PDA

View Full Version : The End of "Paintjob Nazis"



Eldartank
27-10-2008, 04:00
In the past, rules for certain characters in the Codexes seemed almost too nitpicky, or, at least, they could be easily interpreted by the ultra-strict rules lawyers.
For example, in the old Space Marine codex, the rules stated that you could use Marneus Calgar in an Ultramarines army. If you wanted to make up your own Space Marine Chapter which used strictly Ultramarines rules, and use the Marneus Calgar model painted in the colors of that made-up Chapter and using the Marneus Calgar rules - most people were okay with that, BUT... there was ALWAYS at least one "paintjob nazi" who would throw a fit and all but accuse you of trying to cheat because Marneus Calgar could ONLY be used painted as an Ultramarine, in an army with an Ultramarines paintjob (yes, I actually brought this subject up about a year ago and started a rather interesting and heated discussion/argument over it).

Well, one good thing about the newest Space Marines codex is that it puts any such argument to rest and completely silences any "paintjob nazis." The codex clearly states that you can use ANY Special Character from that codex in ANY Space Marine Army made out of that codex (yep, you can have a joint force of Ultramarines and Imperial Fists led by Marneus Calgar and Captain Lysander). The Codex also clearly states that you can use any of those Special Characters, with thier exact rules, in your own Space Marine Chapter - with the colors of your Chapter - and just give those Characters a different name.

As for me, I will of course be taking advantage of that rule. My Crimson Fists army will have Scout Sargeant Inigo Montoya - The "Scout Sargeant Telion" model with the Ultramarines icons cut off, and painted as a Crimson Fist, complete with the "Sargeant Telion" rules. Sargeant Telion is one of those new models that is just too cool to not have in your army.

Since I already have the Captain Lysander miniature, I can very easily paint him up in Crimson Fists colors with absolutely no modifications whatsoever, since both the Imperial Fists and the Crimson Fists use identical iconography (just different colors).

And just for laughs, maybe I will get every single Space Marine Special Character model (from the new Space Marine Codex) and paint them up as Crimson Fists, just to annoy those most hard-headed "paintjob nazis" who may still be out there.

;)

cailus
27-10-2008, 04:08
Ha, I'm a Paintjob Nazi!

But alas it does not matter anymore because in the new 40K background serves no purpose in terms of the game. Fluff is basically there as something for us to read.

According to GW it's perfectly acceptable for a Slaaneeshi Lord to lead armies of Khorne Berzerkers, Skittle Daemons are the norm and Eldrad leads every single Eldar army and Snikrot commands every single Ork commando unit. Apocalypse goes even further in totally and utterly get ridding of any notions of background.

So using an unmodified Marneus Calgar painted in Ultramarines colours in an Iron Hands army is perfectly acceptable.

This of course is in line with the new mantra of "Do whatever the **** you want as long as you spend money on our product."

Inquisitor Engel
27-10-2008, 04:10
Wouldn't a more CC oriented character work better for Inigo Montoya [you killed my father, prepare to die]?

Feor
27-10-2008, 04:15
Indeed, Make him Scout Sergeant Fezzik. [I didn't have to miss you know]

Vaktathi
27-10-2008, 04:30
In the past, rules for certain characters in the Codexes seemed almost too nitpicky, or, at least, they could be easily interpreted by the ultra-strict rules lawyers.
For example, in the old Space Marine codex, the rules stated that you could use Marneus Calgar in an Ultramarines army. If you wanted to make up your own Space Marine Chapter which used strictly Ultramarines rules, and use the Marneus Calgar model painted in the colors of that made-up Chapter and using the Marneus Calgar rules - most people were okay with that, BUT... there was ALWAYS at least one "paintjob nazi" who would throw a fit and all but accuse you of trying to cheat because Marneus Calgar could ONLY be used painted as an Ultramarine, in an army with an Ultramarines paintjob (yes, I actually brought this subject up about a year ago and started a rather interesting and heated discussion/argument over it).

Well, one good thing about the newest Space Marines codex is that it puts any such argument to rest and completely silences any "paintjob nazis." The codex clearly states that you can use ANY Special Character from that codex in ANY Space Marine Army made out of that codex (yep, you can have a joint force of Ultramarines and Imperial Fists led by Marneus Calgar and Captain Lysander). The Codex also clearly states that you can use any of those Special Characters, with thier exact rules, in your own Space Marine Chapter - with the colors of your Chapter - and just give those Characters a different name.

As for me, I will of course be taking advantage of that rule. My Crimson Fists army will have Scout Sargeant Inigo Montoya - The "Scout Sargeant Telion" model with the Ultramarines icons cut off, and painted as a Crimson Fist, complete with the "Sargeant Telion" rules. Sargeant Telion is one of those new models that is just too cool to not have in your army.

Since I already have the Captain Lysander miniature, I can very easily paint him up in Crimson Fists colors with absolutely no modifications whatsoever, since both the Imperial Fists and the Crimson Fists use identical iconography (just different colors).

And just for laughs, maybe I will get every single Space Marine Special Character model (from the new Space Marine Codex) and paint them up as Crimson Fists, just to annoy those most hard-headed "paintjob nazis" who may still be out there.

;)

There are some very good reasons for not liking those ideas.

First, it encourages spamming of under-costed retarded SC units. Lets be honest, most of the SM characters are a little OTT.

Second, such units are intended to portray a unique and heroic character, spamming them in every list may be legal, but it makes you look like a powergamer and ignorant of the fluff. It cheapens what such characters are there to portray.

While GW has tried to change this, all they have done is further reinforce the above views.

So yes, go ahead, but when people giggle at your army list and go ":rolleyes:" when they have to play you, don't get upset.


(also, GW did this with the Eldar codex, the SM codex is nothing new in this regard, I've seen just about every "craftworld" field Eldrad at this point)

olmsted
27-10-2008, 04:33
or joe montana

Warp Zero
27-10-2008, 04:40
In the past, rules for certain characters in the Codexes seemed almost too nitpicky, or, at least, they could be easily interpreted by the ultra-strict rules lawyers.
For example, in the old Space Marine codex, the rules stated that you could use Marneus Calgar in an Ultramarines army. If you wanted to make up your own Space Marine Chapter which used strictly Ultramarines rules, and use the Marneus Calgar model painted in the colors of that made-up Chapter and using the Marneus Calgar rules - most people were okay with that, BUT... there was ALWAYS at least one "paintjob nazi" who would throw a fit and all but accuse you of trying to cheat because Marneus Calgar could ONLY be used painted as an Ultramarine, in an army with an Ultramarines paintjob (yes, I actually brought this subject up about a year ago and started a rather interesting and heated discussion/argument over it).

Personally, I never cared if someone used "counts as" type armies. But I always thought it lazy if they just straight up painted Calgar a different color without changing anything else. What? No head swap of extra bits glued on? Always felt cheezy to use a special character in the Street Fighter 2nd player palette swap way.


Well, one good thing about the newest Space Marines codex is that it puts any such argument to rest and completely silences any "paintjob nazis." The codex clearly states that you can use ANY Special Character from that codex in ANY Space Marine Army made out of that codex (yep, you can have a joint force of Ultramarines and Imperial Fists led by Marneus Calgar and Captain Lysander). The Codex also clearly states that you can use any of those Special Characters, with thier exact rules, in your own Space Marine Chapter - with the colors of your Chapter - and just give those Characters a different name.

As for me, I will of course be taking advantage of that rule. My Crimson Fists army will have Scout Sargeant Inigo Montoya - The "Scout Sargeant Telion" model with the Ultramarines icons cut off, and painted as a Crimson Fist, complete with the "Sargeant Telion" rules. Sargeant Telion is one of those new models that is just too cool to not have in your army.

That's cool by me. I wouldn't say anything against you doing that. However, after I've left the gaming store, while you're not listening, I'll just poke fun of your Princess Bride referenced name. :D Y'know because...its so rare to see anyone reference Princess Bride or Monty Python's Holy Grail in a game store. :rolleyes:

cailus
27-10-2008, 05:03
There are some very good reasons for not liking those ideas.

First, it encourages spamming of under-costed retarded SC units. Lets be honest, most of the SM characters are a little OTT.

Second, such units are intended to portray a unique and heroic character, spamming them in every list may be legal, but it makes you look like a powergamer and ignorant of the fluff. It cheapens what such characters are there to portray.

While GW has tried to change this, all they have done is further reinforce the above views.

So yes, go ahead, but when people giggle at your army list and go ":rolleyes:" when they have to play you, don't get upset.


(also, GW did this with the Eldar codex, the SM codex is nothing new in this regard, I've seen just about every "craftworld" field Eldrad at this point)

Vaktathi, these are some very fine points and I agree with your sentiments wholeheatedly.

The other big issue for me is that the overusage of Special Characters and the repainting of them to suit whatever army your playing helps even further reduce the narrative elements of the game and kill the roleplaying aspect of it.

So instead of Marneus Calgar, Chapter Master of the Ultramarines only popping up every now and then (as per the old "ask your opponent for permission" days) to Marneus Calgar and his 1,000 Clone Brothers who appear in any small little skirmish.

devik
27-10-2008, 05:31
Vaktathi, these are some very fine points and I agree with your sentiments wholeheatedly.

The other big issue for me is that the overusage of Special Characters and the repainting of them to suit whatever army your playing helps even further reduce the narrative elements of the game and kill the roleplaying aspect of it.

So instead of Marneus Calgar, Chapter Master of the Ultramarines only popping up every now and then (as per the old "ask your opponent for permission" days) to Marneus Calgar and his 1,000 Clone Brothers who appear in any small little skirmish.

