can stagnate.

Just a few of my thought on the subject.


My thoughts, verbatim et litteratim.

garythewargamer
12-03-2009, 18:54
Maybe special characters are put there for GW to sell more stuff?

Special characters have an advantage and they should have an advantage. I will use HE as an example because the Bretonnia have no hero special characters. Dont you think that with a race as organized as the HE would have someone special in charge of the White lions and PG? The empire occasionally would be led by the Emperor or King. The world of warhammer is very violent therefore if a ruler wants to rule then sometimes a leader has to lead from the front and not the back.

Every race has someone in charge and their LTs. It stands to reason that with important battles one of them would be there, especially like a tournment. Come on I am only kidding.

Some races have to take special characters to try to stay even. I mean who has something that is equal to a blood thirster for say 500 points. I guess he is not a special character but is not he a bit over the top. I guess the arguement could be made that he is a daemon and therefore should be included in a daemon army. But the same arguement can be made about any unit or character.

I have never had to agree with an opponent's list? Where I play we play with an open list. Now I am new and do not have a wide experience but to me that makes sense. Also we tell our opponent about our magical items. Now you do not have to know all the special characters by memory.

I am looking forward to attending a tournment or two this year but definitly next year. By then I will know more about the rules and such.

BigbyWolf
12-03-2009, 19:01
2 problems with special characters.
Firstly, they are often a cheap way of getting something your list already can have, but better.
eg. Teclis. 475pts, Archmage level 4 with the book of hoeth 360pts.
Teclis gets ld10, somthing you generally have to sacrifice when taking the Archmage, plus Teclis knows 2 more spells, generates an extra D3 power and dispel dice for the army. He also has a scroll and get's to ignore a miscast a turn.

I did some similar maths on Vlad a while ago- to make a Vampire Lord with the same stats/ items/ abilities it would cost 555 points (and is impossible due to item/ bloodline restrictions...), 65 more than Vlad actually costs.

LKHERO
12-03-2009, 19:05
The second problem with Special character's is that people often use them in "themed" armies, which are merely an excuse to use a particular character in a lot of cases.

I like Magic. I will choose Teclis over a Lv.4 Archmage because he's significantly better. I choose to do so because its the logical thing to do, unless people can't process that "better" is indeed "better".

theunwantedbeing
12-03-2009, 19:17
I like Magic. I will choose Teclis over a Lv.4 Archmage because he's significantly better. I choose to do so because its the logical thing to do, unless your brain can't process that "better" is indeed "better".

That was exactly my point.
Hence there is a problem as the game is supposed to be balanced with things being equally worth fielding.
Obviously this is not the case with Teclis(and other special character's, and indeed a few items as well).

Your post came across as somewhat trying to cause offence. Not sure if this was intended or not.

LKHERO
12-03-2009, 19:23
It was not intended and not directed towards you. I shouldn't of used the word "your".

But logically, any person should be able to logically weigh the plus and minuses of any given situation and prepare for it respectably.

475 cost is a discount for the given SC's loadout and should be taken over a 360 Archmage with half the utility.

Von Wibble
12-03-2009, 19:28
I did some similar maths on Vlad a while ago- to make a Vampire Lord with the same stats/ items/ abilities it would cost 555 points (and is impossible due to item/ bloodline restrictions...), 65 more than Vlad actually costs.

But this is an example of a badly written special character.

The fact is with Vlad, many of his abilities don't synergise. Yet you still pay a lot of points for him over a vampire count. That's why such a character gets a "bulk purchase" discount.

With Teclis you do get good abilities and he is better than a L4 and L2 put together at magic. Which he should be - if he is just a level 4 but different then he isn't the best high elf mage - so what makes him special? Certainly not his potions (best rule removal ever, apart from intrigue at court of course). You do otoh get a T2 no armour character who even in a unit can be sniped - steal soul, hochland long rifle, 'Eadbutt to name but a few things.

But tbh the best special characters are the ones that are different, not better.Teclis shouldn't be made to have this therefore is a poor concept for a SC. But there are many really well written examples. Khalidah, Drycha, beast spawn thing (forgot the name), Green knight, most of the HOC. There does seem to be a trend that some books characters are consistently well written (HOC) whilst others are not (DOC hugely OP mostly, LZ all 100-150pts too expensive). Some more consistency in getting the idea of what SCs should do to a list is needed.

I have no problem with using or facing SCs as long as I don't face the same one 2 games in a row. I do prefer to see them in about 1 game in 4. I only rarely use them myself but do consider the option in any game.

Thorek otoh is broken. No way round that one! Except to just allow 1 reroll per game or something...

Caine Mangakahia
12-03-2009, 21:20
But this is an example of a badly written special character.

The fact is with Vlad, many of his abilities don't synergise. Yet you still pay a lot of points for him over a vampire count. That's why such a character gets a "bulk purchase" discount.

With Teclis you do get good abilities and he is better than a L4 and L2 put together at magic. Which he should be - if he is just a level 4 but different then he isn't the best high elf mage - so what makes him special? Certainly not his potions (best rule removal ever, apart from intrigue at court of course). You do otoh get a T2 no armour character who even in a unit can be sniped - steal soul, hochland long rifle, 'Eadbutt to name but a few things.

But tbh the best special characters are the ones that are different, not better.Teclis shouldn't be made to have this therefore is a poor concept for a SC. But there are many really well written examples. Khalidah, Drycha, beast spawn thing (forgot the name), Green knight, most of the HOC. There does seem to be a trend that some books characters are consistently well written (HOC) whilst others are not (DOC hugely OP mostly, LZ all 100-150pts too expensive). Some more consistency in getting the idea of what SCs should do to a list is needed.

I have no problem with using or facing SCs as long as I don't face the same one 2 games in a row. I do prefer to see them in about 1 game in 4. I only rarely use them myself but do consider the option in any game.

Thorek otoh is broken. No way round that one! Except to just allow 1 reroll per game or something...

Its only some special characters that ruin the game. I don't have too many problems with Empire heros for example, because Empire needs the extra boost .
Demons have the most brokens SCs without really needing them (goes without saying)
WoC have an awesome SC list, really good without being too broken (apart from Archaon, but he's been broken in every edition of the game. Sigveld comes pretty close to being broken)
VC actually have some of the worst SCs in the game.
TKs Khalida was a very well written SC and Settra was pretty aweful.
Dwarves, well Thorek has been mentioned a lot.
DEs can get along perfectly well without SCs
HE, Teclis is simply the most awfulMagic User you'll ever face. All the other SC's are pretty good too.

Sarah S
12-03-2009, 21:44
I don't think the newer special characters that can be used without opponent's permission are any more balanced than those that need consent. I'd rather people had their own theme and character or that I was warned if a special character was going to be played.

I would say that most special characters are more balanced than most non-special characters these days. I'd much rather see Malekith than another generic DE Pendant Lord on Dragon.

CaliforniaGamer
12-03-2009, 21:56
The problem with SCs is that because of the few offenders the whole lot get a bad name.

Its easy to say 'hydras are broken' but saying thorek/skulltaker/masque/kairos/franz on dragon/morgor/archeon/grimgor/teclis/caradyran etc are broken takes more effort then to simply just label as 'special characters'.

Plus alot of vets still dimiss special characters as being a broken as previous editions gave them a bad name.

I personally dont have a problem with any special character outside of Thorek. Hell id rather face any special character instead of a bloodthrister (and that includes skarbrand)

That is a valuable point, for all the whining about special characters I cant think of a lord choice more hideous, more revolting and more overall gut churning when it is deployed than a fully kitted Thirster. I would rather have my opponent simply wheel around, drop his trousers and take a crap right on the middle of the gameboard as his final action in the deployment phase rather than drop the BT. I can play around a smelly pile of poo, you cant play around a BT.

