PDA

View Full Version : How common are special characters



IcedCrow
31-08-2012, 13:05
Just something I've noticed a lot of lately on the internet and in local lists: the prevalent use of special characters. It seems a rare thing to see a list not contain a special character these days. How often do you include them in lists you build?

Eyrenthaal
31-08-2012, 13:09
One of our very few house rules are; no sc.. In general they are broken.

On occasion we do play with them but most of those times we have limited it to hero choices.

Rob

Djekar
31-08-2012, 13:20
I played a game a few weeks ago with Grimgor, Gitilla and Snagla in the same list - but aside from Azhag almost 2 years ago, those are the only special characters I've played with since the launch of 8th.

Gradek
31-08-2012, 13:29
We play with them frequently. They are just as much a part of the game as rare choices. I think they add a lot to games and increase the fun too (obviously, a few are broken, but so are certain rare choices).

GiraffeCrab
31-08-2012, 14:15
I never use to use special characters then in 8th it changed a little bit. Admittedly I do use ramhotep the visionary as a standard part of my TK but he is the only character and I do have a habit of asking for opponents consent to use him. Though I am pretty sure that I am the only one in my small group of friends that uses a character.

I do feel though that some characters are a bit on the mental side, I am firmly staring at Skarsnik the eight peaks guy for O&G. But there is always going to be some that are a bit crazy and some not so crazy.

Graxy
31-08-2012, 14:58
There's 3 different types of speial characters in my book. There's the ones that there more for fluff than anything else, and really are hurting your army more than helpng it (Greasus, shadowblade etc.). I prefer not to play against these, because for my POV, the opponent is purposely putting themselves on a crutch, which will make the game a bit easier for me and a bit less fun. But I will still play the game.

There's the ones that are acceptable to use, that are priced approprietly and are fairly balanced (the O&G characters, The empire characters etc.). These don't add or take away from the quality of the game, and provide a bit of tactical difference gamplay-wise. I'd be happy to play against them.

Then there's the ones that are broken as crap, and it's breaking the bro-code to take them (teclis, kairos, valkia etc.) where it makes the game one sided and boring. I will not play that game.

Enigmatik1
31-08-2012, 15:10
My group has no bias against special characters, although the blatantly broken ones such as Teclis have never seen the field as our HE player refuses to use him even though we wouldn't care if he did. Thus far, I've only run Ramhotep and Khatep (once each) and I have every intention of eventually giving nearly all of the TK special characters a whirl with the exception of Khalida (I hate gunlines). Quite a few TK players are of the mindset that TK has been balanced around the use of SCs. I guess I'll eventually find out. :P

BigbyWolf
31-08-2012, 15:26
One of our very few house rules are; no sc.. In general they are broken.

This is probably one of the biggest misconceptions around, and I can't believe that people still bring it up. Quite frankly, it's rubbish. The truth is that in general they are overcosted and underpowered, but given a bad reputation from the few that are crazy-good.

OT- I use two, Konrad in my usual magic-lite VC list and Throgg in my Monsters of Chaos list.

Gradek
31-08-2012, 15:33
One of our very few house rules are; no sc.. In general they are broken.

Rob

I completely disagree. There are only a few that are truly broken and none of them are from the 8th edition books. I think special characters are as integral a part of warhammer as any rare choice.

NonComPoop
31-08-2012, 15:33
I personally never take take special characters. I just don't like the idea of them. Sure if you are playing a campaign based on the events of a special character's life go ahead, but for me they are just there for fleshing out some of the history of an army.
I would love to see GW come up with hero suppliment that allows you to customise your heroes and lords with special abilities, items etc.

BigbyWolf
31-08-2012, 15:42
I personally never take take special characters. I just don't like the idea of them. Sure if you are playing a campaign based on the events of a special character's life go ahead, but for me they are just there for fleshing out some of the history of an army.

It's all how you work it, my back-story and ongoing campaign story for Konrad von Carstein was vastly different to the GW one (and quite popular with readers at the time I was doing it).


I would love to see GW come up with hero suppliment that allows you to customise your heroes and lords with special abilities, items etc.