I think most characters are overrated; in all the games I've played, I've rarely used them. I've fielded Tigurius (4th ed) once, Snikrot twice, and though I haven't fielded Zagstruk yet that's another that I'd like to run eventually. My new Marines army will include a "counts-as" Pedro Kantor for higher level deployments, but at lower points I'll stick to a standard captain -- or a Librarian. That said, I'm a HUGE fan of the counts-as rules, since it encourages more creativity and flexibility in creating your own armies, letting you take a character unit that you like in an army that you made up.

I've seen people cram just about every SC they can into a list, and let me tell you -- it's very, VERY tiresome having an opponent with 2-4 characters on the table. :rolleyes:

Orkeosaurus
27-10-2008, 05:33
It's the worst when you need the special character to actually play a particular faction. The ravenwing is going on a 500pt patrol mission? Better wake up Sammael, it's not like he has anything better to do. And of course, an Evil Sunz warband can't be mounted on bikes if Wazdakka doesn't leads it.

==Me==
27-10-2008, 05:38
SCs nowadays are simply another unit in the army list, there to give you more options than the list normally has. The Marine SCs are good examples of this, as each one either opens up a whole new way to use the army or improve what is already there. So I really don't see a problem with fielding them if you feel said character fits your home-brewed character (it just so happens Sicarius is very similar to ==My== chapter master) or if you want to try a particular army build.

People who love the background will make their picks to fit their army, so nothing really changes there. All it does is open up possibilities for other people.

Lord-Caerolion
27-10-2008, 05:48
I think the point was that if you want to take your variant army in a really really small mission, then you have to blow a majority of your points on an expensive Special Character to be able to take the other 3 guys you'd be able to afford. This is especially sad for the Ravenwing, who are supposed to be the scouting force, and generally do small-scale encounters, and now just can't.
Basically, it turns the force from being an army in its own right, into being the bodyguard of some character, and they never leave his side.

Warforger
27-10-2008, 05:56
It's the worst when you need the special character to actually play a particular faction. The ravenwing is going on a 500pt patrol mission? Better wake up Sammael, it's not like he has anything better to do. And of course, an Evil Sunz warband can't be mounted on bikes if Wazdakka doesn't leads it.

see that's is what I hate about how the new Marine codex treats customization, I say it should be more like the trait system, where the force itself has a commander who was trained by the famous commander, and are experienced in the tactics. I mean, what happens to the force after the battle where the commander dies? What, like "Oh our commander is dead, guess we won't be using his ways again"

And why does it always have to be a specific company, why can't it be the chapter? I mean Pedro needs to be included to get stubborn and scoring sternguard vets.

DantesInferno
27-10-2008, 05:57
The other big issue for me is that the overusage of Special Characters and the repainting of them to suit whatever army your playing helps even further reduce the narrative elements of the game and kill the roleplaying aspect of it.

So instead of Marneus Calgar, Chapter Master of the Ultramarines only popping up every now and then (as per the old "ask your opponent for permission" days) to Marneus Calgar and his 1,000 Clone Brothers who appear in any small little skirmish.

I don't buy the claim that "counts as" Special Characters reduce the narrative elements of the game. Suppose someone goes out of their way to create their own character for their own Chapter, and this character happens to use the rules for an existing Special Character. I can't see how this could reduce the roleplaying aspect of the game at all.

Inquisitor Engel
27-10-2008, 05:58
Has anyone noticed that Chronus' entry says that he MUST be mounted in a tank? :p Not 'May' or 'if taken.'

But MUST.

Kalec
27-10-2008, 06:01
First, it encourages spamming of under-costed retarded SC units. Lets be honest, most of the SM characters are a little OTT.


Undercosted?

I feel that quite a few of them are priced fairly, and that the problem is the generic characters are too expensive. The chaplain is the biggest offender here. Sure, Cassius is a bargain compared to a chappy, but he is pretty useless outside of a land raider-bound ubersquad of death, which limits his use greatly. Now, if he had a jump pack like Lemartes, or god forbid a bike, then things would be different.

Tiggy does a whole lot, but is very vulnerable. More then twice as much as a basic librarian and just as durable. You could argue that Tiggy does too much, but I can't see him being a whole lot weaker and not being overcosted.

Vulkan and Kantor are powerful, but require a great investment of points to be worth taking. They aren't push overs in combat, but when a daemon prince with wings and warptime costs just 155, these guys are out of their league.

devik
27-10-2008, 06:15
Has anyone noticed that Chronus' entry says that he MUST be mounted in a tank? :p Not 'May' or 'if taken.'

But MUST.

What's your point?

Vaktathi
27-10-2008, 06:21
Undercosted?

I feel that quite a few of them are priced fairly, and that the problem is the generic characters are too expensive. Not all of course are undercosted, but many are, especially the Chapter Master/Captain replacements in the SM codex. Personally I don't find most of the SM HQ's to really be too undercosted, not enough to make a huge difference anyway.


The chaplain is the biggest offender here. Sure, Cassius is a bargain compared to a chappy, but he is pretty useless outside of a land raider-bound ubersquad of death, which limits his use greatly. Now, if he had a jump pack like Lemartes, or god forbid a bike, then things would be different. The same goes for any other non-jump pack or terminator Chappy however.




Vulkan and Kantor are powerful, but require a great investment of points to be worth taking. They aren't push overs in combat, but when a daemon prince with wings and warptime costs just 155, these guys are out of their league. I'd call a match between Vulkan and a DP pretty close to equal, and the value for points to the army as a whole in clear favor of Vulkan. Vulkan is getting hit on 3's and wounded on 2's, but is saving on 3's and can reroll one hit and one wound per turn, and is hitting back on 4's and wounding on 3's. While the DP will have an edge in close combat, it won't be something that you'll likely want to dive your DP right into, especially if its already taken a wound or two, and the benefits Vulkan imparts to the army are pretty impressive. Kantor is similary well equipped, while not as likely to beat off a DP in CC, he's not something you want to have your DP beating on either, and has a pretty impressive abilities, Scoring Elites alone is worth taking him as that can prove to be pivotal, as well as providing additional attacks and an orbital bombardment.

By themselves, they aren't all that great for their points, but the bonus to the army overall, coupled with the fact that you can take them in any army with no restrictions alongside any other characters from any other chapter without restrictions, is kinda silly. Is it legal? Sure. Does it look retarded? Yes.

Lord-Caerolion
27-10-2008, 06:23
I think he's trying to say that by one reading of the rules, if you have a tank, it must have Chronus. Of course, the fact that those words are under the entry for Chronus, rather than a tank, completely ruin that line of thought.

Inquisitor Engel
27-10-2008, 06:25
What's your point?

If read literally, his entry basically says he's a required choice. Period.

devik
27-10-2008, 06:31
If read literally, his entry basically says he's a required choice. Period.

It's a good thing that 40k players have the ability to think critically and make logical interpretations on the rules based on context, right?

...right?

...we're screwed.

Ruleslawyer
27-10-2008, 06:41
No I don't think it will be the end especially if you read some of DA/BA forums. Apparently some consider paint to be WSIWYG.

EmperorEternalXIX
27-10-2008, 06:57
see that's is what I hate about how the new Marine codex treats customization, I say it should be more like the trait system, where the force itself has a commander who was trained by the famous commander, and are experienced in the tactics. ...you know this entire board has been screaming for there to NOT be ANYTHING even remotely resembling a trait system for literally years...right? In fact, I'd bet my right arm popping something like "I hope they do new SM like the Dark Angels dex" in the search will get you hundreds upon hundreds of results, even.

That being said, I really like your idea and think it would be acceptable to both sides of the fence, but we'd then lack the cool wargear and special rules in this regard. Honestly, also... I could see if these changes were implemented one day, I can all too easily see the hypocritical fanbase deciding how lame it is that you have to take a Company Captain with two Power Fists and the "Calgar's Teachings" upgrade instead of just taking Marneus Calgar himself...

Warforger
27-10-2008, 07:18
Well of course, the characters would be more experienced in using the tactics, so they get a more advanced version.

What I don't like is that every special characters armies play differently, while a captains and another captains armies don't. (i.e. every unit is the same)

GW however, seems to be running out of ideas for the Captan to give back to the army, true he has now a better profile, but what about having him give the option of company/chapter tactics, then make it work like the trait system in a way, but without all those extensive options, like Giving devastators infiltrate, while tactical squads and assault squads don't have it. More or so tactical s only because they need the training (tactical marines in new fluff have had plenty of experience while being Assault and Devastator squads).

Heimlich
27-10-2008, 07:28
How are Space Marine characters over the top? With their points costs, I can't see myself taking them too often.

Warforger
27-10-2008, 07:34
Well its not whether or not your going to take them often, it's that there the only HQ that customizes your army, which I don't like and it makes people take characters whose wargear they cannot customize, and a skill that almost fits what they were aiming for. The 4th ed codex at least helped by adding in traits, which made the army customizable without special characters, which I liked, but now they made special characters a must over the normal people. I don't hate special characters, I use them quite often in my BA army, but making them the only way to customize your armies performance is not something I approve.

Gorbad Ironclaw
27-10-2008, 08:42
Would people get this agitated by it if you had the exact same character with the exact same rules, only with a generic title rather than a name?

Ianos
27-10-2008, 09:54
Would people get this agitated by it if you had the exact same character with the exact same rules, only with a generic title rather than a name?

Because they are now forced to pay some extra points to get some extra army-unit advantages, instead of picking whatever they liked (including some very ridiculus bonuses, especially if they would be in 5th ed.).

Shangrila
27-10-2008, 11:47
In the past, rules for certain characters in the Codexes seemed almost too nitpicky, or, at least, they could be easily interpreted by the ultra-strict rules lawyers.
For example, in the old Space Marine codex, the rules stated that you could use Marneus Calgar in an Ultramarines army. If you wanted to make up your own Space Marine Chapter which used strictly Ultramarines rules, and use the Marneus Calgar model painted in the colors of that made-up Chapter and using the Marneus Calgar rules - most people were okay with that, BUT... there was ALWAYS at least one "paintjob nazi" who would throw a fit and all but accuse you of trying to cheat because Marneus Calgar could ONLY be used painted as an Ultramarine, in an army with an Ultramarines paintjob (yes, I actually brought this subject up about a year ago and started a rather interesting and heated discussion/argument over it).


