PDA

View Full Version : Special characters in the 8th ed army books.



Barry "the blade"
21-07-2013, 21:17
How does your gaming group, or local meta feel about them? Most of my gaming experience came back in 6th edition, and special characters were heavily frowned upon.

Over all are they accepted these days? Any in particular that I should stay clear of for casual pick up games?

Mainly asking because I'm hoping to start getting some games in again, and don't want to be " that guy" when I do find a new gaming group.

Sent from my ZTE V768 using Tapatalk 2

leopard
21-07-2013, 21:28
Would suggest the answer is highly variable and you are better asking the local group. Seems here people are not too bothered unless trying to test a specific comp pack as long as they know it could be coming and the army itsn't cheese anyway.

Some of the newer ones are fun, overpriced but fun.

As for a new group, suggest the first thing to discuss is house rules they have, if any, and point out you are asking so as to fit in with them and not try and rock the boat

howie
21-07-2013, 23:10
I've never had any problems. There's nor many that are must take broken and some make for charachterful changes to the army composition such as throgg allowing you to have a troll army.

Regards Howie.

HereComesTomorrow
21-07-2013, 23:35
Most Fantasy characters are awful. There's maybe 5 that are decent, I think?

Dunno what it is but 40k actually gets decent, properly costed SCs for the most part. Maybe Fantasy ones are more for fluffiness.

Agoz
22-07-2013, 03:48
So far the only 8th ed special character I've heard complaints about is the WoC special character that gives his unit 5+ regen, festus I believe? Anyway I've heard he's a bit undercosted for what he does. The rest of the characters range from properly costed to overcosted.

Lord Solar Plexus
22-07-2013, 04:18
I gather most people here would rather cut off an arm than play with or against SC's. It's a bit sad and a relief; I don't want to face Alarielle or Sigvald but I can't field Throgg or Luthor Huss myself.

Duke_Corwin
22-07-2013, 04:38
I gather most people here would rather cut off an arm than play with or against SC's. It's a bit sad and a relief; I don't want to face Alarielle or Sigvald but I can't field Throgg or Luthor Huss myself.

I'm curious as to why you wouldn't want to face Alarielle. She doesn't seem all that powerful to me - what am I missing.

danny-d-b
22-07-2013, 05:29
its less her, and more her banner, cos trying to stop white lions with +8 to cast on flesh to stone?

Methios
22-07-2013, 07:54
With my Tomb King lists im pretty much Reliant on either Arkhan or Khatep and to a lesser content Khalida to make competative lists :)

Lord Solar Plexus
22-07-2013, 09:55
I'm curious as to why you wouldn't want to face Alarielle. She doesn't seem all that powerful to me - what am I missing.

Well, you're not going to stop any spell, right, and she still provides Ld 10 I gather, so with that price tag, there's really no drawback (unless you want a different lore).

Gradek
22-07-2013, 10:10
It varies greatly, but I h ave found that groups that play lots of 40k too are more inclined to allow them, as no one seems to have an issue with 40k characters.

I personally think it is a shame that so many groups and tournaments ban something that is just as much a part of the game/army books as any other unit.

IcedCrow
22-07-2013, 12:14
We use them. Now that teclis and the demon special characters have been brought down to a normal level, they are fun.

Rakariel
22-07-2013, 13:06
We use them in friendly games if it fits the theme or campaign.

tmarichards
23-07-2013, 03:50
Since the DoC book was redone, by and large most special characters (barring Throgg, who is really rather bent) are either balanced or underpowered. Compared to around a year ago, I have no real objection against them being allowed in tournaments.

For the most part I think a lot of the residual dislike of special characters is from the days of the old Masque et al, who were just obscene.

Storyteller
23-07-2013, 09:19
Funny, it's been pretty much an unspoken rule since we started playing in 5th edition that we wouldn't use special characters. I think back then it's because we thought they were over-the-top, but I think a lot has to do with wanting to create/customize our own characters, backstories, etc.

I think we'd definitely use them in a campaign if it made sense, but our current campaign is set in 2516 IC in the Border Princes so I can't really think of anyone except for possible survivors from Tamurkhan's campaign through the Border Princes or perhaps Marius Leitdorf riding south from Averland.

Captain Collius
23-07-2013, 17:32
We use them. Now that teclis and the demon special characters have been brought down to a normal level, they are fun.


Quite, I liek to use Mazdamundi in my lizards army and have no problem playing against anyone elses SCs.

Spiney Norman
23-07-2013, 17:44
Most Fantasy characters are awful. There's maybe 5 that are decent, I think?