Like...magic item selections, and added abilities like Vampiric powers, ogre big names and Chaos Gifts? ;)

NonComPoop
31-08-2012, 15:43
I personally never take take special characters. I just don't like the idea of them. Sure if you are playing a campaign based on the events of a special character's life go ahead, but for me they are just there for fleshing out some of the history of an army.
I would love to see GW come up with hero suppliment that allows you to customise your heroes and lords with special abilities, items etc.

Antipathy
31-08-2012, 15:43
I only really use Special Characters if it modifies the army selection in some way - so out of my armies, Throgg and The Slaughterer get used (Yes, I play Ogres WITHOUT Mournfangs, shock horror) frequently.

The league we play in typically doesn't allow their use.

Akkaryn
31-08-2012, 15:49
I have never used a special character.

They are how ever quite common in my local gw. I like the challenge facing some of them bring.

Glen_Savet
31-08-2012, 16:02
I've never used a special character. Then again, I play lizardmen and all their special characters are criminally overcosted.

theunwantedbeing
31-08-2012, 16:03
For competitive players, they're essential for virtually all armies.
Usually you'll need to field at least 3 with the exception being for tournament lists where they are banned.

For Fluff players they are often the only way to get a certain type of army.
You often see one in those armies, occasionally two if the armies requires it.

For anyone else they're generally considered overpowered for the most part and as such, an imbalance in the game that is to be avoided.
Similar to certain uber spells or broken item combinations.

Each to their own really.
I don't like sing them as it feels lazy to just plonk a fully created character into a list, I much prefer one I've kitted out myself.

Why
31-08-2012, 16:05
I play wood elves so either all the special chars. suck or the rules make no sense and make them unplayable.

I really enjoy some special characters, Slugtongue, Skrag, Empire and OnG special chars. But then we have those like Teclis and his gang that ruin it for everyone.

Von Wibble
31-08-2012, 17:31
I don't use them often but a speacial character has featured in all of my last 3 games, taken by an opponent. Fair enough in one of them, an allied 8000 points siege, but the other 2 were TEclis and Shadowblade. I won one game and lost the other - can you guess which way round it was ;)

Generally I like SCs that change army composition or provide some other different angle for the army - Throgg is a very good example of this even though he is undercosted somewhat, Khalidah another one (and fair enough if not fielded with literally hundreds of bowmen). I don't like SCs that are basically a lord with a couple of their own magic items but nothing else of interest - pleased to see these gradually phased out but Balthasar Gelt is a good example of this (he could have been so much more interesting).

Hashut-Up!
31-08-2012, 17:40
My play group has them pop up every now and then. I find that the use of special characters is typically less frequent in fantasy than in 40k as you are able to customize a lord or hero more in fantasy. The only special characters we see are ones that modify your core/special slots as to allow for a new type of army (such as Throgg making trolls core). It's far too much fun to try and outfit your characters in the best or most fun manner, as opposed to taking a special character who will be the same every time.

Urgat
31-08-2012, 18:20
Hardly ever. I field Throgg when I want to use a Throgg army, and I might consider fielding one of the "make sense in any army" ones (all the wandering ones like Golgfag or the new gobs), but that's it.

amysrevenge
31-08-2012, 20:46
I use Josef Bugman in about half of the Dwarf lists I write.

I haven't yet, but I plan to rely pretty heavily on special characters with my O&G once the models are finished.

NonComPoop
31-08-2012, 21:28
Like...magic item selections, and added abilities like Vampiric powers, ogre big names and Chaos Gifts? ;)[/QUOTE]

Yes, but it would be nice if every army had access to a similar system. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Warhammer warbands character architype ability lists ( it was in White Dwarf agesw ago). Just another layer of customizing might be cool. A "build your own special character" system.

Scammel
31-08-2012, 21:34
It's only the heroes I tend to see with a real degree of frequency, the lords tend to be rather expensive when the standard option can be tailored for exactly what you want for cheaper. Heroes can be cool with quite nifty abilities whilst not really compromising the list.

pointyteeth
31-08-2012, 21:36
My gaming group very seldom uses special characters. We haven't banned them or anything, we're just old-time gamers who are still in the 5th edition mindframe of needing opponents permission to use special characters. And since none of us bother to ask we don't really use them.