Actually Your wrong. When the Hawk lords came out GW used Shrike with a different scheme (still had all his special rules)
and said its perfectly fine to do that with other characters.



As for me, I will of course be taking advantage of that rule. My Crimson Fists army will have Scout Sargeant Inigo Montoya - The "Scout Sargeant Telion" model with the Ultramarines icons cut off, and painted as a Crimson Fist, complete with the "Sargeant Telion" rules. Sargeant Telion is one of those new models that is just too cool to not have in your army.

Since I already have the Captain Lysander miniature, I can very easily paint him up in Crimson Fists colors with absolutely no modifications whatsoever, since both the Imperial Fists and the Crimson Fists use identical iconography (just different colors).

However theres a difference between chronus/telion being in every ones army and every ones chapter master being a funny colored calgar.




And just for laughs, maybe I will get every single Space Marine Special Character model (from the new Space Marine Codex) and paint them up as Crimson Fists, just to annoy those most hard-headed "paintjob nazis" who may still be out there.

;)

I don't think people care that you have a special character(or three) its that by simply cutting and pasting a character it seems like your are missing then the actual point of the game(Having fun). I mean why repaint the special characters at all? just have Calgar leading the way ultramarine style for your crimson fists. it'd have the same outcome on the game right?


If read literally, his entry basically says he's a required choice. Period.

Its just hes so awesome it'd be heresy to not take him.

pringles978
27-10-2008, 12:04
It's the worst when you need the special character to actually play a particular faction. The ravenwing is going on a 500pt patrol mission? Better wake up Sammael, it's not like he has anything better to do. And of course, an Evil Sunz warband can't be mounted on bikes if Wazdakka doesn't leads it.


agreed. i hate this. at least in the new marine codex if i bike mount my captain i can take bikes as troops. on thread, i play salamanders and yes, im currently converting him to lead my army. however, its a tournament army so i feel justified as fluff takes a back seat in such events. in a freindly game, hes just a captain.

i may be showing my age here, but when i was a lad, my commander was a "special character" because i had background fluff about him, not because of some uber funky rule junk. if i play you in a tourney and i see a crimson fist calgar or an iorn warriors hestan, thats fine, were all here to win, but if i see it in a store/club im not impressed.

Occulto
27-10-2008, 14:26
Don't really have a problem with it. I'm looking at some of those figures and just want to field them because they're that good. I don't think that because people want to paint their Imperial Fists red, that they should miss out on using Lysander.

From an opponent's perspective it's nice to game against them too, either for practice, or simply the fact I'd like to see if my guys can go toe-to-toe with Calgar.

Same goes with any army - yeah, it's annoying to see Eldrad in every second Eldar army but unfortunately, that's the way it happens sometimes.

marv335
27-10-2008, 14:48
It's still funny when I see an Iyanden army with Eldrad and the player is complaining about seeing Pedro painted up as something other than a crimson fist.
Funny how it's cheating when the boot's on the other foot.

Personally, I couldn't care less. The characters are described as archtypes. it's not unreasonable that any chapter could have a master sniper or tank commander.

Bookwrak
27-10-2008, 15:02
If read literally, his entry basically says he's a required choice. Period.
Actually it says nothing of the sort. The only way you can reach that conclusion is if you either take one line of his rules out of context, or have reached the conclusion that character's special rules and conditions apply even if you haven't purchased the character.

Redrivertears
27-10-2008, 15:06
Heya,

Personally I don't think all "Counts As" are equal. And I really don't like the sort of Counts As that the new Space Marine codex is pushing.

Ofcourse, all of the below is purely subjective opinion. But in my view, there's three different kinds of Counts As:

a) Counts As purely on the basis of visual appeal. This is a very "creative" sort of counts as, that has nothing to do with rules at all, but is meant to make the army appear unique. Examples are Necrons modelled with Fantasy skeleton minis, Imperial Guard modelled to resemble Mechanicum Forces, or Chaos Marines given beastmen heads.

b) Counts As to try and use certain models that have unusable or ineffective rules associated with them, due to codex changes or edition changes. Because the rules are constantly changing, some models become hard to use, as the original rules they were written for no longer count. In this case the player uses counts as, because he still wants to use the models, and so has them represent another unit type. An example are Nurglings in a Chaos Marine army. Because they no longer exist, and because Nurglings are put on larger bases then normal lesser daemons are on, a player might decide to use "Count As" and use them as Chaos Spawn instead.

Obviously, there is a fine line to walk here, but the basic idea is that it is done out of love for the models, and continue to be able to place them on the table.

c) Counts As to gain a rules benefit. This has nothing to do with models themselves, but is used simply to get some advantage. And this is where the new Space Marine codex is situated. Using a Space Marine model to represent another Space Marine model, just so that you can get better rules, is an obvious example of this. Using Slaaneshi Noise Marines but calling them Khorne Berserkers is another. So is putting down a Nurgle painted Chaos Lord but then having him "Count As" a Tzeentch one, just so that he has a better invulnerable save.


I fully encourage the first sort of Count As, and I can understand and sympathise with the second. The third however, to me, goes in the face of story, background and narrative, and not something I would encourage people to do.

Does that mean I will refuse to play someone who uses it? No. But I won't really appreciate it either. If that makes me a "Nazi", then so be it.

-Redrivertears-

EVIL INC
27-10-2008, 15:16
To be honest, most SC are way overcosted so they are usually only taken for the coolness value rather then any actual "advantage".
What many people seem to forget is that this is a game where people are meant to have fun. Thier idea of fun usually involves ramming thier fun down someone elses throat.
The "universe" is a large place. There is no one to say that calgar is the ONLY chapter master out of 1000+ chapters who likes to use twin powerfists or that there is more then one powerfull psycher ect and so forth. The person who tells you you cant use a SC under a different name in a different army that uses the same codex cares nothing for the fluff and are just trying to ruin your fun. Should they try to stop you, they are not someone who should be "in the hobby" much less someone you would want to play against.

JackBurton01
27-10-2008, 15:23
I take special character models all the time. I like the models, I paint them up the way I want them. Captain shrike is my Wolf guard assault sergeant. Lysander is my assault terminater sergeant. Not a lot of effort to convert and they look fine. The model is a model use them how you want anything else is silly.

EVIL INC
27-10-2008, 15:34
True, look at the daemon prince situation. Say a person has a tzeentch army but they really like the nurgle daemon prince of nurgle model. Why should they be disallowed to use it as thier daemon prince of tzeentch? The model is the same size and such as any other daemon prince and the person is not trying to use nurgle rules or items with it. There is no logical reason whatsoever to tell the person that they cant use the model beyond trying to gain an unfair advantage over the chaos player.

Again, look at the person who has a tzeentch army AND a nurgle army. They may have a nurgle daemon prince model and it may even be painted as a nurgle daemon prince. I would have no problem with them using it as a tzeentch daemon prince when they use thier tzeentch army. To tell them they cant is simply being an elitist trying to gain an unfair advantage over the chaos player. Not everyone craps gold out of thier rear end. Many players simply do not have the resources to buy 5 daemon princes just so they have one for every occasion and need to have the one or two they have serve double duty. It is not as though the person is trying to give them the bonus on the invulnerable save PLUS the toughness bonus as someone earlier suggested. Not at all. So long as the correct rules are being used for what it is being used as, there is no "trying to gain an advantage" at all whatsoever beyond that of the person telling them they cant do it.

m14xx1
27-10-2008, 16:08
all it does is broaden your ability to develop tactics. i dont see why anyone would care about that.

Peril
27-10-2008, 16:13
Personally, I couldn't care less. The characters are described as archtypes. it's not unreasonable that any chapter could have a master sniper or tank commander.


This! The gamer community should be self policing anyway. If your convictions are so great, do not play such people. If you have no other opponents, then that is the price you pay.

captain ceaser
27-10-2008, 16:24
"Counts As to gain a rules benefit. This has nothing to do with models themselves, but is used simply to get some advantage. And this is where the new Space Marine codex is situated. Using a Space Marine model to represent another Space Marine model, just so that you can get better rules, is an obvious example of this. Using Slaaneshi Noise Marines but calling them Khorne Berserkers is another. So is putting down a Nurgle painted Chaos Lord but then having him "Count As" a Tzeentch one, just so that he has a better invulnerable save."


Thats not what he is trying to do. What he is basically saying is that it doesnt matter if lysander is painted red, black, green, gold, blue, yellow whatever. True Lysander is an IP captain but to say there is not a similar terminator armoured captain with a different name and fluff with a TH and SS who happened to be a drill sergeant or whatever the rules are id mental.

Iv got no problems with it. If Someone wants to paint their marines purple and have a calgar model because they like the model or the rules then fair enough. They have paid the points havent they? It DOES NOT make any difference to the game if the models are painted ultramarines or any other codex chapter.

Is SC overload bad? Agreed i think its kind of lame to use loads of them in the same army, I personnally never use them and i does irritate me to see eldrad in every eldar army because its a no brainer choice to take him. That is a different issue.

Craignum2
27-10-2008, 16:25
Wouldn't a more CC oriented character work better for Inigo Montoya [you killed my father, prepare to die]?

Maybe Scout Sargent Chuck Norris, with a special rule for round house kicks to the face?

- C2

Redrivertears
27-10-2008, 16:38
Thats not what he is trying to do. What he is basically saying is that it doesnt matter if lysander is painted red, black, green, gold, blue, yellow whatever. True Lysander is an IP captain but to say there is not a similar terminator armoured captain with a different name and fluff with a TH and SS who happened to be a drill sergeant or whatever the rules are id mental.