W A L 5 H Y
12-03-2009, 22:00
Special heros are fine in fact i think they make games more fun. i.e. Korhil, kouran, manfred the accolyte.

Maybe its because there killable.

Characters like tyrion, manfred, kairos just seem to carry there army in 2000pts which just makes the game boring IMO

Caine Mangakahia
12-03-2009, 22:28
That is a valuable point, for all the whining about special characters I cant think of a lord choice more hideous, more revolting and more overall gut churning when it is deployed than a fully kitted Thirster. I would rather have my opponent simply wheel around, drop his trousers and take a crap right on the middle of the gameboard as his final action in the deployment phase rather than drop the BT. I can play around a smelly pile of poo, you cant play around a BT.

Awesome ! :)

Zoolander
12-03-2009, 22:29
I never, ever use SCs. They rank of cheese and frankly take away from the game and the fluff, not add to it. SCs are almost always cheaper than if you built them yourself from scratch - at times shockingly cheap. At times SCs have an ability which is just silly powerful. I recall back in 4th ed I used to use Nagash. The battles were so one-sided because of his special abilities and 4+ ward save (before they had ward saves), it was ridiculous. He alone won me multiple battles. So I stopped taking him. Finally, you have the fluff. You have to ask yourself - what is Archeon, Lord of End Times, Champion of Chaos, doing leading a tiny 2,000 pt warband of troops? Surely, one as great as he should command a 5k or 10k army, wouldn't he? If you need to create creative reasons as to why certain characters are leading your army, then you know he doesn't belong there.

Are all SCs that bad? No, certainly not. Many of them are perfectly balanced and acceptable. But the ones that are so badly OP or underpriced give the rest of them a bad reputation.

CaliforniaGamer
12-03-2009, 22:43
interesting, anyone have the actual written run down of the Old Nagash SC??, I would be quite interested as my parents threw out my games workshop books from the 80s/90s.

Regardless, I would put 1000 bucks on a wager that a BT would melt his face.

robc1980
12-03-2009, 23:16
I never, ever use SCs. They rank of cheese and frankly take away from the game and the fluff, not add to it. SCs are almost always cheaper than if you built them yourself from scratch - at times shockingly cheap. At times SCs have an ability which is just silly powerful. I recall back in 4th ed I used to use Nagash. The battles were so one-sided because of his special abilities and 4+ ward save (before they had ward saves), it was ridiculous. He alone won me multiple battles. So I stopped taking him. Finally, you have the fluff. You have to ask yourself - what is Archeon, Lord of End Times, Champion of Chaos, doing leading a tiny 2,000 pt warband of troops? Surely, one as great as he should command a 5k or 10k army, wouldn't he? If you need to create creative reasons as to why certain characters are leading your army, then you know he doesn't belong there.

Are all SCs that bad? No, certainly not. Many of them are perfectly balanced and acceptable. But the ones that are so badly OP or underpriced give the rest of them a bad reputation.

Almost exactly what I was thinking as I read down the first page of posts.

I'm very new to this (returning after 15 year gap and even back then I didn't fight too many battles), but the game seems to have changed a lot, since those old days when the army with the strongest character won.

I would suggest that a suitable rule change for GW would be to say that Lord Choice special characters could only be taken in armies over 2000pts, or something like that.

I know that GW wouldn't go down that line, because they make money selling the models for SC, but it would fix the problem. And I'm also sure that lots of people will disagree with me, because they want to use their over-powered SC to help them win! ;)

Disciple of Caliban
12-03-2009, 23:32
Characters like tyrion

Tyrion, really? of all the characters i might consider OP Tyrion just wouldnt rank, he's pretty potent, but not nearly as much trouble as a lord on stardragon or somesuch. And certainly not as potent as someone like Archaon.

As for his brother, well Teclis is certainly an uber mage (as in only fitting, he's great in Giantslayer :) ), but he is even more fragile than the average elf. And the arguement that he shouldnt see combat is just plain ridiculous. He has a M5, any cavalry unit should be able to engage him, not to mention flying monsters and the like. Dont issue a challenge and allocate attacks against him, simple. If his unit has a champion then kill the champion in the first round, then go after teclis. Also, the are a not insignificant number of spells and weapons that can single out characters in units, so they can deal with teclis pretty well (long rifle, hunters talon etc)

I'm not saying teclis isnt much more useful than an archmage, he undeniably is (because they're only slightly more challenging to kill), but the fact he's so slow makes him far more manageable than say Kairos, who really is hard to engage.


As far as fielding SCs go, i'm personally ok with it, so long as the opponent is given fair warning, in pick up games i think you should check with your opponent, and have a back up list if they dont like the idea. Also, just for the record, the only SC i field on anything resembling a regular basis is Orion, who is frankly pretty poor, but a wild rider army is just too damn cool!

the_under_empire_clan
12-03-2009, 23:49
special characters arent to bad, except some like conrad and vlad are quite cheap'ish just cause there point costs are rediculously low specially conrads damn conrad

Zoolander
12-03-2009, 23:55
interesting, anyone have the actual written run down of the Old Nagash SC??, I would be quite interested as my parents threw out my games workshop books from the 80s/90s.

Regardless, I would put 1000 bucks on a wager that a BT would melt his face.

Well, he pretty much had the stats of a vampire from 6th ed, but with like 5 wounds and a 4+ ward. So not bad for a "caster". Potent in combat, for sure. You know the new rules for the VC, where they cna spam spells using 1 die? Well, it was created first by Nagash. He could create a skeleton horde around any unit that would never die. A BT would definitely work him over in melee, but Nagash's primary role wasn't melee, it was casting spells like crazy. He just happen to also have vampire stats, too. :eyebrows:

selone
13-03-2009, 01:09
The other problem with nagash is he regen'd wounds he caused. As he had S6-7 T6-7 and 6-7A (amongst his other gubbins) iirc that was no mean feat to kill him. You could kill him because back then 1 wound kills were doable or hit him with a lot of atatcks as he wasn't *that* resilient. I remember using my outrageous dwarf lord to kill him but for a spellcaster he was pretty bloody tough.

My main issue with SC's is there not that special, some are a sure fire shoe in. The hero level Sc's bother me as some of the older book's don't have them and it almost feels like you need them to compete. It's no argument to say well some armies books are unbalanced anyways so thats not the SC's fault because that sort of indicates theres no cause for complaint, or we cant feel put out by things like 12 flamers in a 2 K game, or having to try to kill the masque or else suffer -2 ld or move.

O&G'sRule
13-03-2009, 02:08
I never, ever use SCs. They rank of cheese and frankly take away from the game and the fluff, not add to it. SCs are almost always cheaper than if you built them yourself from scratch - at times shockingly cheap. At times SCs have an ability which is just silly powerful. I recall back in 4th ed I used to use Nagash. The battles were so one-sided because of his special abilities and 4+ ward save (before they had ward saves), it was ridiculous. He alone won me multiple battles. So I stopped taking him. Finally, you have the fluff. You have to ask yourself - what is Archeon, Lord of End Times, Champion of Chaos, doing leading a tiny 2,000 pt warband of troops? Surely, one as great as he should command a 5k or 10k army, wouldn't he? If you need to create creative reasons as to why certain characters are leading your army, then you know he doesn't belong there.

Are all SCs that bad? No, certainly not. Many of them are perfectly balanced and acceptable. But the ones that are so badly OP or underpriced give the rest of them a bad reputation.