RaShondala
31-08-2012, 21:39
With my Ogres, never. I always play small (1-1.5Kish) games.

My Skaven use SCs constantly, because I like the models.

My VC always include Isabella von Carstein because I adore her fluff.

I had a small TK army that used that snake lady. Khalida?

DaemonReign
31-08-2012, 21:41
Voted 'Never' - not since 4th/5th Ed anyway..
It's just a tradition in our Group at this Point, no calculated reason for it really, just the way we do it.

Finn Sourscowl
31-08-2012, 21:48
I don't use them, as a rule, unless playing a really big game as it seems silly to me that Deathmaster Snikth would turn up in a 1500 point skirmish (for example). I'm constantly nagging my gaming friends who do take them about this :P

While they can add character, most of my friends that use them do so because it gives them a distinct gaming advantage rather than for any fluff reason (I hated Khalida in 7th - or possibly just Clairvoyant's ability to role 6's to hit with archers!).

Mechanium
31-08-2012, 22:50
Nthing, never using unqiues for no reason beyond they're not that good, Teclis aside.

You can customize a regular hero or lord to be far more what you need them to be, whereas the uniques tend to be all over the place gear wise.

I don't play an army with the option, but guys like Bugman, who aren't just localizing points into one area of the board are great however, and I wish Fantasy went more down that route with uniques like 40k has.

eron12
01-09-2012, 06:33
I've used Josef Bugman a few times, he's reasonably costed, not overpowered, and adds a whole new dimension to a dwarf army.

-Totenkopf-
01-09-2012, 06:45
people seem to have strong opinions with no middle ground.. I personally love SCs but some guys in my gaming group hate them. The way I see it, they add so much character to my lists.. I love fluffy themed lists and it's a lot of fun to base a list around a SC. Only a couple are truly broken and game altering. For the most part they are sub par choices, so I don't really understand all the hate..

Ratarsed
01-09-2012, 08:53
The most common special characters I use are ones that change army composition. Throgg for my Chaos monster army and Throt the Unclean for my Skaven Moulder army.

NitrosOkay
01-09-2012, 09:07
I use Mannfred von Carstein sometimes because he's the only way you can really play a Magic focused Vampire Lord without putting yourself at a disadvantage. The stock combat Vampire Lords are just so good.

Bodysnatcher
01-09-2012, 09:54
I play mono-tzeentch daemons so I use SCs to get some unit variety and make sure i don't just get walked over. The changeling is a must, and the bluescribes are just cool and unique. Kairos isn't worth it though, need big games to take him and he dies easy.

yabbadabba
01-09-2012, 11:36
SCs can be a double edged weapon in some respects. If you get into the habit of taking any particular one, then it becomes easier to counter that SC. SCs can give you unusual power and options, but basic characters give you anonymity and surprise. I use both as and when appropriate.

The Low King
01-09-2012, 12:38
Depends where im playing.

In one gaming group i play with you are supposed to ask your opponants permission before you use a SC.
On another you can take them whenever you want.

Personally, if i ever use a special character i ask first, some people think they add character, some think they unbalance the army.

Gradek
01-09-2012, 13:37
Depends where im playing.

In one gaming group i play with you are supposed to ask your opponants permission before you use a SC.
On another you can take them whenever you want.

Personally, if i ever use a special character i ask first, some people think they add character, some think they unbalance the army.

Do you ask permission before you take a rare choice (HPA/Hydra/Destroyer/Stank/etc) or a Vamp blender lord? Special characters are just as much an official part of the game as anything else in an army book.

Lord Zarkov
01-09-2012, 13:55
I don't use any myself (I prefer having my own character), but I've seen Vlad, Valkia, Raamhotep fairly frequently, and occasionally The Changeling or Teclis (although those HE players that take him tend to a have a second 'no Teclis' list for more friendly games). Just after 8th came out I played someone with the Tzeentch sorcerer one (Vilitch?) as well.