But if any army has him, what's special or unique about him? I thought the entire point about Special Characters was that they're such unique individuals there's only one of them in the entire universe.

For everyone else, we have regular HQ choices.

Now, I understand that some people think its fine. And I respect their position on it. Personally, I would rather that it didn't happen, just like I would rather not see Slaaneshi Sorcerers in Khornate Berserker units, Plaguebearers that count as Thousand Sons, and so on. I don't like seeing Shrike painted up in Blood Angel colors. I don't like seeing Lysander as a Deathwing terminator. And I don't like seeing Pedro Cantor and Sicarius mixed in the same Iron Hands army. Not when there's perfectly valid alternatives available.

But that's just me. Like I said, I wouldn't stop playing against someone else because they did use the rules in this way :)

-Redrivertears-

Eryx_UK
27-10-2008, 16:48
But if any army has him, what's special or unique about him? I thought the entire point about Special Characters was that they're such unique individuals there's only one of them in the entire universe.

For everyone else, we have regular HQ choices.


But then what about those players who are using their own homebrew chapter or army. Why should they go without an SC as an option in their army?

captain ceaser
27-10-2008, 17:18
Agreed, my point exactly. The Sc are archtypes for charcters. LYSANDER is unique, the archtype rock hard termy captain ect ect isnt unique. there are 1000+ chapters chances are similarities will occure. Players shouldnt suffer because they want to be creative and make there own chapter.

DoktorZinieztro
27-10-2008, 17:27
There are some very good reasons for not liking those ideas.

First, it encourages spamming of under-costed retarded SC units. Lets be honest, most of the SM characters are a little OTT.

You are wrong. Playing the mini with the same rules, means you pay the exact points it is listed for in the codex. No room for interpretation... You are just changing a name and creating a chapter, not reducing point costs.

So that assumption is off.


Second, such units are intended to portray a unique and heroic character, spamming them in every list may be legal, but it makes you look like a powergamer and ignorant of the fluff. It cheapens what such characters are there to portray.

Them bull's balls! Fluff in almost NO way affects the games, as has been proven edition after editon with the nerfings, earasings and all... You are debasing, and quite pedantically, deriding other people's enjoyment of the game.

So, really that is NO reason, at all.


While GW has tried to change this, all they have done is further reinforce the above views.

YOUR quite bent views. Because your first "reason" clearly put in you in the camp of RAI, not RAW... and that alone gets many a frown everywhere.


So yes, go ahead, but when people giggle at your army list and go ":rolleyes:" when they have to play you, don't get upset.

Why should they... or you? Isn't the game for FUN? I really don't see any substance in your post for this attitude to be justified.


(also, GW did this with the Eldar codex, the SM codex is nothing new in this regard, I've seen just about every "craftworld" field Eldrad at this point)

How many years have you've been playing? Because for about 21 years or so, I've seen them too, for 5 incarnations of the rules, now.

So, what's your real grudge, huh?

:rolleyes:

DoktorZinieztro
27-10-2008, 17:46
all it does is broaden your ability to develop tactics. i dont see why anyone would care about that.

Because all those that do, well... They "worry" about others having an "unfair" advantage.

You know, to me it all boils down to certain people ranting about being beaten by a "non-fluffetty" army.

Kind of those WAAC types who need everyone else (including GW's studio) to stick to their tactics, so they keep on thrashing people up, maybe?

All in all, it's absolutely silly. I've yet to see any real reason why anyone would complain about "Funny-coloured clones".

If they do, why the heck didn't they burn down the theatres when SW's Trashisodes 1-3 were playing?

Silly, sad lot.

Redrivertears
27-10-2008, 17:52
But then what about those players who are using their own homebrew chapter or army. Why should they go without an SC as an option in their army?

You make a point. But at the same time, I could ask the opposite question: "Why shouldn't they?"

If I chose to play an Ork army, I don't use tyranids in it either. If I chose to play a Dark Eldar army, I don't use Wave Serpents either. If I chose to play a Slaanesh army, I don't use Khorne units either.

So if I chose to play an Iron Hands army, should I use an Ultramarine character?

It's a line we draw somewhere. For some the line is drawn differently then others. But to me, the rules are still meant to represent the background and the story behind them. And in that background, I would like to keep unique characters... well, not only unique, but also tied to their unique background. I still have difficulty seperating the two.

But maybe that's just me trying to cling on to an outdated playing style. It is certainly my impression that GW seems to be moving more and more away from a narrative style of play. And who knows, maybe I'm just lagging behind :)

-Redrivertears-

Nero
27-10-2008, 17:53
But if any army has him, what's special or unique about him? I thought the entire point about Special Characters was that they're such unique individuals there's only one of them in the entire universe.

For everyone else, we have regular HQ choices.

Now, I understand that some people think its fine. And I respect their position on it. Personally, I would rather that it didn't happen, just like I would rather not see Slaaneshi Sorcerers in Khornate Berserker units, Plaguebearers that count as Thousand Sons, and so on. I don't like seeing Shrike painted up in Blood Angel colors. I don't like seeing Lysander as a Deathwing terminator. And I don't like seeing Pedro Cantor and Sicarius mixed in the same Iron Hands army. Not when there's perfectly valid alternatives available.

But that's just me. Like I said, I wouldn't stop playing against someone else because they did use the rules in this way :)

-Redrivertears-

Which is fine with normal SC, except the new C:SM special characters are used to actually represent that chapter!

For example, if you want rules that reflect your custom Salamander successor chapter, you're stuck with Vulkan (yes, you can take normal SM, paint them green and give them lots of flamers, but that's boring). Only you don't want Vulkan leading your army (because they're not Salamanders, they're the Death Lizards of Fiery Fire), you want to use the Chapter Master you created yourself, Buff McManpecs.

So you have to use Vulkan's rules but with a different model. A 'counts-as' Special Character.

Of course, there's problems with this. As you said, it devalues the Special Characters, plus it means people don't get to customise the custom leader of their own custom chapter. Which, to put it mildly, is rucking fetarded and counter to the whole creative vibe that GW themselves push to allow people to come up with their own chapters.

But you can't blame the players for that. Blame GW for taking the traits system, and attaching each trait to a SC. It's such a HORRENDOUSLY BAD idea that it makes me seriously worry about the time and cost I've invested in my current armies.

First it was Icons instead of Marks in C:CSM. Then Special Characters instead of Traits in C:SM. What are GW going to pull next? Tyranid biomorphs chosen by a random dice roll at the start of the game? IG doctrines decided by how many ratlings you take?

arch_inquisitor
27-10-2008, 18:01
And yet another thread devolves into a 'I hate new codex :p ' rant if you don't like the new stuff find a group of friends and play only the old stuff.

The same whiny crap leeches into every thread remotely mentioning new C:SM and it is getting really really old.


Really :cheese:

Edit: I actually thought hey this might be interesting when I read the OP but the progression has just left me shaking my head

captain ceaser
27-10-2008, 18:05
I do agree that if a player uses the "calgar" mold for their chapter master they should really make the effort to create the fluff for their own character but there is nothing wrong with using his rules.

besides if allot of people got their way there would be *even* more UM players simply because they wanted calgar and have to paint him blue for him to operate. I mean its simply impossible for any other chapter to have a skilled tank commander or highly experienced scout sergeant isnt it!?

Redrivertears
27-10-2008, 18:12
For example, if you want rules that reflect your custom Salamander successor chapter, you're stuck with Vulkan (yes, you can take normal SM, paint them green and give them lots of flamers, but that's boring). Only you don't want Vulkan leading your army (because they're not Salamanders, they're the Death Lizards of Fiery Fire), you want to use the Chapter Master you created yourself, Buff McManpecs.


Hmm,

You do make a valid point about successor chapters, which I didn't yet take into account. Tying the army rules to a Special Character does create these sort of problems.

That in turn for me begs the question though, where do you draw the line? A direct successor chapter, sure. But what about someone who decides to make a Salamander/Crimson Fist successor chapter, so he can include both the rules for Salamanders, and Pedro's cool rules?

Is he doing that out of background considerations? Perhaps, but I doubt it.

Either way, I'm sensing a lot of hostility in this thread, so i'll stop posting in it. I do hope to have made a small contribution to showing that things aren't as black and white as some people make them out to be, and that it's not so much about 'trying to police or limit your fellow player', but rather a difference of playing styles and of how we each enjoy the game that might be at the basis of this kind of argument.

-Redrivertears-

DoktorZinieztro
27-10-2008, 18:18
You make a point. But at the same time, I could ask the opposite question: "Why shouldn't they?"

If I chose to play an Ork army, I don't use tyranids in it either. If I chose to play a Dark Eldar army, I don't use Wave Serpents either. If I chose to play a Slaanesh army, I don't use Khorne units either.

Well, you really thought that up, really hard, didn't you?

You know, it reads excessively out of context.

Potatoes, tomates.


So if I chose to play an Iron Hands army, should I use an Ultramarine character?

To keep with your train of thought... Because it's the SAME race, with the same style of warfare and tech level, and the bloody model is so cool you need to have it and only the most anal-retentive types would ever object to your doing so?

As pointed above, this quickly turned into a a not so subtle attempt to disguise the archetypical "I hatez nu codex" threadnapping.

TwilightOdyssey
27-10-2008, 18:24
From what I can gather about this thread, the moral of the story is, You can please some of the people some of the time and Warseer people NONE of the time!

:)

BigEaZyE
27-10-2008, 21:21
Ha, I'm a Paintjob Nazi!

But alas it does not matter anymore because in the new 40K background serves no purpose in terms of the game. Fluff is basically there as something for us to read.