Dunno what it is but 40k actually gets ridiculous, hugely overpowered SCs for the most part. Maybe Fantasy ones are more for fluffiness.

Fixed that for you, at least in fantasy you don't have "unit x counts as core" tagged on to every special character so they can make the entire army overpowered rather than just their own statline.

Fantasy special characters are mostly exactly where I'd like them to be, neither markedly overpowered, nor underpowered compared to their generic equivalents, they can add flavour without greatly unbalancing the game, which a lot of 40k SCs totally fail at.

mjungledog
23-07-2013, 18:06
My main group does not seem to mind them. They don't usually factor into a person's ability to win a game, just make it a bit more interesting...

TheDungen
23-07-2013, 18:08
Well I have never been much for special characters, i never got why they would be commanding 5 units on a field.

That said i think that they should be special in that they do really unsuall things and it's better if they aim in the lower end of balanced for them. Things like throgg is good as long as it doesn't go the way 40k have where everyone use characters to make certain things troops. More of thing for people who want to theme an army than an invitation to spam certain units.

Barry "the blade"
23-07-2013, 22:18
Thanks for all the replies! Glad to see Throgg come up in the conversation a couple times as that's the one I'm looking at. Thinking about/ building a ogre heavy WoC army, and really want a monstrous infantry hero to lead one of the units.

Kind of hoping that my not taking a DP, or unkillable MoTz lord will make throgg more acceptable.

Sent from my ZTE V768 using Tapatalk 2

boli
24-07-2013, 00:38
Technically legal in our group but the rage from 7th edition teclis, often means they are not used.

When I mentioned new teclis choosing spells and queen adi + banner giving +8 to cast in the same conversation as "HE magicoverpoweredness has actually been reduced", well more rage so my SCs are on the back burner for a while.

Daenerys Targaryen
24-07-2013, 22:56
The only two SC's I'd honestly argue as being completely bent/ungodly broken of the 8th ed books are Epidemius & Alarielle. Eppi is likely the worst, since his army-wide buffs are brutally effective AND he can be readily hidden away safe & sound in the Portalglyph, meaning there's no way your opponent can even try to kill him!:P Alarielle again is all about her unit-wide buffs and the added combos steaming from her own Banner of Avalorn + BotWD. Throw that onto a unit of White Lions and between +8 to-cast Life spells, +3 to-cast High Magic and a 5++ (w/added +1 upto a 3++ due to High Magic attribute)/2++ vs all magical attacks... Yeah, that unit's never going anywhere but through your entire army!

Machiavellismx
25-07-2013, 08:54
I personally like the SC's, they add a bit extra depth and uniqueness to armies, especially the ones which allow different core choices. Individual rules can totally change the way a game is played, and for the most part the majority of players I know don't see a problem with them. They're there to be used.

For the players I've seen who hate certain ones and refuse to play them, in my experience, what they tend to really mean is 'I want you to use a different choice so I can beat you' ; they don't know how to fight against, or they struggle against, the SC's and so dislike playing them rather than figuring out a way to counter them. Also, this is a game of warriors and heroes - the SC's are meant to be the best of the best, the most blessed/cursed/viscous/honourable of their representative races. If you like the fluff, like me, I think the SC's add to that, as such it's all the sweeter when you kill 'em.

Plus the models mostly look awesome. Valkia, Be'Lakor, Tyrion spring to mind as some of my favourites.

Urgat
25-07-2013, 09:02
at least in fantasy you don't have "unit x counts as core" tagged on to every special character so they can make the entire army overpowered rather than just their own statline.

I actually like that, makes for nice themed armies, though I'd rather it was available to regular heroes rather than SC, as I don't care for SC (say your general is a wight instead of a vampire, you can have a unit of grave guards as core. If your general is a night goblin... I don't know what, but it does something. Stuff like that).

The way my gaming group treats SC is peculiar. We all have our own general and a themed army; the only SC we use are the ones that would actually appear in any army (the green knight, Whuurzag etc).

TheSpid
25-07-2013, 11:16
SC's are there to be used. If they're OP let them be OP and use them anyway. They are meant to be part of the rules just like every other unit in the army. If there are certain SC's that are truely problematic just ban those and leave it at that. You don't ban all hero choices because some random hero choice is broken or ban all rare choices because the DE hydra exists. Leave the poor SC's like they are and use them. They all add to the army and the days of herohammer are long gone. Even if some of them are still OP they don't break the entire army.

boli
25-07-2013, 13:37
SC's are there to be used. If they're OP let them be OP and use them anyway. They are meant to be part of the rules just like every other unit in the army. If there are certain SC's that are truely problematic just ban those and leave it at that. You don't ban all hero choices because some random hero choice is broken or ban all rare choices because the DE hydra exists. Leave the poor SC's like they are and use them. They all add to the army and the days of herohammer are long gone. Even if some of them are still OP they don't break the entire army.