They tend to appear more frequently in 40K though.

The Low King
01-09-2012, 14:49
Do you ask permission before you take a rare choice (HPA/Hydra/Destroyer/Stank/etc) or a Vamp blender lord? Special characters are just as much an official part of the game as anything else in an army book.

Its not about them being an official part of the game.

Some people love special characters and feel they add whole new dimensions to their army.
Some think part of the balance of the books is their special characters.
Some are indifferent, a SC is just another unit like a hydra of STank.
Some feel that SCs are unbalanced and broken (and can never agree in wich ones are)
Some feel that SCs are just wrong fluffwise, why would the High king be fighting in a small skirmish?
Some are fine with SC but want to play against the actual army that battle, not whatever warped list the character might allow.

Thing is, both me and my opponant want a fun game, if one person dislikes SCs then the game is already starting on a bad note. Even just asking automatically avoids this, your opponant gets the choice, you are no longer forcing something they dont like on them (and it gives you the opportunity to discuss the character). Even if they love special characters you have still set a tune of politeness for the battle, starting on a friendly note.
And if they absolutely hate SCs and think they are an abomination to true warhammer then you avoid any conflict, its far easier for you just tweak your list than your opponants attitude.
The best games are always when both sides are enjoying playing.

yabbadabba
01-09-2012, 15:50
Do you ask permission before you take a rare choice (HPA/Hydra/Destroyer/Stank/etc) or a Vamp blender lord? Special characters are just as much an official part of the game as anything else in an army book. Good point. There really is no argument against this, other than the old one of wargaming being a social hobby and consisting of rules and conventions agreed before hand.

Askari
01-09-2012, 17:57
I use one often, my Empire is often led by Marius Leitdorf. I don't think anyone would called him overpowered, unless perhaps I always roll a 4 on his chart.. Been tempted to use Gelt next game as well, Lore of Metal sounds a lot better with +6 to cast.

Never do for my Vampires though, they are all awful and worse.. boring.
(Really don't like the Von Carsteins)

nurgle5
02-09-2012, 00:14
I occasionally use the Masque when I'm trying to LD-bomb with my daemons (I say trying because my Masque has an awful track record). Other than that I never really see them used. I have nothing against anyone using them either, but I do prefer if their presence is justified/reflected in the army they accompany, as I have once seen Grimgor Ironhide babysitting an army of nightgoblins.


Never do for my Vampires though, they are all awful and worse.. boring.
(Really don't like the Von Carsteins)

Dunno if I'd agree with that, I'm a big Von Carstein fan for various reasons but to each his own. Fluffwise, the Von Carstein trilogy is one of the best series the Black Library has ever done imho, really fleshes out the characters. Ruleswise, Konrad is a good bit of fun with his blood-crazed antics, something rather different from the stock standard caster-vampires.

Forgotmytea
02-09-2012, 08:08
I don't think I've used any special characters since the days when you could take chariots and wraiths in the same Undead army, and Nagash was a legit model :p It's not really anything to do with a gentleman's agreement or anything with the guys I play with, I just don't feel the Wood Elf special characters and prefer to take my own tooled-up Spell Weaver.

reddevil18
02-09-2012, 09:26
Although i would like to field them my gaming group has banned special characters.
For the 1 year we didnt i used archaon in almost every game (7th ed) which i think is part of the reason he got banned lol

Bodysnatcher
02-09-2012, 09:50
Even though Archaon is not what you call spectacular?

Antipathy
04-09-2012, 02:39
For people who eke out every ounce of "power" out of their armies, maybe he isnt optimum but when you have 10 s5 attacks ignoring armour saves, not much tends to stand in his way.

Hicks
04-09-2012, 06:26
The only time I field one, it's Skarsnik with my night goblin army. He is pretty vital in that situation and he is far from game breaking. My other armies are regular forces and I never use special characters with them.