According to GW it's perfectly acceptable for a Slaaneeshi Lord to lead armies of Khorne Berzerkers, Skittle Daemons are the norm and Eldrad leads every single Eldar army and Snikrot commands every single Ork commando unit. Apocalypse goes even further in totally and utterly get ridding of any notions of background.

So using an unmodified Marneus Calgar painted in Ultramarines colours in an Iron Hands army is perfectly acceptable.

This of course is in line with the new mantra of "Do whatever the **** you want as long as you spend money on our product."

It's you and people like you that make me never really want to play in a GW store.

Ever think maybe it's not 'do what you want as long as you spend money and more do what you want as long as you have fun?'

They're not forcing you to buy the new characters, they're just making them available, and for every army. If they wanted to make you spend more then they'd probably say 'you can only use this guy if your army is painted blue' and throw you out of the store if you tried otherwise.

I am seriously glad I only sometimes go in to play with friends to use the terrain because I really don't feel like getting placed with ********** who sacrifice the GAME for FANTASY accuracy.

Seriously, it's a game, people just want to have fun

Supremearchmarshal
27-10-2008, 21:51
They're not forcing you to buy the new characters, they're just making them available, and for every army. If they wanted to make you spend more then they'd probably say 'you can only use this guy if your army is painted blue' and throw you out of the store if you tried otherwise.

No, they're not forcing you to use a particular character in every army. However, if you want to "theme" your army you do have to use a certain special character. I don't really think it's cheesy (except if you simply used your Ultramarines-painted Marneus Clagar in a force of Imperial Fists), but I do think that special characters aren't the best way to represent "themed" armies.

See that little box in the SM Captain entry, the one about the bikes? Adding more such boxes would have been a better solution IMO. Why? Well I for one find it silly that every Raven Guard-themed army must be led by Captain Shrike. Also every chapter that operates in a similar way to the Raven Guard has its Captains armed with two Lightning Claws. Many Chapters are led by a guy who's half-machine and uses 2 alien Power Fists. It becomes even sillier when both armies on the battlefield are led by the same special character.

So why do GW choose to tie in "traits" with special characters? IMO the obvious answer is to sell more special character models (which are expensive).

Madfool2
27-10-2008, 21:55
Count as is good, seriously there is no problem with it.

Warseer: The land where everyone hates, no one quits.

Einholt
27-10-2008, 22:30
Just to play devil's advocate on two fronts brought up earlier.

Someone suggested people who dislike use of special characters because they feel disadvantaged in games vs armies containing them are usually WAAC and only care about winning.

Well true because a WAAC player would not be happy about being beaten by a set of rules on the character and would call it un-fluffy to justify the loss.

But what about when WAAC players spam and abuse SC abilities and then proclaim it as their tactical genius, walking around the store informing everyone of their 23-0 (arbitrary) record, it seems that with these new count as rules such players can justify the use of their characters and not simply as I play them because they are good but in effect claim they are the fluffy player.


The other point is the idea that special characters are archetypes and certainly we can have other marines with their tactical brilliance in other chapters.

Well the marines aren't exactly numerous so if these hero's did exist and there was someone as Glorious as Calgar surely GW would have written about them.

I guess the idea that Calgar is an archetype to me anyway is pretty absurd, Calgar is Calgar his rules are made to reflect HIS story. If they released Primarch Characters, with this archetype train of thought we might end up with multiple Marines with abilities of Russ of Sanguinus or Gulliman. Yet we should from the stories know that there is only one Russ one Sanguinus and One Gulliman and only they possess the skills reflected in their rules. Why is it any different for Eldrad and Calgar?

It may be creative to convert Calgar and paint him differently and come up with different stories for him that inspire, but it is not very creative to steal his skillset and claim "I use his rules for the theme".

Brother Gabriel
27-10-2008, 22:35
I actually dont have a problem with the whole counts as stuff. Since its the only way to play a themed force with the Space Marines.
What would have been way better than forcing us to use specials, is giving the normal choices the options of buying special traits.
Like for example "Master Crafted Hammers and all the Vulkan stuff 30 points" or whatever.
That would have been very nice.
Since right now i dont really know if i want to use my converted Champion of the Emperor with wings and combi plasma and "honour" blade anymore or if i should switch to someone else.
If i could give him something like Shrike has, that would not be a question at all.

DoktorZinieztro
27-10-2008, 22:43
From what I can gather about this thread, the moral of the story is, You can please some of the people some of the time and Warseer people NONE of the time!

:)

This is absolutely rich! You've been sigged!

Maidel
27-10-2008, 22:59
Just to throw in my thoughts.


I dont have an issue with this as a rule. I have never minded people using special characters as 'counts as X' in a different marine army.

However what you have now is the ability to mix and match. Why is it ok to take lysander and calgar, but not dante and ragnar? Sure you can use all the blood angels sc as 'counts as' successor chapter leaders, but you cant mix them in with the other armys commanders.

For me, the issue isnt that you are using commanders from another chapter to represent your own one. My issue is that you get to mix and max in a way that was never possible before.


Two named chapter masters in one army? No problem...


ERm... To me, that is a problem. So for me its not an issue that you can use calgar as the new chapter master of the 'XXXXX chapter' its that you can use shike and calgar in the same army, which to me is game breaking potentially.

Vaktathi
27-10-2008, 23:00
You are wrong. Playing the mini with the same rules, means you pay the exact points it is listed for in the codex. No room for interpretation... You are just changing a name and creating a chapter, not reducing point costs.

So that assumption is off. Where did I say you weren't paying the points listed in the codex :eyebrows:? My positions was that the characters themselves in many instances were undercosted with respect to their abilities and benefits, especially relative to their non-SC counterparts and similar SM HQ's in other books.

Way to miss the point.




Them bull's balls! Fluff in almost NO way affects the games, as has been proven edition after editon with the nerfings, earasings and all... The background in integral to the game as a whole, without it, Warhammer 40,000 wouldn't exist at this point. It's the games background that keeps it going, not the rules.

Are there people who just enjoy playing the game and don't care about the background? Yes. Do they make up the majority of GW's customers? No. Does it bother a good number of players to see rules used for the unique and supposedly once-in a millenia hero Ultramarines Chapter Master in the same army as a captain of the Raven Guard painted in colors and played in a manner that has no bearing on either? Yes.


You are debasing, and quite pedantically, deriding other people's enjoyment of the game. Two points, first, I never said I wouldn't play them. Second, if they just want to take supposedly "unique" characters and ignore the background, that takes away form *MY* enjoyment, and I'm well within my rights to state that.



So, really that is NO reason, at all. See above.




YOUR quite bent views. Because your first "reason" clearly put in you in the camp of RAI, not RAW... and that alone gets many a frown everywhere. Where did I say this was any but my own views? Strawman argument.




Why should they... or you? Isn't the game for FUN? I really don't see any substance in your post for this attitude to be justified. Again, because just tossing stuff into an army list takes away from the narrative part of the game, which is a huge component, and takes away *MY* enjoyment, and I'm sure (by the postings here and many other places, as well as actual experience in stores and playing areas) that I'm not alone.





So, what's your real grudge, huh?

:rolleyes:
Besides that you seem to have taken my post far too seriously and personally than intended (not to mention that it wasn't even in response to anything you wrote) its that people just like to take options without regard to fluff or balance just because they aren't prevented from doing so anymore. Do I have a problem with SC's in general? No. Do I have a problem with them being used without context just to take them? Yes. Will I refuse to play someone just because of that? No, but I will think its silly. If they want to use a different color scheme but still play a "Raven Guard" themed army, that's one thing, if they want to just use Shrike for Fleeting Terminators in an Ultramarines painted army, thats another. For some of the characters, like the Scout guy, which really isn't an SC so much (really a unit upgrade), GW really should have made them a generic "master of the scouts" type thing instead of a very pointedly Ultramarines character, so I don't have as much of a problem with them.

anyway, that's my last post for this thread.

DoktorZinieztro
27-10-2008, 23:24
Just to play devil's advocate on two fronts brought up earlier.

Someone suggested people who dislike use of special characters because they feel disadvantaged in games vs armies containing them are usually WAAC and only care about winning.

Well true because a WAAC player would not be happy about being beaten by a set of rules on the character and would call it un-fluffy to justify the loss.

That was me. And I take it you agree it is too ridiculous a stance.


But what about when WAAC players spam and abuse SC abilities and then proclaim it as their tactical genius, walking around the store informing everyone of their 23-0 (arbitrary) record, it seems that with these new count as rules such players can justify the use of their characters and not simply as I play them because they are good but in effect claim they are the fluffy player.

Said player is still an ****, and he's likely been so without the new SC rulings, so I'd say this hypotetical case of an ****, while probable, does not give any validity to the whining about FCCs (Funny Coloured Clones).


The other point is the idea that special characters are archetypes and certainly we can have other marines with their tactical brilliance in other chapters.

Thus far, I've accepted your reasoning as quite sound until you came up with this gem...


Well the marines aren't exactly numerous so if these hero's did exist and there was someone as Glorious as Calgar surely GW would have written about them.

Why, o, why ruin it by creeping the "officiality" of fluff into your reasoning?

Isn't the point of this thread the ability to come up with a cool new Master for a great new Chapter using a sweet sculpt? Or using the various character models to spice up YOUR chapter, converted or not?

Really, what's with the irrational need to make it "fluff-approved" in order for it to be allowed?

It's in the damned CODEX (boy, picture me... defending the Marines!), so it's OFFICIAL. You don't like it, well I don't like the way Dark Eldar lag or after a cool concept, once the idea got executed--pun intended--it all boiled down to "space pirates with a leather and needles fetish".

But I play them and love to play agaisnt them!... And I don't really like BS2 for the orkz, but hey! I have mine shoot anything in front of them silly, even if they don't kill anyone!

So... Really, "fluff" arguments are the weakest ones for game purposes if you try to justify your petpeeves. Because fluff IS NOT RULES.