Teclis used to ;)

Tarian
25-07-2013, 14:15
My group didn't like SCs for the most part as we preferred having our own characters. That said, we wouldn't go out of our way to prevent them, it was a bit of an unspoken rule. I still tend to avoid them, even the not-broken ones, and even in 40k.

DivineVisitor
25-07-2013, 16:06
In the past i have used:

Logan Grimnar, Ragnar, Njal and Arjac for my Space Wolves
No special characters for Alpha Legion/Traitor Guard
Karandras for Eldar

Karl Franz for Empire
No special characters for Lizardmen
The Masque for Slaaneshi Daemons

Nowadays i only really use Arjac (since he's a badass) or Logan Grimnar if fielding a Terminator Wolf Guard army. I would consider Karandras but i always field the Avatar and he doesn't leave alot of room for another 200+ point character.

Our group isn't all to bothered by the use of Special Characters and do allow them. We often play games in the 3k range so the effect one character can have on an army is usually diminished.

Spiney Norman
25-07-2013, 16:29
I have used the following
WFB: Skarsnik (not this edition though), Wurrzag, Khalida, Grand Heirophant Khatep
40k: St Celestine, Lelith Hesperax, Baron Sathonyx, Nemesor Zahndrek, Vargard Obyron

Khatep and the Baron are my own conversions since models of them don't currently exist, I have the official GW models for allof the others. I'm not into proxying your normal HQ characters for SCs just because the SCs are broken and you want that extra edge.

Steapa
30-07-2013, 14:04
I think 8th was designed to incorporate them. In fact.. I believe the rule book no longer states you should ask to field them, rather your opponents simply can and its a part of 8th. Look at dark elves, technically they have loads of SCs. Executioners get their own SC unit champ, black guard can etc. other armies almost rely on the. To give their lists the backbone other armies inherently get. I think it would be unfair to disallow SC in 8th edition games. Unless you want all WoC empire and high elf armies...

Wallack
30-07-2013, 14:44
I think they should be used. At least those characters that change core choices.

Payomeke
30-07-2013, 15:08
I always play now with Karl Franz, he won somegames himself but is so expensive anyway.

ColShaw
30-07-2013, 15:14
I don't use them myself, but will play against them.

I prefer to convert my own commanders, name them, and let them build their own legends. I've got Caveboss da Savage Orc, Earl William of Bretonnia, and so on. So instead of borrowing GW's fluff of great deeds, I can say, "This is Caveboss da Orc, who once bludgeoned his way through ten Temple Guard so he could beat a Slaan to death with his warclub. He's crushed Treemen and Carnosaurs. Whole regiments of elves have fallen before him. There are Dwarf clans with whole chapters of their Books of Grudges devoted to him, personally. And now he's coming... for you. WAAAGH!"

tankrothchild
30-07-2013, 15:20
Not much has changed with the new Daemon book, people still hate the Daemon special charaters. Banning Epidemius and Fateweaver is almost a definite in local and bigger tournaments now. The other special characters are way over priced for what they do, ie. masque, skulltaker.

I have no issues with special characters if ALL special characters are permitted. All or none in my opinion, but I guess that is more of a discussion on comp itself rather than special characters.

Scammel
30-07-2013, 15:38
Fantasy characters are definitely fluffier and cooler than their 40k counterparts in my opinion. The fact that they tend to be underpowered doesn't bother me much, as standard home-brewed characters can be massively varied in their own right, whilst the named guys are brought out for lots of funsies. One in particular that annoys me when I face her though is Alarielle; White Lions are bad enough when they don't have a 5+ ward and the Ld10 means you don't have to make the typical trade-off in regards to casters and fighters, nevermind the spell-casting.

NitrosOkay
31-07-2013, 02:13
All the Vampire Counts special characters are either 'okay' (Mannfred) or just bad (the rest) so I've never heard complaints.

Lordsaradain
31-07-2013, 12:42
I prefer playing without SCs. Often, it doesn't seem suitable fluffwise to have Archaon leading a 2k army for example, and to use a SC just because you want an even better, cheesier lord character than you can get normally from the book is kinda lame IMO.

But there are exceptions, some characters (Throgg, Kroq-Gar etc) allow you to field different variants of the normal army list and then I think it makes perfect sense to include them with that option in mind. I always liked the variant themed army-lists that were in the back of the 6th Ed army books and when SCs allow similar options I think that it is a good thing.