En Sabbah Nur
04-09-2012, 09:05
In the campaign we run with my buddies, it is possible to take Special Characters. I personally never use them, prefering to field my own built heroes, cause I find the game more alive this way. But some players field them, arguing price of standard characters being too high (the SkullTaker is a good lord replacement for the Daemon player...), or sheer power (Grimgor for the Orc...). But I think it's mostly because we are barely new players and we do not necessarly see all combinations to make a character powerful, and it is simplier to use already set up characters.

Vissah
04-09-2012, 09:25
In my group they never field special characters cause they say they are overpowered.

BigbyWolf
04-09-2012, 11:44
For people who eke out every ounce of "power" out of their armies, maybe he isnt optimum but when you have 10 s5 attacks ignoring armour saves, not much tends to stand in his way.

The great ward and armour save also make him quite tricky to kill. Luckily he still pretty expensive, and takes a lot of points out of an already small army.


In my group they never field special characters cause they say they are overpowered.

For the most part, your group is wrong.

The bearded one
04-09-2012, 13:42
We use them virtually never.


Why? Dunno, it's just taboo I guess. We don't have a houserule forbidding them or anything, but people simply don't use them. Many special characters are fine, particularly from recent books. The problem is that the only ones that would see regular use, are the overpowered ones, like the daemon special characters. The only special character I remember ever using is Bugman, in order to bring 2 ranger units, and bugman himself is very fair as far as abilities and cost goes (he's basically a thane with a runeaxe and a nifty keg.)

Metacarpi
04-09-2012, 14:16
The only named character I'm taking in my current Daemons list is Epidemius.

I didn't take any with my Skaven armies, I prefer to kit out the Hero/Lord options rather than taking a named character.

Soundwave
04-09-2012, 16:06
Hardly ever also.Although 8th edd is really pumping for the use of them i find,better value and abilities as well as magic items that are seeing increasing dilution in the new books available to your non special character types.Out of common courtesy most in our group will alert other players that they plan on using a special character,not having to mention wich one just that they are using.Must jot this down as a "house rule".

Sunner
04-09-2012, 16:42
I use them every now and then, mostly to theme an army such as Gitilla the hunter for my all wolf rider army or Wulfrik when I want to see the look on someone's face when 50 maraurders appear behind their line. Granted some SC can be over powered and make games bland.

arthurfallz
04-09-2012, 16:54
I use mine off and on (usually the Fey Enchantress or the Green Knight), but I don't find them that helpful. My dark elves might see more Special Characters brought in. Personally, I don't mind them at all - I've seen some hideous generic vampires built in my friend's army.

Wesser
04-09-2012, 19:39
It's very rare I use them because SC's are either pricey or very specialized (or downright bad...looking at you Volkmar)

You go through the SC's like... "Vlad won't do die but he's so costly for a guy who's not rly good at anything, Krell is never going to pass an armour save anyway, I'm playing Ogres to day...Konrad's kinda beardy.." and so on.

Interesting special characters are rare. Maybe if I were playing Skaven I'd use SC's more....Tretch is sooo funny

popisdead
11-09-2012, 21:00
I felt there needed to be an option between Hardly Ever and Often.

Throgg (always, trolls are fun, that they are great is just icing on the top).

I play around with other special characters. Just fun stuff to try.

IcedCrow
12-09-2012, 13:07
The option between hardly ever and often is "about half of the time" :)

Durloth
12-09-2012, 18:17
I haven't used special characters since 5th ed. My gripe with them is probably the opposite as for most people, though; I find them way too weak.

According to the fluff, most special characters are the kind of individuals that would slaughter armies all by them selves. Amazing fighters that would make ordinary mortals tremble. They can raise mountains or level cities with magic or scheme to decide the fate of thousands. To have one of these guys be chased off by a unit of goblins because of static combat resolution or fall to a lucky fireball is just to much an anticlimax. Either GW should ease up on the fluff concerning their named characters or they should stop making up rules for them, because they would never work in the game if they were nearly as powerful as in their descriptions.

IcedCrow
12-09-2012, 18:52
or let Mat Ward write the rules for them.