Geddovvahrit!


I guess the idea that Calgar is an archetype to me anyway is pretty absurd, Calgar is Calgar his rules are made to reflect HIS story. If they released Primarch Characters, with this archetype train of thought we might end up with multiple Marines with abilities of Russ of Sanguinus or Gulliman. Yet we should from the stories know that there is only one Russ one Sanguinus and One Gulliman and only they possess the skills reflected in their rules. Why is it any different for Eldrad and Calgar?

But, surprisingly we don't see that, do we? Calgar is just ONE example, they "prime" one, if you must, of the many heroes out there. You want to have more official ones, read the novels and have a kick, but do not demand they get rules so the game remains "official".


It may be creative to convert Calgar and paint him differently and come up with different stories for him that inspire, but it is not very creative to steal his skillset and claim "I use his rules for the theme".

Well, if you PAY the points' costs, it OFFICIAL. And since we don't have the breakdown of how GW calculates the points' costs for its toys, IN THE SPIRIT OF FAIRNESS you stick to the next best thing...

USE THE STAT LINE for the given character you want to REPLICATE.

Ah, this one guy called François-Marie Arouet had it right: Le sens commun n'est pas si commun.

"Common sense in not so common".

cailus
27-10-2008, 23:54
But maybe that's just me trying to cling on to an outdated playing style. It is certainly my impression that GW seems to be moving more and more away from a narrative style of play. And who knows, maybe I'm just lagging behind :)

-Redrivertears-

I actually think you have a point. A lot of us older players are used to a more narrative almost role playing approach to gaming. A lot of the younger players have been heavily influenced not only by GW's newer more competitive approach but things like video games which emphasise power combos.


So whereas to you and I, Marneus Calgar and Captain Shrike leading an Imperial Fist army is wrong, to some players it's perfectly acceptable.




See that little box in the SM Captain entry, the one about the bikes? Adding more such boxes would have been a better solution IMO. Why? Well I for one find it silly that every Raven Guard-themed army must be led by Captain Shrike. Also every chapter that operates in a similar way to the Raven Guard has its Captains armed with two Lightning Claws. Many Chapters are led by a guy who's half-machine and uses 2 alien Power Fists. It becomes even sillier when both armies on the battlefield are led by the same special character.

I agree. The little box is a brilliant innovation and should be used more.

And it is getting to the point where the same SC's are being used. Eldrad is a major example but I've seen that Sergeant Tellion is becoming the most popular Marine SC. I can see why...it's a great model and it has cool rules. So now every army will have Tellion running around.



So why do GW choose to tie in "traits" with special characters? IMO the obvious answer is to sell more special character models (which are expensive).

Of course. Prior to this new approach developed in the Dark Angel codexes, Special Characters were becoming relegated to taking up shelf space. Now they're the only way you can play some armies (e.g. Ravenwing, Deathwing).


Count as is good, seriously there is no problem with it.


In my experience counts as has usually been used by powergamers and usually with no attempts at the usage of different models or even painting different schemes.





I guess the idea that Calgar is an archetype to me anyway is pretty absurd, Calgar is Calgar his rules are made to reflect HIS story. If they released Primarch Characters, with this archetype train of thought we might end up with multiple Marines with abilities of Russ of Sanguinus or Gulliman. Yet we should from the stories know that there is only one Russ one Sanguinus and One Gulliman and only they possess the skills reflected in their rules. Why is it any different for Eldrad and Calgar?

It may be creative to convert Calgar and paint him differently and come up with different stories for him that inspire, but it is not very creative to steal his skillset and claim "I use his rules for the theme".


Totally agree.

It's actually more unique to create your own character.

I've had several commanders and Warbosses who used standard profiles but had built up their own way of playing and their own backstories in a much better way than any special character could.





The background in integral to the game as a whole, without it, Warhammer 40,000 wouldn't exist at this point. It's the games background that keeps it going, not the rules.

Are there people who just enjoy playing the game and don't care about the background? Yes. Do they make up the majority of GW's customers? No. Does it bother a good number of players to see rules used for the unique and supposedly once-in a millenia hero Ultramarines Chapter Master in the same army as a captain of the Raven Guard painted in colors and played in a manner that has no bearing on either? Yes.

Two points, first, I never said I wouldn't play them. Second, if they just want to take supposedly "unique" characters and ignore the background, that takes away form *MY* enjoyment, and I'm well within my rights to state that.

Again, because just tossing stuff into an army list takes away from the narrative part of the game, which is a huge component, and takes away *MY* enjoyment, and I'm sure (by the postings here and many other places, as well as actual experience in stores and playing areas) that I'm not alone.

Besides that you seem to have taken my post far too seriously and personally than intended (not to mention that it wasn't even in response to anything you wrote) its that people just like to take options without regard to fluff or balance just because they aren't prevented from doing so anymore. Do I have a problem with SC's in general? No. Do I have a problem with them being used without context just to take them? Yes. Will I refuse to play someone just because of that? No, but I will think its silly. If they want to use a different color scheme but still play a "Raven Guard" themed army, that's one thing, if they want to just use Shrike for Fleeting Terminators in an Ultramarines painted army, thats another. For some of the characters, like the Scout guy, which really isn't an SC so much (really a unit upgrade), GW really should have made them a generic "master of the scouts" type thing instead of a very pointedly Ultramarines character, so I don't have as much of a problem with them.


Again agreed on all counts.

Damocles8
27-10-2008, 23:55
Indeed, Make him Scout Sergeant Fezzik. [I didn't have to miss you know]

Oh oh Scout Sgt. John Clark!!!!

DoktorZinieztro
27-10-2008, 23:59
Where did I say you weren't paying the points listed in the codex :eyebrows:? My positions was that the characters themselves in many instances were undercosted with respect to their abilities and benefits, especially relative to their non-SC counterparts and similar SM HQ's in other books.

Way to miss the point.

You did, really did? Or just thought about it and posted something that did not read like that at all?

And PAST books are gone. They give no validity to the argument. The NEW rules are not about your liking them or your opinion (or the many players you interact with). So, the "undercosting" is really too bland a point.

Mind you, I've been playing since 1987, so over and undercosting Special Characters has always been part of the game and people got over it.


The background in integral to the game as a whole, without it, Warhammer 40,000 wouldn't exist at this point. It's the games background that keeps it going, not the rules.

That's yet another case of different focus: The fluff fills the rules books, and sells NOVELS. The rules is what people use to play. So, besides the summer events every two years, the FLUFF does not rules make.

To you, it's all about the fluff. Great, as for the most part it is for me, too. But when the GAME issues arise, it ALWAYS about the RULES AS WRITTEN, not fluffs-of-fancy dictating what is and what's not nice or reasonable.

You need to deal with that in a sensible matter.


Are there people who just enjoy playing the game and don't care about the background? Yes. Do they make up the majority of GW's customers? No.

You are confusing TWO very different things. Fluff enthusiasts and gamers. I know for a fact that many in Mexico luv them novels, but have not touched so much as one model in their lives... So, yours is a purely subjective view.


Does it bother a good number of players to see rules used for the unique and supposedly once-in a millenia hero Ultramarines Chapter Master in the same army as a captain of the Raven Guard painted in colors and played in a manner that has no bearing on either? Yes.

If it does, the I suggest you take these things a little less seriously... Really, it can't be that bad a thing so as to bother you... Cheating, I understand. But FFCs... please, get out little bit more!


Two points, first, I never said I wouldn't play them. Second, if they just want to take supposedly "unique" characters and ignore the background, that takes away form *MY* enjoyment, and I'm well within my rights to state that.

Simple... If you really are not against playing them, why be bother about their personal CHOICES and their self-made background for their chapters? If they have none, why bother picking a game with them?

To me , this has a pretty straightforward solution.


See above.

And below and I still only find petpeeves, not real reasons.


Where did I say this was any but my own views? Strawman argument.

Where did you say you represented other than your opinions? Hanged man's will, too little too late to clarify.


Again, because just tossing stuff into an army list takes away from the narrative part of the game, which is a huge component, and takes away *MY* enjoyment, and I'm sure (by the postings here and many other places, as well as actual experience in stores and playing areas) that I'm not alone.

Of course you aren't... But that doesn't exactly makes you (any of you) right. Just a group of people who like it as tied to the fluff as possible.

And if you are so into "exact" background, why not drop the silliness of 40K and become historical re-enactors? That's where there is NO room for interpretation, it completely focused on absolute accurracy, and where fidelity to the textbook fluff is crucial.

Everything else is silly.


Besides that you seem to have taken my post far too seriously and personally than intended (not to mention that it wasn't even in response to anything you wrote)

Personal? From someone I don't even know, and in corner sof the interwebz?

C'mon... I was just disagreeing wholeheartedly with you, not taking any offense. This line really just shows me you need a thicker skin, like mine for instance, and taking it easier when dealing with this particular area of the game.


its that people just like to take options without regard to fluff or balance just because they aren't prevented from doing so anymore.

This is the last time I write this: THEY'VE BEEN AROUND, ALWAYS, for there's always LOOPHOLES and many sprung from the FLUFF. So, be attentive and spot them. When you see them coming, just evade and avoid them if they so displease you.

That should take care of ALL you problems about this.


GW really should have made them a generic "master of the scouts" type thing instead of a very pointedly Ultramarines character, so I don't have as much of a problem with them.

Ah, this closing line wins the gold!

Gw should have made the so, just so you didn't have as much of a problem...

How unthoughtful and arrogant on their part, the gits!


anyway, that's my last post for this thread.

Well, that's always your prerrogative, but if you intended it so I did not take the time to have this little exchange of ideas with you, I guess you should have clearly stated it to be so, for I had the time to spare to spar.

Lighten up, it will make you games among the creative players who are not WAAC wackos, the thousands of them, far more enjoyable.