Nagash was awesome but in those days everything was ridiculously hard. Teclis using the old High magic was devastating, bloodthirsters almost unkillable, beastmen were 10pts with 2 wounds and toughness 4. everyone could take any of the monsters, so for fighting nagash you could take an emperor dragon (or the black gem of gnar), if your opponents didn't do that that was because they didn't know what they were doing, not because nagash was hard. he was 750 points. SC's are great additions, don't use them all the time, just to keep things fresh and interesting

Enigmatik1
13-03-2009, 02:15
My main issue with SC's is there not that special, some are a sure fire shoe in. The hero level Sc's bother me as some of the older book's don't have them and it almost feels like you need them to compete. It's no argument to say well some armies books are unbalanced anyways so thats not the SC's fault because that sort of indicates theres no cause for complaint, or we cant feel put out by things like 12 flamers in a 2 K game, or having to try to kill the masque or else suffer -2 ld or move.

Bingo! My first army back since 4E is Tomb Kings. Let's see...I have Settra whom I can't field (we play 2,000 points) and Khalida (I don't play shooty lists) and that leaves...NUH!

I was given a bunch of WoC stuff, which I'm going to run until TK gets updated and the only SCs I'd consider using are Festus (because he's really nifty) and Throgg. I personally am not adverse to the Hero level special characters since my group always plays at or around 2,000 points. It's the Lord level special characters that I think are potentially game breaking.

Disclaimer: No one in my group runs Daemons, Vampire Counts or Dark Elves. YAY!

O&G'sRule
13-03-2009, 02:20
If deathmater sniktch makes the new skaven book the moaning on here will be unbearable. Assassin lords aren't going to go down well

Enigmatik1
13-03-2009, 02:22
If deathmater sniktch makes the new skaven book the moaning on here will be unbearable. Assassin lords aren't going to go down well

I remember him from when I played before. I was using Empire back then. I hated knowing that our resident Skaven player always had him lurking about somewhere. He still gives me nightmares!

swarmofseals
13-03-2009, 02:31
Disclaimer: didn't read the whole thread.


I agree that not all SCs are overpowered, but many are (quite a few more than those that the OP listed).

Personally, my big problem is that often SCs are just flat better than regular characters of the given slot and thus show up for power rather than thematic reasons.

I wouldn't have a problem with SCs if GW placed a lot more restrictions on how they can be fielded. For example, super-lord characters like Karl Franz, Kairos, Kroak, Archaeon, etc. shouldn't be showing up in 2k point games. Also, multiple SCs for the most part shouldn't be showing up in the same games unless the total point value is really high. I'd love to see a separate army composition chart for SCs separate from regular lords and heroes. Like, you can field 0-1 hero level SCs in a 2k point game. In a 3k point game, you can field 0-1 lord level SC and 0-2 hero level SCs and so on. They would count as taking up a lord or hero slot as normal too, of course.

Kalec
13-03-2009, 04:38
I would love to know what makes Karl Franz so overpowered. Even with his super-uber hammer of doom he only has 3 attacks, doesn't reroll to hit, and is quite squishy. I would take a greater daemon over him any day of the week for a fair bit less.

Thomus Darkblade
13-03-2009, 04:47
From what i've heard, most of the complaints regarding Mr Franz, stem from the dragon ( which does not take up a hero spot.)

ChaosVC
13-03-2009, 05:03
Depends on what you play for, if you just want a balance chess like challenge game, then SC is not for you. If you just want to have fun and doesn't care much about winning SC can spice up the game. IF you are the kind that can think of awsome combo and nothing but wants to win, Thumbs up for certain overpowered SC. The key is, play with like minded people.

Thomus Darkblade
13-03-2009, 05:11
Depends on what you play for, if you just want a balance chess like challenge game, then SC is not for you. If you just want to have fun and doesn't care much about winning SC can spice up the game. IF you are the kind that can think of awsome combo and nothing but wants to win, Thumbs up for certain overpowered SC. The key is, play with like minded people.

Well isn't that open minded?

I rarely take special characters, I prefer to role play to a certain extent and let my own characters grow and develop on their own, that doesn't mean that I won't play them though. Special characters are a part of the game, and they're for the most part just as balanced as the rest of the game. Yes, they often have item combinations that you cannot otherwise have. That hardly makes any game they take place in one dimensional or a cheesefest by any means.

Every unit in the game has it's strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes one is far more apparent than the other true. At the end of the day however, it's a game with little toy soldiers. If you can't have fun trying to figure out the way around a challenge. essentially how to solve a puzzle, maybe this isn't the right game for you. :(

happy_doctor
13-03-2009, 05:35
I believe that the answer to the special character debate (other than "don't use them"), is twofold:

-Balance and playtest them better; characters who are a bit better/different than normal ones and add variety to your list are welcome. However, super-heroes aren't as they take out much of the fun of the game, especially in the smaller games most of us usually play. Going by the warhammer background, every special character is the biggest, baddest hero to ever walk on the warhammer world. That cannot and should not be translated into game mechanics, as it would lead to Herohammer once again.

-Bring back the "slot" restrictions; I liked it when in order to use a special character you had to forego using a couple of character/rare slots. Not only did it make you think twice of whether it was worth the investment, but it also effectively limited the points spent on characters in a 2000 points game. Settra is a good example of this, as he not only requires a big force to be fielded, but also dictates the composition of said army: taking him doesn't make your list necessarily better, but it makes it different and might also make it more fun.


It's been a long time since I played against special characters, excluding a 6000-points battle of HE vs DE last summer when the Dark Elves employed the services of Lokhir Fellheart. Still, in the context of such a large game, it was fun.

I believe that if you're taking a special character because he's substantially better than his normal counterparts, then you're doing it for the wrong reasons and the game designers have done something wrong to boot.

Ward.
13-03-2009, 06:42
Teclis and Caradryan. I enjoy Warhammer because of the fickle nature of Magic,

I don't know if this has been addressed yet, but what exactly is fickle about the magic phase when you're using teclis?


On topic: I'd be down with more special character use if they weren't either horribly over priced to the point that the game becomes more about killing them then anything else or so under priced/ over powered that actually managing to kill them becomes reward-less.

ChaosVC
13-03-2009, 06:56
Well isn't that open minded?

I rarely take special characters, I prefer to role play to a certain extent and let my own characters grow and develop on their own, that doesn't mean that I won't play them though. Special characters are a part of the game, and they're for the most part just as balanced as the rest of the game. Yes, they often have item combinations that you cannot otherwise have. That hardly makes any game they take place in one dimensional or a cheesefest by any means.

Every unit in the game has it's strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes one is far more apparent than the other true. At the end of the day however, it's a game with little toy soldiers. If you can't have fun trying to figure out the way around a challenge. essentially how to solve a puzzle, maybe this isn't the right game for you. :(

Why isn't that open minded?

If people chose to play with people they prefer and play the game the way they prefer. Why would the game be not right for them? If you like solving puzzle and the challenge of solving puzzle, why not play puzzle bubble?

Urgat
13-03-2009, 09:31
interesting, anyone have the actual written run down of the Old Nagash SC??, I would be quite interested as my parents threw out my games workshop books from the 80s/90s.

Regardless, I would put 1000 bucks on a wager that a BT would melt his face.

Well, he had that nasty hand of dust spell that would basically one-shot anything in melee.

TeddyC
13-03-2009, 12:32
I guess im of the old school and not using any. Never have.

They always used to require opponents position and couldnt be used in tourneys. Thats the way it should still be.

In 7th ed I got dwarfs and got army books for Ogres, TKs and woodelves. Most are of the old style with very few SCs, at the back.

I recently downloa... I mean got the darkelf army book. in there there seems to a special character for every unit. By the sounds of it its the same in the lizardman list.