Why
13-09-2012, 04:42
Well that would work, look at his more recent fantasy army books.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
13-09-2012, 08:41
When I want to use my Oglah Khan's Wolfboyz models I use them as Gitilla the Hunta's unit (even though they are hobgoblin models, they are roughly the same size and mass as the vanilla goblins). This is more frequent than not. On occasion I'll take Wurrzag or Grimgor in a 3000+ point game.

I love special characters. Sure I enjoy having my own warboss/shammy lord with his/their own back story, but I also like the stories attached to special characters and the unique mechanics they bring into the game. In the case of Wurrzag, Snagla and Gitilla, they're always on the move and their presence is justified. I wouldn't field Skarsnik with a bunch of Black Orcs, for example.

oldWitheredCorpse
13-09-2012, 14:43
You go through the SC's like... "Vlad won't do die but he's so costly for a guy who's not rly good at anything, Krell is never going to pass an armour save anyway, I'm playing Ogres to day...Konrad's kinda beardy.." and so on.

Interesting special characters are rare. Maybe if I were playing Skaven I'd use SC's more....Tretch is sooo funny

Tomb kings are generally on the weak end (not due to lack of strength, but to an over-abundance of exploitable weaknesses) of Warhammer armies, but they have cool special characters that are strong, but not game-breaking (except possibly Khalida). Most of them bring something special to the table: Settra brings WS 7 to everything, Khalida brings strong shooting, Arkhan powerful death magic, Khatep reliable Nehekharan magic, Nekaph stronger fear and Ramhotep fearsome close-combat potential. The number of viable TK build goes down significantly if you'd take out the special characters.

Spiney Norman
13-09-2012, 22:45
In Warhammer, almost never, the only SC I've used more than a couple of times is Skarsnik in my gobbo army (mainly because I have the model and it's awesome). I have used Wurrzag once, and found him characterful, if a little weak for his cost, the Empire characters don't fit my army (my army is from Marienburg) and the Lizardmen characters are universally awful.

I think this is a very army dependent question, for example I almost never see a high elf army without Teclis

I have been noticing a lot more special characters in 40k, but that is most likely down to the abominable trend of using special characters to hop unit x into the troop selection of the FOC.

In my Sisters of Battle army I usually lead with St Celestine and my Necrons are often led by Nemesor Zahndrek. Part of the difference in 40k is that it's much harder to make a HQ character your own. Warhammer has a plethora of upgrades, options and a truck load of magic items to customise your generic characters whereas most 40 HQs are limited to a handful of uninteresting wargear items.

sulla
14-09-2012, 19:43
Most of them aren't survivable enough to interest me. My main armies are DE and beasts. In DE, the only one I take (maybe one in 10 games) is Malekith, just for laughs but he is usually a major contribution to losing those games (unless it's Storm of magic, where he is a god among men). For beasts, I really want to bring Khazrak, as he is a passable fighter for his cost, but the basic beastman ambush rule is so bad it's not worth investing in and it's very easy to make a better combat character.

Kalandros
14-09-2012, 19:52
Malus has his uses, like taking on a bloodthirster. (Same initiative, reroll to hit and to wound~)

Sparowl
14-09-2012, 20:03
Lizardmen special characters are terrible. I never use them.

I have seen a few others around. Teclis was popular for awhile.

In general, I'm not a fan, but bias might exist since Lizards got the short end there.

Von Wibble
14-09-2012, 20:11
Yes - TiqTaqToe isn't even worth a third of this cost imo.

I agree with Spiney Norman's points in general (though I am a high elf player and haven't used Teclis since 5th edition), particularly comparing warhammer and 40K.

Artinam
14-09-2012, 21:20
Only use them in mega battles when a once in a lifetime character like Teclis or King Leoncour might show up.
My club tends to tolerate them if you announce your using them in your list, but hardly any one has ever used one.

Lord Inquisitor
14-09-2012, 21:38
For me I answered "about half the time". I have two main competitive armies - Ogres, who don't use SCs and Daemons, who do use the Masque in my all-Slaanesh army (I know, I know).