Einholt
28-10-2008, 00:02
Nope Doktor, I didn't find your stance ridiculous in the first point, quite the contrary I just wanted to add the other side to it and I think you summed it up nice, the probable event of my hypothetical example does not change anything about use of SC's it simply points out that they can be used well, and abused just the same. So we are on same level there.


The next part I think you misunderstood in conjunction to the last bit.

I do not have anything against the use of Multi Coloured Clones per say, simply how they are presented to justify their use with respect to the first argument which we agreed upon.

I stand by the idea that Calgar and other SC's however are written in for themed lists and fun, and when you wish to play out scenarios with them. To Clone them does indeed diminish their value or uniqueness.

If someone converts and creates a character using the model and the rules, I see it invasive to the original incarnation of those rules belonging to the Character they were written for. (I think this is our key disagreement) To me they are not Archetypes.

However I must concede that the new trend is such that they really are just another option in the book that helps diversify tactics and army build, and thus they should be available to anyone no matter how their army is painted.

Note though that there is a dual meaning to the SC's the option in the book version makes them into material and rules oriented tools, however I refute the archetype description as clearly they are Named and written in a lore perspective to be unique. IF we are looking for archetype marine commanders, that would be The Commander unit entry.

My problem is not with SC's. (though being a fantasy player Primarily) we do have issues with balance more so then 40K. There is a bias of viewing an army that uses the characters not out of theme but frivolously simply because they are better. Ultimately few can deny that there are too many instances of special characters being way better the the basic alternative. I do not mind facing Eldrad once in a while but theres a problem if the other HQ choices are not around. I guess the solution is to improve normal HQ choice and add customization, but sometimes developers get carried away on SC's and to make comparable HQ choices might result in further imbalance.

Vaktathi put it well when saying, that ultimately he and I have the same problem when we see an army consisting of ultramarines using Shrike for Fleeting Terminators all the while pretending to be ultramarines through and through and Shrike is just "characterful".

It was also mentioned earlier, that it seems like Eldrad is now on every craft world because the player likes that craftworld so much, but they are not willing to part with eldrad or the fact that Wazdakka leads Evil Sunz bikers every time. I guess its somewhat frustrating to see these individuals claim theme but really trying to sit on two chairs (theme and winning) at the same time while adamantly suggesting they are of honorable intention.

Really the bottom line is not whether SC's are used and if they are converted it is how this action is explained by the player.

In relation to the evolved discussion in this thread about opinions. I do not see why it is ok for some people to play with SC's for the intent of winning (not talking about theme and Clones unless the Clone is simply being taken for his rules) and then when someone like myself and Vaktathi voice our displeasure we are labeled Nazi's and trying to control and interfere with the fun of others.

But people who practice these things and interfere with our fun, to be seen as "innocent ones, just trying to have a good time, while the Nazi's bear down and criticize them".

Kalec
28-10-2008, 00:28
Not all of course are undercosted, but many are, especially the Chapter Master/Captain replacements in the SM codex. Personally I don't find most of the SM HQ's to really be too undercosted, not enough to make a huge difference anyway.

The same goes for any other non-jump pack or terminator Chappy however.


I'd call a match between Vulkan and a DP pretty close to equal, and the value for points to the army as a whole in clear favor of Vulkan. Vulkan is getting hit on 3's and wounded on 2's, but is saving on 3's and can reroll one hit and one wound per turn, and is hitting back on 4's and wounding on 3's. While the DP will have an edge in close combat, it won't be something that you'll likely want to dive your DP right into, especially if its already taken a wound or two, and the benefits Vulkan imparts to the army are pretty impressive. Kantor is similary well equipped, while not as likely to beat off a DP in CC, he's not something you want to have your DP beating on either, and has a pretty impressive abilities, Scoring Elites alone is worth taking him as that can prove to be pivotal, as well as providing additional attacks and an orbital bombardment.

By themselves, they aren't all that great for their points, but the bonus to the army overall, coupled with the fact that you can take them in any army with no restrictions alongside any other characters from any other chapter without restrictions, is kinda silly. Is it legal? Sure. Does it look retarded? Yes.

We all know why we never saw commanders under the last dex. They still suffer from the same fundamental flaws that they did then: too expensive for a veteran sergeant with more attacks. They needed to get better, and the new SC's have made them better.

There is a damn good reason why we never saw any footslogging chaplains, because they are almost useless. They fit a very specific niche, riding in a land raider, nothing more and nothing less.

Vulkan beating a DP in combat, while iffy at best (he beats a khorne prince, loses to any other with warp time), is irrelevant. A DP is far more mobile then Vulkan. A winged DP is very, very hard to stop from getting where he wants to go, and hits very hard when he gets there. We aren't going to see marine characters this powerful, so they need to offer other benefits, which they do now.

Do you really think that having a jump pack commander with lightning claws painted red in the same army as a librarian painted red looks retarded because they just so happen to be SC's?

Supremearchmarshal
28-10-2008, 00:39
I actually think you have a point. A lot of us older players are used to a more narrative almost role playing approach to gaming. A lot of the younger players have been heavily influenced not only by GW's newer more competitive approach but things like video games which emphasise power combos.

Interesting observation, I'm inclined to agree. I remember back when I started playing people relied on these power-combos far less than today, and not just in Warhammer. Availability of "cheese-lists" through the internet and the general removal of options also make it far easier to find said combos.


Of course. Prior to this new approach developed in the Dark Angel codexes, Special Characters were becoming relegated to taking up shelf space. Now they're the only way you can play some armies (e.g. Ravenwing, Deathwing).

And what's worse some concepts get completely dropped because of this (as much as I like it, the current Ork codex gives us no good way to play Snakebites or Feral Orks; the CSM codex dropped the sub-lists altogether and missed the golden opportunity to tie legion rules with the special characters).


In my experience counts as has usually been used by powergamers and usually with no attempts at the usage of different models or even painting different schemes.

I think that's a bit harsh. Sure, there are people who use it just to get an advantage, but I've also seen some really cool counts-as armies (a Genestealer cult and Iron Warriors using the new SM codex to name a couple - and they really can't be called cheesy).

In the end, it comes down to the player. If he wants to WAAC, he'll always find a way to do it.


I've had several commanders and Warbosses who used standard profiles but had built up their own way of playing and their own backstories in a much better way than any special character could.


Totally agree. In a longer campaign you can even add a special rule or two to a character that did something particularly memorable.

Madfool2
28-10-2008, 00:39
In my experience counts as has usually been used by powergamers and usually with no attempts at the usage of different models or even painting different schemes.


The key saying is "In my experience".

We all have different experiences, in my experience, the people who have used count as have had a genuine reason that wasn't "I wanna win, screw you".

Hence why I've no problem with it :)

Warforger
28-10-2008, 00:54
In my experience counts as has usually been used by powergamers and usually with no attempts at the usage of different models or even painting different schemes.

So? What would have made them any different if they did use the mode;/chapter of the special character?

DoktorZinieztro
28-10-2008, 01:06
Nope Doktor, I didn't find your stance ridiculous in the first point, quite the contrary I just wanted to add the other side to it and I think you summed it up nice, the probable event of my hypothetical example does not change anything about use of SC's it simply points out that they can be used well, and abused just the same. So we are on same level there.

I meant the stance I mentioned, not mine. So, we agree on that account.

Now ==snip, snip== to...


In relation to the evolved discussion in this thread about opinions. I do not see why it is ok for some people to play with SC's for the intent of winning (not talking about theme and Clones unless the Clone is simply being taken for his rules) and then when someone like myself and Vaktathi voice our displeasure we are labeled Nazi's and trying to control and interfere with the fun of others.

On this I wanted and should have commented earlier. It is a gross and offensive misnomer to label you, or anyone, whaddevah "nazi".

And we both agree that both camps are prone to exaggeration by a few individuals.

I never was, am not and will never be a supporter of powerplayers, but I cannot see why on Earth anyone would object to a mini using rules that all interested parties know and have agreed upon (because that's why you picked the game up in the first place), even if that stretches a bit your ability to suspend belief.

So, if it really is not the extreme cases of powerplayers pretending to be innocet lads just wanting a bit of fun, while hogging all the good things of the Space Marine chapters into their "own", why should you burst a blood vessel?

I am not against people airing their opinions, but petpeeves thrown around as sound reasoning always get me a bit in the mood for debate.


But people who practice these things and interfere with our fun, to be seen as "innocent ones, just trying to have a good time, while the Nazi's bear down and criticize them".

But then, you and me as older players, do really don't give a fig about what others say and usually never play with people we do not like or have a different take on the game that we do.

With age comes wisdom... And far more enjoyable and dear groups to game with.

Orkeosaurus
28-10-2008, 01:13
I think that part of the "everybody wants to use a special character" problem (if you believe there to be one) is that there simply aren't enough options, and quite a few builds happen to be overpriced; chaplains should be cheaper base, and the jump pack upgrade could be more expensive to compensate.

You want a badass terminator captain, but don't play Imperial Fists?
Well, you don't need to take Lysander, because you can make a pretty badass terminator captain with the actual rules for the Space Marine Captain!
That would be quite a bit better in my book. If someone was really dying to have Lysander in their non-Imperial Fists army, they could still paint him red, but it would rarely be necessary because a regular captain would usually be sufficient.

I really do miss the Wargear section some times. It seems like it added more flexibility, even if many of the options weren't actually used. That's not to say you couldn't have sufficient options with the upgrade system of course.

Meriwether
28-10-2008, 01:15
The other big issue for me is that the overusage of Special Characters and the repainting of them to suit whatever army your playing helps even further reduce the narrative elements of the game and kill the roleplaying aspect of it.