Its too much, special characters should be a general (e.g. Archaon, Grimgor etc) a mage type (e.g. thorek, Lord Kroak) and a couple of 'heros' (e.g. shadow blade, the guy on the carnosaur from 6th ed) to be rolled out in big games and too much of a points sink for smaller games. I dont mean over cost them, I mean only make really hard special characters!

I remember that before certain characters could only be used in games over a certain number of points. I mean why would Teclis show his face at what would be a relatively small 2k game. limit him to 3k and above

SCs should should be uber powerful like archaon and way better than a 'normal' lord counterpart through special rules or magic items. Like Greasus or The High King Throgrim Grudgebearer on their thrones/being carried.

Kerill
13-03-2009, 12:55
I like Magic. I will choose Teclis over a Lv.4 Archmage because he's significantly better. I choose to do so because its the logical thing to do, unless people can't process that "better" is indeed "better".


You seem to be assuming that other people don't realise that Teclis is an awful lot better than a fairly costed archmage and attendant level 2 mage.

Everyone knows it, you aren't enlightened in respect to the rest of us.

Teclis is unfairly powerful, partly because of his points, and partly because of his abilities (i.e. to some extent increasing his cost would still not make up for knowing all spells in a lore, getting IF so easily, being immune to miscasts more or less and getting +2PS, +2DD and a destroy scroll).

This is the issue with some of the special characters, you are using something which is undercosted by 200-300 points. Basically if you turn up to a game with Teclis or some of the other characters you are taking 2300 points to their 2000 points.

Teclis, Thorek and to some extent the masque also have a lot more annoyance potential because there is NOTHING your opponent can do to stop it.

Having said that I lost to Teclis a couple of weeks ago and am looking forward to getting a rematch against the cheesey bugger, and if I win it will be all the more satisfying. I lost for not fully considering what teclis could do to my army and how to prevent it- my fault. Having said that I beat Teclis' ass twice with my Tzeentch daemons and taught him what "magic" was.

BTW as I speak my Teclis model is 2M across from me and not looking too happy (but that could be the paint job and the fact the top of the staff broke off so he is without his miniature busty lady). I play HE, not very often these days, but wouldn't take Teclis because a win is not really a win (Same reason I retired my daemons).

OT, generally I think SC somewhat deserve the contempt, but it depends on why your opponent is taking them and why. Trying them occasionally for a bit of fun and something different is all well and good. Taking them every time because they are insanely useful is not. Thorek aside combining some SC characters is also particularly dirty (Teclis+Caradryan, Kairos+Scribes)

Fluffwise I think its far more interesting to have your own fluff for your characters, using combinations you put together yourself. It can still be damn hard to beat, don't get me wrong, but at least you aren't taking unfair advantage of some tool at GWHQ who didn't think a SC through enough.

Back OT, I can still remember the stats for Nagash since it came up: M6 Ws7, S7(8), T7, W7, I?, A6 Ld10
He had a sword that gave him +1S and could get wounds back for kills. (35 points)
A magic armour that gave him the equivalent of a 4+ ward (100 points)
He had a staff that could store power cars (40? points)
and the book of Nagash that made him level 5. Cost 750 points and would lose in combat against a thirster, vermin lord, Emperor dragon (narrowly). Other counters were magic, the skull staff weapon with hell & doom banners withing 6" and a character on a slying steed with potion of strength, frost blade and black amulet. You could also black gem of gnar him. My Nagash never died (he always held on to the escape card) but I killed him twice- once with a death frenzied vermin lord (18 attacks doing D3 wounds each) and once with the purple son of Xereus- the most powerful spell to exist in any version of warhammer I have played.

Ixquic
13-03-2009, 14:25
4th edition Warhammer was awesome

gd09garett
13-03-2009, 15:52
SNIP

Saying special characters break the game because of 4 bad apples is like saying "rare units break the game" because of flamers and hydras. It doesn't hold up.

Discuss...

I could less about their power level and them breaking the game because they break something far more important- the fluff and the suspension of disbelief surrounding the game. How is it that Teclis has the time to show up for every little skirmish the high elves are involved in? How many Waaghs does Grimgor lead anyway?

Plus, they discourage engagement and creativity from players.

Volker the Mad Fiddler

TeddyC
13-03-2009, 16:01
I could less about their power level and them breaking the game because they break something far more important- the fluff and the suspension of disbelief surrounding the game. How is it that Teclis has the time to show up for every little skirmish the high elves are involved in? How many Waaghs does Grimgor lead anyway?

Plus, they discourage engagement and creativity from players.

Volker the Mad Fiddler

Hear hear!!! well said that man etc.

LKHERO
13-03-2009, 18:10
I don't know if this has been addressed yet, but what exactly is fickle about the magic phase when you're using teclis?

The same reason why I'll take Seerstaff or Focus of Mystery on my Mage/Slann. I hate random magic and I would rather have results than a chance on a die, magic, being as pitiful as it is amongst all the other phases.

LKHERO
13-03-2009, 18:15
Teclis, Thorek and to some extent the masque also have a lot more annoyance potential because there is NOTHING your opponent can do to stop it.

If you think there's nothing in this game that can stop Teclis or Thorek then you're clearly not a good player.

There are many ways to stop a T2, 2 wound model with no saves of any kind. Thorek is more difficult to stop because he's a Dwarf with a bodyguard, with a 4+ ward vs. Missiles, doesn't need Line of Sight to cast, a 1+ armor save, and virtually unassailable by normal means (unless you enjoy getting shot by the rest of the Gunline).

But for a T2 Mage, come on guy, you can clearly do better.

Ixquic
13-03-2009, 19:46
Because that's what Teclis does. He sits out in the open waiting to get poked.

The point he was making is that there is nothing that you can do to stop their abilities from going off which I agree with is is stupid.

LKHERO
13-03-2009, 19:57
Because that's what Teclis does. He sits out in the open waiting to get poked.

The point he was making is that there is nothing that you can do to stop their abilities from going off which I agree with is is stupid.

Except killing him, which is the point I'm trying to make, but yet people can't seem to connect the dots because poor logic or poor generalship.

"You can't stop him" in the MAGIC phase is different than "You can't stop him in the Movement, Shooting, or Combat phase". But Ok, forget about tying him up or putting him in a dangerous position where he has to move, let's just assume that you're trying to stop an unstoppable force of magic coming from a T2, 2W model with no saves.

It's this sense of logic that makes people poor generals and they constantly wonder why they lose to SCs. This is also why they come post on the forums and complain about how OP certain characters or races are. You don't fight one of the most powerful magical casters in the game in the magic phase. You realize that he put 475 points into strengthening his magic phase which means that that's 475 points missing in the other phases of the game. You then take advantage of that and counter accordingly. Doing otherwise is like ramming you head constantly into the wall and asking yourself why it hurts.

Another example would be a killy lord in close combat. Do you honestly fight him in his own arena and wonder why you're getting your ass handed over to you? The list can go on and on. But how many times can it go on until you learn? Sounds more like a personal problem rather than the game's fault.

SlaaneshSlave
13-03-2009, 20:03
How is it that Teclis has the time to show up for every little skirmish the high elves are involved in? How many Waaghs does Grimgor lead anyway?
Archaon gets mentioned this way too, but everyone has overlooked the extreme example...

Kholek Suneater -- Who awakes only once every 8 generations!

sroblin
13-03-2009, 20:54
But Ok, forget about tying him up or putting him in a dangerous position where he has to move, let's just assume that you're trying to stop an unstoppable force of magic coming from a T2, 2W model with no saves.


Teclis being toughness 2 is almost no different from him being T3; everything can wound a T3 model and everything can wound a T2 model. Despite that, mages in all sorts of armies are effective, so saying that T2 is a big downside is an exaggeration. The standard tactics for protecting mages still apply to him



But how many times can it go on until you learn? Sounds more like a personal problem rather than the game's fault.