As for general acceptance, I still find it varies. Most GTs I attend (which isn't a wide sampling, I'll be the first to admit), do tend to allow Special Characters although individual ones may be banned (like the Masque, naughty girl). Still, some tournaments and particularly the local RTTs here do ban all SCs outright. When SCs are permitted I do see low-level use but often for a particular theme or army structure (e.g. Throgg) as opposed just for the character itself. Most of the time SCs are overpriced compared to optimal generic builds, so they don't see a lot of use.

Overall I find the mentality towards SCs has softened somewhat. I do have memories of bringing Mannfred to a game back in 6th edition just for a change of pace and being surprised at how utterly shocked (and upset) my opponent was. I think times have changed but I do still find plenty of "old guard" who aren't going to accept SCs in any form for normal play. But for the most part SCs are not frowned upon for casual gaming unless you bring Masque or Teclis or whatever.

IcedCrow
14-09-2012, 23:14
We have teclis roaming our league right now. And he's doing very well *sigh* lol

Why
15-09-2012, 00:15
Lizardmen special characters are terrible. I never use them.

I have seen a few others around. Teclis was popular for awhile.

In general, I'm not a fan, but bias might exist since Lizards got the short end there.

Well Gor Rok is pretty good for his points, Easy to make a better stubbron oldblood but if you also want a slann he's not bad.

Spiney Norman
16-09-2012, 17:10
For me I answered "about half the time". I have two main competitive armies - Ogres, who don't use SCs and Daemons, who do use the Masque in my all-Slaanesh army (I know, I know).

As for general acceptance, I still find it varies. Most GTs I attend (which isn't a wide sampling, I'll be the first to admit), do tend to allow Special Characters although individual ones may be banned (like the Masque, naughty girl). Still, some tournaments and particularly the local RTTs here do ban all SCs outright. When SCs are permitted I do see low-level use but often for a particular theme or army structure (e.g. Throgg) as opposed just for the character itself. Most of the time SCs are overpriced compared to optimal generic builds, so they don't see a lot of use.

Overall I find the mentality towards SCs has softened somewhat. I do have memories of bringing Mannfred to a game back in 6th edition just for a change of pace and being surprised at how utterly shocked (and upset) my opponent was. I think times have changed but I do still find plenty of "old guard" who aren't going to accept SCs in any form for normal play. But for the most part SCs are not frowned upon for casual gaming unless you bring Masque or Teclis or whatever.

I don't have a problem with playing against SCs in general, I think it adds quite a lot of character (pun intended) to the game which you don't get unless your opponent is the kind of chap that has written a page of background on his characters. However the is the unmistakable sinking feeling when someone puts down Teclis, Kairos or Thorek Ironbrow when you just know this isn't going to be a fun game.

There are just one or two special characters like the above named examples that give SCs a bad press, and as you say some people remember a time when almost every special character was like that which makes them understandably reluctant to get bitten again.

CrystalSphere
16-09-2012, 19:51
I donīt mind using or facing agaisnt special characters, but only if they are from armies with a recently released book (say, beastmen, and anything released in 8th). This is because i find that most unbalanced characters come from books released in 7th (the remaining ones from 6th arenīt a big deal). I think GW is actually doing a good job making the new special characters playable, without being too unbalanced (iīm looking at things like Kairos or Teclis).

I think all special characters can be countered, but some can be annoying to play agaisnt and just not fun, because they are either too invulnerable (you have to waste too many resources to get rid of them) or so powerful that you have little time to stop them. Experienced players can always find ways to deal with overpowered characters, but new players can easily feel powerless and get frustrated while dealing with the character, leading them to get disillusionated and leave the hobby (iīve seen this happen before).

I think GW is on the right track by making special characters being only slightly better than normal ones, instead of many times better. These recent SC, since 8th edition forward, are vulnerable and easy to deal with, they donīt require bizarre strategies or combos to deal with them, so anyone can come up with a counter without too much effort. They are, in my opinion, more fun to play with and agaisnt, that the old "herohammer" like characters.

Oogie boogie boss
17-09-2012, 09:17
We only ever use them in games of 3.000pts or more, which is rare for us, and even then only occaisionally. The odd hero level SC may sneak in now and again to mix things up as bit, but generally gaming group like to try and create a sense of character within the army itself.