I'm sorry, it is a very old and offensive tactic to accuse people who disagree with young of being incompetent because they.... disagree with you. You're making it without familiarity as to these people's abilities, and there are clearly many people who aren't fond of special characters, you should consider that perhaps they aren't all bad players.

Arguing that special characters are too powerful doesn't mean that people don't know tactics for handling them; it just means they feel they are too good for their points, or changes the nature of the game in ways they dislike.

You yourself stated that you always take Teclis because he's clearly so much better than the regular archmage. But that is exactly why people are complaining about them; some of them (certainly not all of them) are so much better than the standard options, sometimes even for an effectively cheaper cost, that from a simple power perspective they are no-brainer.

I'm not saying this as a High Elf hater- I like Teclis's background, I'm glad there's a model and rules for him. I'm not glad that he is the obvious power choice for anyone seeking to max out a magic phase, and showing up in every tournament-style army list with a strong magic phase. It is a case of the game system failing to encourage diversity and creativity, and making one choice is obviously superior to all the others.

LKHERO
13-03-2009, 21:28
If it's in the book, it's perfectly legit to play it.

Else, you're not maximizing on the effectiveness of your army. Anyone who chooses to handicap themselves is fine in my book. It's fluffy, it's your playstyle, whatever the reason is your own and that's perfectly fine with me. But to complain about such things when you're the one that chose to handicap yourself isn't a reason to complain about special characters outside of fluff reasons. It's true, Teclis shouldn't appear in every battle. Fluff wise, that makes sense, but in my army lists (that are built to maximize on cost effectiveness) there's no reason why he shouldn't.

I understand what people mean when they argue that SCs shouldn't be played. At the same time, people should also understand why exactly why SCs are played.

DarkTerror
13-03-2009, 22:31
If it's in the book, it's perfectly legit to play it.

Else, you're not maximizing on the effectiveness of your army. Anyone who chooses to handicap themselves is fine in my book. It's fluffy, it's your playstyle, whatever the reason is your own and that's perfectly fine with me. But to complain about such things when you're the one that chose to handicap yourself isn't a reason to complain about special characters outside of fluff reasons. It's true, Teclis shouldn't appear in every battle. Fluff wise, that makes sense, but in my army lists (that are built to maximize on cost effectiveness) there's no reason why he shouldn't.

I understand what people mean when they argue that SCs shouldn't be played. At the same time, people should also understand why exactly why SCs are played.


Powergamer.

That's all you needed to say. "I'm a powergamer and like to use special characters because of which."

But as you can tell from responses, you're the type of player we generally don't like to play. If we got rid of special characters and lost some players who think like you, I think we'd all be just fine.

LKHERO
13-03-2009, 22:33
Powergamer.

That's all you needed to say. "I'm a powergamer and like to use special characters because of which."

But as you can tell from responses, you're the type of player we generally don't like to play. If we got rid of special characters and lost some players who think like you, I think we'd all be just fine.

Very weak ;)

I win more with my Star Dragon list than my Teclis list if it helps calm your poor argument for SC characters being OP.

Thomus Darkblade
13-03-2009, 22:40
Powergamers are people too! I feel like LKHERO isn't the type of person who'll recoil from that title. The object of the game is to win of course, that's why people dislike playing SC's, 'cause it makes it harder for them to win.

And why bother trying to find a solution to the problem when you can bemoan whatever models caused you said problem, and try and get them, and all other models of their type banned from the game :rolleyes:

LKHERO
13-03-2009, 22:51
I just don't understand the logic of being called a "powergamer" for taking the obvious better choice in terms of army composition. That's like being called a "retard" because you purposely handicapped yourself when constructing a battle list.

But sure, I'll take the title of powergamer over being called a dumb^&*$ any day if it makes you feel better. That's just an excuse for people to apply a negative connotation to someone who builds powerful lists while at the same time, giving them an excuse to take crappy lists because it's "fluffy". Nice!

Kalec
13-03-2009, 22:56
Warseer is full of very odd people that think making the most of your army book is a cardinal sin. It is something us open-minded newcomers have trouble understanding.

Shamfrit
13-03-2009, 23:01
The logic behind Teclis being overpowered is considerably amusing, 'every other method of protecting mages applies,' despite the fact that a Teclis army is typicaly incredibly small, and thus, there arn't usually too many places to hide a 400 or so point of Egg Omelette.

A player who is adept at Mage hunting can deal with Teclis and harass him enough to force the High Elf player into a defensive, withdrawing position so that he cannot bring the full extent of his magical might to bear...in exactly the same way you bait and trap 400 point fighter lords, or march block cavalry deathstars before flank pinning them and drawing them off away fromy our main line. It's not easy, by all means, but there are plenty of ways to lessen the blow, most noticeably, Skaven sustained fire and Slave distracting, Lizardmen spamming magic missiles, blowpipes and Stegadons to take him out...

The Masque is deliciously, deliciously weak. By all means she's a pathetically undercosted utlility no matter the list she's in, but T3 and 2 wounds are perfectly counterpointed by a 3+ ward, which will fail quickly. The Blue Scribes only work in a bgi Tzeentch heavy list, or against an opponent who is willing to spam magic to boost your power dice - it's a hero slot version of the Cube of Darkness with a few bonuses added - I used to take it, but now I know a Herald of Tzeentch with flight is better anyday.

Thorek? An unsuspecting player will be taken aback by him by all means, but he's really only just a more accurate Rune Lord on Altar...He still fails to combat, and can still drop dead with bad luck (because this game's all about them tactics isn't it...by that I mean dice :p)

I've given reasons for Mannfred being overrated in another thread...

But by all means, continue to personally attack other members with accusations of power gaming and 'not liking' and 'never playing people like you...' I'd rather play with a slight competative twitch over feigning disinterest anyday. Special characters are empathic, they strike a chord with players because they represent part of the established background of the game...they are the icons, figures and heroes of the War with Chaos, some of which are two decades old.

Make your own characters and fluff if you like - the vast majority of gamers do, and continue to do so - I know I do, Potl-Nokk the Distillator of the City of Xahutec will forever be my Slann, I don't empathise with Kroak or Mazdamundi, but if I want to use Gor-Rok as a Scar Veteran in my army because his background and abilities are unique and go beyond the confines of what is available then I will do so.

I do not need your position, I am not a powergamer, and if I spend the time modelling and converting him I expect to use him, and there's nothing cooler than great white Scar veteran hiding behind a slab of rock refusing to budge to even the mightiest of opponents.

Talo
13-03-2009, 23:08
Imho Special characters should all be like Throgg, King of Trolls.
He gives you new options when building an army and adds the possibility for interesting new lists.

Characters that are just strong by themselves are boring.

Hrogoff the Destructor
13-03-2009, 23:26
I could less about their power level and them breaking the game because they break something far more important- the fluff and the suspension of disbelief surrounding the game. How is it that Teclis has the time to show up for every little skirmish the high elves are involved in? How many Waaghs does Grimgor lead anyway?

Plus, they discourage engagement and creativity from players.

Volker the Mad Fiddler

So it's not okay for players to use Teclis and Grimgor because it doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective as they can't appear everywhere at once, but it is okay for DoC, VC, and DE to be part of every other invasion that takes place in the Warhammer world? Dark Elves are a dying race and Daemonic incursions are rare, yet on the table they seem so abundant. How can this be? That would be unbelievable... surely the Empire, Skaven, and Orcs and Goblins should be involved in more invasions than DoC, VC, and DE.

My point is that you can find countless fluff errors in the game if you look for it, and yet people won’t complain about those (except for a few fluff purists). It’s like complaining about the Black Tongue of Aekold Helbrass and how it appears in nearly every Warriors of Chaos army. Shouldn’t there only be one? Then how come it appears so often? Maybe there shouldn’t be unique magic items either as it furthers the disbelief surrounding the game.

selone
13-03-2009, 23:42
Back OT, I can still remember the stats for Nagash since it came up: M6 Ws7, S7(8), T7, W7, I?, A6 Ld10
He had a sword that gave him +1S and could get wounds back for kills. (35 points)
A magic armour that gave him the equivalent of a 4+ ward (100 points)
He had a staff that could store power cars (40? points)
and the book of Nagash that made him level 5. Cost 750 points and would lose in combat against a thirster, vermin lord, Emperor dragon (narrowly). Other counters were magic, the skull staff weapon with hell & doom banners withing 6" and a character on a slying steed with potion of strength, frost blade and black amulet. You could also black gem of gnar him. My Nagash never died (he always held on to the escape card) but I killed him twice- once with a death frenzied vermin lord (18 attacks doing D3 wounds each) and once with the purple son of Xereus- the most powerful spell to exist in any version of warhammer I have played.

Here you go, from the old, old book

Nagash, Supreme lord of the Undead 475 points

M6 WS7 BS 7 S7 (+1) T7 W7 I6 A6 LD 10
+100 points black armour of nagash (4 + unmodifiable armour save against hand to hand and missile attacks, 4+ saving roll against the effects of magic spells or attacks)
+35 points Mortis the great blade of death +1 Strength, any wounds inflicted restore nagash.
+35 points Book of nagash +1 magic level
+40 point staff of power- store magic cards

Magic level 4, itP, terror

Gazak Blacktoof
13-03-2009, 23:45
I just don't understand the logic of being called a "powergamer" for taking the obvious better choice in terms of army composition.

Not taking the best and most obvious choices opens up a world of different possibilities. The books aren't brilliantly balanced, only taking the best options is limiting. A lot of gamers would rather just take what they think is nice than be limited because they have to worry about whether they're going to be handicapping themselves.

If both players are of a similar mentality then playing "nice" isn't a handicap anymore.

People don't like power gamers because it forces people to play in a similar manner in order that both players have a similar chance of winning, thereby limiting choices and making games more repetitive and less interesting.

Because of this the term power gamer has negative connotations but isn't always a term of derision.


I hope that clears things up for you.

Morello
13-03-2009, 23:45
Powergamer.

That's all you needed to say. "I'm a powergamer and like to use special characters because of which."

But as you can tell from responses, you're the type of player we generally don't like to play. If we got rid of special characters and lost some players who think like you, I think we'd all be just fine.

If you're discussing tactics and balance, you can only do so from a WAAC mindset. You don't have to be a poor sport, a cheater, or a jerk to play to win, but you do have to play to win to understand the game's tactics and nuances fully. Handicapping yourself by choice is just that - your choice. That's fine, but don't claim to have expertise in an area you've chosen to not educate yourself in.

sroblin
14-03-2009, 00:09
I think there's no dispute that the rules as of 7th edition make it perfectly legitimate and encourage the use of special characters as a matter of course. And certain of these characters are very optimal for their cost compared to what I might spend for a comparable 'average' hero or lord, and as such are an obvious choice if you're trying to make the most powerful army.

What's being discussed is if people believe it is a good direction for the game to be going in, and whether this change of policy for special characters was desirable or obectionable.

I don't think it's strictly accurate that because the rules of the game might say 'anything goes' that people will always accept that philosophically. Just as in real life wars opposing sides be willing to go to different lengths to achieve their tactial objectives (and feel outrage when their counterparts don't necessarily play 'fair'), players and gaming groups have different styles of play and norms as to what they think are ok and distasteful.

Somerandomidiot
14-03-2009, 00:55
Powergamer.

That's all you needed to say. "I'm a powergamer and like to use special characters because of which."

But as you can tell from responses, you're the type of player we generally don't like to play. If we got rid of special characters and lost some players who think like you, I think we'd all be just fine.

Seriously? I can understand that "I'd rather not play against special characters because they tend to be too powerful for their points cost" attitude (and hell, in a lot of the cases I share it), but this is so completely over the top that I don't even know how to respond.

The best I can come up with is:
Your use of the royal we is absolutely out of place, and you have no right to represent those who choose not to play with (and while willing to play against, prefer not to) special characters as elitist, condescending jerks. I'd MUCH rather play in a game I had no chance of winning than be forced to endure the hours I'd have to spend with an attitude like yours.

And, so my post wasn't entirely a flame, I think that special characters are perfectly fine, so long as they're properly costed and/or restricted. Should High Elves be able to field Teclis, their most powerful magus? Absolutely! Let's face it, this isn't Warhammer 40k, where armies with the populations of planets face off regularly- that 2000 point fantasy army is actually a decently sized force, and your named guy could feasibly be drawn to a battle of that size.

Kalec
14-03-2009, 01:03
Imho Special characters should all be like Throgg, King of Trolls.
He gives you new options when building an army and adds the possibility for interesting new lists.

Characters that are just strong by themselves are boring.

It would be nice to see more army-altering SC's, but I wouldn't want them all to be like that.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
14-03-2009, 01:14
If you're discussing tactics and balance, you can only do so from a WAAC mindset. You don't have to be a poor sport, a cheater, or a jerk to play to win, but you do have to play to win to understand the game's tactics and nuances fully. Handicapping yourself by choice is just that - your choice. That's fine, but don't claim to have expertise in an area you've chosen to not educate yourself in.

There is a difference between understanding tactics, playing to win and WAAC mentality which seeks to min/max every choice. You may have an argument about balance having to be based on WAAC outlooks, but you haven't got any leg to stand on if you try to argue that tactics must be viewed with WAAC outlook to be understood.

As for special characters- silly for the most part [as I have said before]. I like ones like Throgg though [which actually, or can, impart a flavour to the army which it may not have otherwise].

Morello
14-03-2009, 01:52
There is a difference between understanding tactics, playing to win and WAAC mentality which seeks to min/max every choice. You may have an argument about balance having to be based on WAAC outlooks, but you haven't got any leg to stand on if you try to argue that tactics must be viewed with WAAC outlook to be understood.

As for special characters- silly for the most part [as I have said before]. I like ones like Throgg though [which actually, or can, impart a flavour to the army which it may not have otherwise].

That's true. I misspoke in the same over-the-top tone as the post I was replying to, which is my mistake. WAAC is the view to look at from balance, but not the way a player must play to understand it (they only need to understand the previous point).

Kerill
14-03-2009, 02:14
The logic behind Teclis being overpowered is considerably amusing, 'every other method of protecting mages applies,' despite the fact that a Teclis army is typicaly incredibly small, and thus, there arn't usually too many places to hide a 400 or so point of Egg Omelette.

A player who is adept at Mage hunting can deal with Teclis and harass him enough to force the High Elf player into a defensive, withdrawing position so that he cannot bring the full extent of his magical might to bear...in exactly the same way you bait and trap 400 point fighter lords, or march block cavalry deathstars before flank pinning them and drawing them off away fromy our main line. It's not easy, by all means, but there are plenty of ways to lessen the blow, most noticeably, Skaven sustained fire and Slave distracting, Lizardmen spamming magic missiles, blowpipes and Stegadons to take him out...

- disagree completely. Harass him? What exactly do you think he worries about? Caradryran will be next to him in a unit of 15-20 ITP white lions (wide formation), probably with a bsb with GW as well (9 ASF S6 and 3 S5 attacks)and 2-3 RBTs, 2 units of DPs, a unit of archers, spearmen and an eagle or two. A stegadon won't even get close, 2 stegadons won't even get close, 4 would do the job probably. Jezzails will kill a few white lions before getting wiped out by the RBTs. Generally though teclis does less well against horde armies, VC and daemons. Teclis is not unbeatable but many all-comers lists can't handle him. Then it gets into listhammer, not warhammer.

The Masque is deliciously, deliciously weak. By all means she's a pathetically undercosted utlility no matter the list she's in, but T3 and 2 wounds are perfectly counterpointed by a 3+ ward, which will fail quickly. The Blue Scribes only work in a bgi Tzeentch heavy list, or against an opponent who is willing to spam magic to boost your power dice - it's a hero slot version of the Cube of Darkness with a few bonuses added - I used to take it, but now I know a Herald of Tzeentch with flight is better anyday.
- I agree on the blues scribes, masque is only a problem with the -2LD banner but remember she doesn't need LOS she will be in the middle of a forest or behind other troops.

Thorek? An unsuspecting player will be taken aback by him by all means, but he's really only just a more accurate Rune Lord on Altar...He still fails to combat, and can still drop dead with bad luck (because this game's all about them tactics isn't it...by that I mean dice :p)
- Again you can tailor a list to beat him, I agree, but then it's listhammer not warhammer.

I've given reasons for Mannfred being overrated in another thread...
- Mannfred is not at all overpowered, agree there

But by all means, continue to personally attack other members with accusations of power gaming and 'not liking' and 'never playing people like you...' I'd rather play with a slight competative twitch over feigning disinterest anyday. Special characters are empathic, they strike a chord with players because they represent part of the established background of the game...they are the icons, figures and heroes of the War with Chaos, some of which are two decades old.
- To be fair the personal attacks weren't started by those arguing against SCs

Make your own characters and fluff if you like - the vast majority of gamers do, and continue to do so - I know I do, Potl-Nokk the Distillator of the City of Xahutec will forever be my Slann, I don't empathise with Kroak or Mazdamundi, but if I want to use Gor-Rok as a Scar Veteran in my army because his background and abilities are unique and go beyond the confines of what is available then I will do so.

I do not need your position, I am not a powergamer, and if I spend the time modelling and converting him I expect to use him, and there's nothing cooler than great white Scar veteran hiding behind a slab of rock refusing to budge to even the mightiest of opponents.

@LKHERO, as I stated the way you play is listhammer not warhammer. We can all do it because we aren't "retarded", but for many gaining a victory in a 3 hour game of warhammer is more fun than beating someone in the 10 minutes you write the list up and then rolling a few dice during the game. Its also not fun for your opponent unless they also believe in pure listhammer.

Incidentally, why don't you play daemons? It seems you are "handicapping" yourself by using high elves how many times can it go on until you learn?
BTW star dragon is probably more powerful, but its fairly costed and if your opponents list doesn't have any counters for a large flying beastie as part of their list then I agree its their fault. Last time I played Teclis I had 6DD and 1 scroll at the start of his turn 1 magic phase. For the first two turns of the game I still had 6DD and 1 scroll because everything had been IF. That's the part that's overpowered about Teclis/Thorek, they completely negate the counters to magic/gunlines (magic defence and fliers/fast stuff).

There are only a few SC's guilty of forcing listhammer (and not only SCs are the problem, certain builds and magic items can also do this), most can be taken down if you have a balanced army, some more challenging than others. If, when facing one of these lists an opponent refuses to play you (or re-writes his list) it's enirely justifiable.

I'll agree that using SCs can be cool sometimes (back in the day I loved having Nagash on the battlefield, although I was also a cheesey player back when I was 13), and if all your group plays with the most WAAC army they can think of, then its absolutely fair and appropriate to do the same if you are all having fun. If you are doing it to new players or those who take a balanced list, then you are winning purely because of a list that a 10 year old could design (not saying you are or anything but really it isn't hard to design a supercheese list) and your opponent probably isn't having fun.

LKHERO
14-03-2009, 03:16
Incidentally, why don't you play daemons? It seems you are "handicapping" yourself by using high elves how many times can it go on until you learn?

Building a strong army list have nothing to do with picking the army that I like to play.

With that said, there's no point commenting on the rest of your **** poor argument.

Kerill
14-03-2009, 03:28
Building a strong army list have nothing to do with picking the army that I like to play.

With that said, I don't have a response to the rest of your arguments.

Edited that for you.

LKHERO
14-03-2009, 05:28
I don't have a response to the rest of your arguments because all you could derive from 5 pages of arguments is "why don't you play demons".

That, is why I have nothing more to say to you. I hope it's more clear this time around.

Kerill
14-03-2009, 06:30
I don't have a response to the rest of your arguments because all you could derive from 5 pages of arguments is "why don't you play demons".

That, is why I have nothing more to say to you. I hope it's more clear this time around.

Fair enough, I didn't realise until I read another thread on here that you already have daemons and a Thorek gunline.

Laughingmonk
14-03-2009, 08:52
Building a strong army list have nothing to do with picking the army that I like to play.



On the contrary, it has EVERYTHING to do with the army you like to play. I like empire. By your logic, I should use nothing but swordsmen, Steam tanks, helstorm rocket batteries, casketus, etc. Greatswords will never see the light of day, neither will the general of the empire. Nor halberdiers, their trademark, and supposedly most numerous, unit.

I have over 200 state troops. I like the idea of winning with proper usage of the humble soldier. Unfortunately, daemons, thorek gunlines, DE in general, trash empire infantry lists. In fact, empire infantry lists have many, many drawbacks that can be blatantly exploited. So basically, in order to build a strong list, I should sell the majority of my models and replace with dual stanks and an arch lector on war altar, even though I don't like the idea of using them ( although I may use one steam tank when the new plastic kit comes out).

Either theme matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then play the strongest army. If it does, then Teclis is merely a cheap bid to win more. You could easily convert and paint a much more interesting character than Teclis. I have never seen anyone do that.


More OT, I have never seen anyone use any of the mediocre special characters. I have never seen groms goblin horde. If I were to ever do a goblin army, he it would be in it, even though he sucks rules wise. Every High elf player that I know uses Teclis every chance they get. Wulfrick also shows up to many battles, as well as the Emperor, Chakax, Thorek, Kurt Helborg, Caradryan and many others. Conversely, Grom apparently never made it to Ulthuan, Vlad really is dead this time, Skarbrand isn't that angry anymore, and Archaon became the neverchosen.

My point is that while many players make a theme related excuse, the evidence says that a large percentage of the time it is just a ploy to get some sort if significant in game advantage.

Mr Uber
14-03-2009, 09:55
I've only ever use SC in large games, I think it's pretty weak using the demi gods of the warhammer world in battles in tiny 2k games which in the scale of things in wars 50 to 100 bods on a battlefield is a light skirmish.

All the deamon SC cost less than the normal choices and are far, far better the skulltaker for eg gets +2ws +1a killing blow on a 5+ that can takeout large targets for the same cost as a herald. Yeah you don't get the herald bonus but fleshhounds and bearers dont get that bonus anyway. The skulltaker in a unit of PB gets to reroll hit killingblow wounds and gives the PB unit MR2! Like they weren't hard enough already.

And as for characters like Mr Ironbrow not broken lol and I guess the earth is flat and warhammer is a cheap hobby

fluffstalker
14-03-2009, 12:05
If there was a WFB version of 40k apoc, then I would use the special characters, as its somewhat justifiable. Though Ive never seen the like... It could help to alleviate the power of characters and monsters.

Anyone here like to play 4k and up games of WFB? Are they any good or just too longwinded to be fun?

Lord0rcus
14-03-2009, 13:28
I have to admit, I am more of a painter/converter/collector of miniatures than I am a player of warhammer, but I like the challenge of converting & painting special characters. When I do play, I like putting together fluffy themed armies based around some of the more exotic special characters. Yes the Masque/Skulltaker/Epidemous can be game breaking, but Plaguefather or lord Mazadmundi?

Most special characters are usually not game winning by themselves, unless you really abuse them or build your army around them. Some of the super wizards like Teclis or Kairos can be rough, but only if you give them the power dice to really maximize them. With a more reasonable amount of PD, they aren't that bad. In fact, they can be a liability as a customized regular lord choice might be a better option. The masque is OP only when you combine her with other leadership modifying spells/options in the list.

For some of the "Great Lords" of the special characters like Karl Franz, Malekith, or Archaon I think that you should only bring them out for truly massive games like 3000+. For some of those characters, I wish they did cost 2 lord choices, but I do like that they are included in the game.

The problem with special characters is it is just another tool that can make unbalanced army lists. Is a special character as frightening as a 17PD vampire army? Probably not.

TeddyC
14-03-2009, 13:40
I just don't understand the logic of being called a "powergamer" for taking the obvious better choice in terms of army composition. That's like being called a "retard" because you purposely handicapped yourself when constructing a battle list.

But sure, I'll take the title of powergamer over being called a dumb^&*$ any day if it makes you feel better. That's just an excuse for people to apply a negative connotation to someone who builds powerful lists while at the same time, giving them an excuse to take crappy lists because it's "fluffy". Nice!

far from it... the posts in this thread I have read you have said 'Its ok to take SCs as they win you games.

Fair point.... not very well made.

I run dwarfs. I dont run Theorek because I know most opponents dont even have the option to take a character half as powerful... regular opponents being high elves and skaven.

Powergamer... waac... whatever.... im not bothered. if thats how you clubs run thats fine. My gaming circle doesnt. You can hardly say that people who prefer to play narrative games are retarded.

With that in mind powergamers are in the minority it would seem... especially with more experienced gamers.

Its easy to take Teclis and watch him dominate the magic phase. It takes any tactics out of the game and puts it all on army composition.

As I said. Not all armies have an uber character.

Disciple of Caliban
14-03-2009, 15:35
With that in mind powergamers are in the minority it would seem... especially with more experienced gamers.


This about covers it actually. Most people when they first get into the game will choose the army they like the look of, they'll then lose soundly because they're new to the game. They then decide its the armies fault, so make the most powerful list they can, and win games. This is great they decide.

However, after a little while playing the same old list they get bored, and decide to make a different list, this may be another uber list, but is more often an army drawn from the models they like.

Tournaments are the exception to this, were experienced gamers take along their most brutal lists to try and win the very cool trophies :)


I've played for a while, my first army was dwarfs, they were pretty poor at doing anything other than a gunline, so i duly built one (though it wasnt led by thorek, since SCs werent fair game back then), however, i quickly realized that gunlines were (for me) pretty boring to play with, so away went the dwarfs (they'll stay away till i can get plastic ironbreakers, and make the undgrim force i've been dreaming of).
Several armies have since followed, and the vast majority have been built around a strong theme, rather than maximising my wins (though the fluffy khorne daemon army still does rather well, and i'm feeling pretty good about the new lizzies, though they havent had a run out with the new book yet).

(I've just noticed that this post has gone completely OT, sorry about that, but its done now)

Chicago Slim
14-03-2009, 16:10
Back to the original topic, I tend to make the distinction between "Special Characters" and "Named Characters". The problem at the moment, and it's a temporary one, is that there still exist a handful of army books with Special characters in them: characters who completely change the tone of the army (like Morghur, or Drycha, or Orion, all of whom literally change the army composition rules!) and are really designed to be used in "special" games-- games that are trying to tell a particular story, if you will-- rather than a typical one-off.

Pretty soon, the remaining 6th ed books will be reworked, and we'll be left with Named Characters only. Yeah, there are a couple of pretty potent Named Characters (see page 1 of this thread), but none of them are impossible to deal with.

All part of the game, innit!

Gazak Blacktoof
14-03-2009, 16:50
All part of the game, innit!

Not my games ;).

Lowmans
14-03-2009, 18:13
Got to say I've always thought excessive use of Special Characters = lack of imagination.

Other than that, personally I don't use them but don't mind playing against them too much.

I do know that playing a 1000 pt game against Demons who had the Masque with my Beasts (limited at Ld 7 at 1000 points) was not awesome fun, for anyone, really!

L

Disciple of Caliban
14-03-2009, 19:50
Special characters in them: characters who completely change the tone of the army (like Morghur, or Drycha, or Orion, all of whom literally change the army composition rules!)
Pretty soon, the remaining 6th ed books will be reworked, and we'll be left with Named Characters only

But using your own definition of special characters, the new books still include such people. I'm thinking Throgg, who can dramatically change the composition of his army, and (to a lesser extent) Krog-Gar who can also have a pretty serious impact on the composition of a lizardmen force

Valtiel
14-03-2009, 20:02
While I haven't played special characters since I fielded a Crom Marauder army, I have fought Thorek (and boy he was annoying) but looking at the Warriors of Chaos book I really like the special characters in it. Most of them are pretty fair I think. While Thorek is pretty nasty and underpriced, and Archaon is a monster most of them are cool and not crazy. While Valkia is pretty mean sending herself flying out of units to crush her enemies she lacks ward save like plenty of others in the book. Sigvald also seems good, but he suffers from stupidity which will halt him at least once each game I guess. Wulfrik has a nice ability to ambush with Marauders which is needed sometimes and is otherwise ok in combat. I like those, I like how they seem balanced compared to the Daemon special characters. Blue Scribes for 81 points? Epidemius for 175 (I think)? Yes please!

Make more like those and I might not be grumpy.

Legionare Of Bloodlust
14-03-2009, 22:41
honestly, i like specialcharacters, they add a theme to the game and a personnel objective: Kill Them All

Ultimo ninja
19-03-2009, 01:34
There are plenty of SC's that are not broken, as said before....a couple are horrendous and spoil the reputation of all.

EvC
19-03-2009, 03:12
Unfortunately, for the fans of special characters, it really is a case of, "you reap what you sow". If the vast majority of special characters we see on the tabletop were, in fact, the vast majority of special characters, then the complaints about them would be pretty minimal. Unfortunately... the vast majority of the time we do see a special character on the tabletop, it's one of the minority that are game-breaking. Teclis has lead more High Elf armies to war than Tyrion, Alith Anar, Korhil and Caradryal put together. Thorek's anvil must be one of those old ones with wheels, because he has been used hiding in more forests than Bugman and his Rangers ever will be. How do we know that Kairos, Skulltaker, the Masque and Blue Scribes are the broken Daemon special characters? Well, it's because they're the ones that you see fielded in the majority of powergaming lists, rather than, say Kugath or Skarbrand. And don't get stroppy if someone says "powergamer"! If you're the kind of player who takes all the powerful stuff, all the time, at the expense of some kind of army theme, because it helps you win, then yes, you're a powergamer. It's only a dirty term if you think it is, in which case you should re-evaluate the way you play the game (And if you opponents are happy, don't worry!).

Incidentally, Shamfrit, how was the last game you played against Teclis? Think you told me you quit turn 3 because it was no fun and your opponent was under the impression that he was using a nice friendly list, didn't you? Why didn't you just hunt him like a normal mage, since you indicated how mind-boggingly easy it is above ;)

I don't mind the majority of special characters at all. I recently played against Eltharion- it was good fun, especially since he has bonafide weaknesses compared to other Elven Princes on Griffons. I faced Malekith and Crone Hellbrone a little while back, too. Also good fun. Because I have an understanding with opponents that if they bring the bent stuff, then I probably won't want to play against them. Same goes for double Tank lists, Dwarf gunlines etc.