I play roleplaying games, and enjoy them greatly. I play wargames, and enjoy them greatly. When playing wargames, I don't give a crap whether or not someone else finds my army 'fluffy'. I care about fair play and consistency, and everyone having a good time. But if somebody needs my *legal* army list to meet their definition of 'fluffy' to have a good time, that's most certainly their problem, and not mine.

Play the game. Have fun. Don't whine.

Army lists are, at least in theory, internally balanced. That includes "special characters". It's about time GW got rid of the stupid restrictions on some army choices, and just let people play whatever they wanted out of any given army list.


It's a good thing that 40k players have the ability to think critically and make logical interpretations on the rules based on context, right?

...right?

...we're screwed.

Siggy siggy sig sig sig.

Meri

Adra
28-10-2008, 01:16
i guess there is nothing wrong with using the SC in other lists but im not a fan at all. Calgar is the Ultramarine Chapter master, his rules are unique to him and thats that. The Bummble Marines dont have a Clagar chapter master because their chapter master would be different. The point of spaecial characters is that they are special....and characters. Not fancy units for anyone to take. SC should always be more about fluff than effectivness. i used to like 40k when u had to ask permission to use SC....that would show em!!!

Einholt
28-10-2008, 01:22
Heh, Yea I suppose you sum it up. I do not really get raving mad, I simply avoid players who tend to abuse the game as a whole and play for fun.

Every once in a while or if not equally to "regular" games I would be up to face SC characters and modified armies just to mix it up.

I suppose my argument was more towards people using Clones or SC's and perading it as something it is not all the while being who they are for their own little pleasure

And this extends beyond those practices to power lists. I do however get upset at people who claim there is no such thing as abuse or "cheese" I realize how loosely that term gets thrown around, but denying its existence and simply saying oh theres no such thing only good players who apparently can handle it and noobs who can't (namely the people pointing it out) makes my blood boil.

Partly because I am not asking to be called a genius or expert in the first place but I do not appreciate being called a noob or novice when I simply adhere to different ethics or tactics that do not match well with powergaming. It is somewhat elitist of me to see myself above it, and the following statement epitomizes this. But frankly I could very well go down to their level and compete, it is just not fun. And if it ain't fun in warhammer I don't have time for it.

They can enjoy it all they like, but do no talk down on my version and then say that I am out of line for pointing out my dislikes of their system.

Sometimes it is funny to let them speak and live in their little world but you know every once in a while you like to speak up and expose these guys.

Btw you're much more of a veteran then me, I do not even consider myself one, so I do not necessarily get the wisdom that comes with age.

cailus
28-10-2008, 01:22
The key saying is "In my experience".

We all have different experiences, in my experience, the people who have used count as have had a genuine reason that wasn't "I wanna win, screw you".

There are indeed genuine reasons to "count as" - test-running new units prior to buying them or building a specifically modelled and painted army based on another list e.g. Ork Deffwing using DA Codex or some totally new race using say Nid or Tau rules.

However the only reason I've seen people use any sort of counts as is to build lists specifically for killing their opponents armies.

All of a sudden all lascannons become heavy bolters, normal IG become Grenadiers to ensure maximising tank numbers in small battles, normal swords become Daemon Weapons (specifically the old 3.5 +2 strength one), and your boring old Space Marine captain becomes Captain Shrike to use fleeting Terminators or whatever. Add in totally unpainted and only partially assembled armies and you have on your hands someone who is totally unejoyable to playt against.

Special Characters are great for building very specific themed armies and for re-playing historical scenarios. However loosening the leash on them has just made them another opportunity to powergame and further diluted the link between the background and the game.

Meriwether
28-10-2008, 01:30
i used to like 40k when u had to ask permission to use SC....that would show em!!!

Apocalypse versus regular 40K. If something is in a codex, then at least in theory everything in that codex is balanced with that thing in mind. Disallowing some parts of an army list based on either (a) paint scheme or (b) other things taken in that army (other than, say, FOC limitations that everyone must abide by) is silly, impractical, and imbalanced.

I'm a big fan of the new paradigm.

Meri

cailus
28-10-2008, 01:33
It's about time GW got rid of the stupid restrictions on some army choices, and just let people play whatever they wanted out of any given army list.

The logical extension is doing away with army lists altogether. GW would do a lot better with sales if you could for example bolster your Marine army with some Carnifexes and Harlequins in a Falcon.

In many ways Apocalypse is the first step to doing this. The slow removal of background driven restrictions also helps this (e.g. no restrictions on SC, dual Warboss/Chaos Lords availability, no restrictions on Chaos intergod alliances etc)..


Personally I want my games to be narrative driven. If I want to play a wargame I play Flames of War (where the lists actually are historical to a degree but I can still field 20 tanks in a single list).

If I want to play a narrative driven game I play 40K. My games are not going to be fun if I'm playing against some implausible hodge podge of Pedro Kantor, Shrike and Tellion all in an "mperial Fists army full of lascannons masquerading as heavy bolters, chainswords as powerfists and all with about 1 model painted, 13 black spray coated models and the rest in grey plastic and only partially assembled. That is just **** and that seems to be the rough standard of many gamer's armies around be it in real life or on the web..

cailus
28-10-2008, 01:38
Apocalypse versus regular 40K. If something is in a codex, then at least in theory everything in that codex is balanced with that thing in mind. Disallowing some parts of an army list based on either (a) paint scheme or (b) other things taken in that army (other than, say, FOC limitations that everyone must abide by) is silly, impractical, and imbalanced.

I'm a big fan of the new paradigm.

Meri

How is it unpractical? It worked ok since 2nd edition?

How is it is silly? See above.

How is it unbalanced?

So you like the new paradgim! Good for you. Some people don't. Good for them.

Also your Marine avatar looks cool. Do you have a link to what the rest of the army looks like?

Drongol
28-10-2008, 01:50
I am, very much, a narrative player. I enjoy having a themed army and do not mind sacrificing some effectiveness in order to do so. I will not put an unpainted, unbased model on the table. I prefer not using Special Characters at all unless it makes thematic sense to do so--Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka happens to lead my 12,000 points (planned) Apocalypse army.

If I'm playing against a Space Marine player who wants to use Shrike in his Hawk Lords army, hey, no worries, especially if my opponent has gone through the trouble of painting his/her army. Combining Shrike with Kantor might have me raising my eyebrow a little in a casual game, but that's about it. Kantor and Calgar, however, and my opponent had better have a darned good reason if he wants the pickup game, but that's mostly because they're two Chapter Masters.

If I'm playing in a tournament, then as long as the list is legal, I can't rightfully complain. However, in a casual setting, I'd prefer to enjoy my game a little more.

Then again, I assume that if I'm playing a casual game, it will be against someone who understands and agrees to my preferences. If there's going to be drama about conflicting interests, then why the heck are we playing in the first place?

Drongol

Lord Inquisitor
28-10-2008, 01:58
Here's my usual theory on special characters, which is that they should be cheaper than regular characters.

A special character typically has no options (or very few). With preset wargear and abilities, they should theorectically be easy to balance.

A generic character has a long list of abilities, and while these should be priced fairly, there are inevitably going to be good combinations and bad. The units have to be priced according to their most effective combo, or they'll be unbalanced. Certain combos just don't work too well together, and they may well be overcosted. Cassius vs normal Chaplain is a good example. He seems an absolute steal compared with a normal chaplain with the same wargear. But then a normal chaplain could take a jump pack, which would make him rather more effective.

Now, none of this means that SCs are necessarily fair and balanced. Just that because they are cheaper in comparison to generics isn't unbalancing per se.

Personally I like the idea of "counts as" characters. I'm going to take Kantor as a Deathwatch Captain (absolutely necessary to make my Deathwatch army idea work at all!) and I might take a different SC too. Ultimately they're all "Space Marine characters", just that they have particular Chapters they are originally associated with.

Shangrila
28-10-2008, 01:58
I am, very much, a narrative player. I enjoy having a themed army and do not mind sacrificing some effectiveness in order to do so. I will not put an unpainted, unbased model on the table. I prefer not using Special Characters at all unless it makes thematic sense to do so--Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka happens to lead my 12,000 points (planned) Apocalypse army.

If I'm playing against a Space Marine player who wants to use Shrike in his Hawk Lords army, hey, no worries, especially if my opponent has gone through the trouble of painting his/her army. Combining Shrike with Kantor might have me raising my eyebrow a little in a casual game, but that's about it. Kantor and Calgar, however, and my opponent had better have a darned good reason if he wants the pickup game, but that's mostly because they're two Chapter Masters.

If I'm playing in a tournament, then as long as the list is legal, I can't rightfully complain. However, in a casual setting, I'd prefer to enjoy my game a little more.

Then again, I assume that if I'm playing a casual game, it will be against someone who understands and agrees to my preferences. If there's going to be drama about conflicting interests, then why the heck are we playing in the first place?

Drongol

I agree with you. I mean If someones playing chaos and they have both Abbadon and Typhus in one army at 1500 points it just seems very convenient you know?

Meriwether
28-10-2008, 02:00
The logical extension is doing away with army lists altogether.

Untrue. Different armies with different flavors and different methods of balance are one of the major strengths of 40K. There is nothing wrong with an _internally balanced_ army list that cannot be combined with other _internally balanced army lists (without discussing with your opponent -- in which case you can do anything because it's a frikkin' game for crying out loud). This makes some very interesting differences in armies, while keeping the overall game reasonably balanced.

Doing away with army lists altogether would destroy much of what makes 40K a cool game.


How is it unpractical? It worked ok since 2nd edition?

It worked? You mean, in the sense that nobody ever used special characters of any kind in anything approaching a competitive environment, they were outright banned in tournaments, and they sold for _s**t_ except for the collectors? I've been playing this silly game for 21 years, and have rarely faced 'special characters' in any kind of competitive environment until relatively recently.


How is it is silly?

Do you mean competitively, or from a marketing standpoint? The question has different answers based on which question you're asking, but I assure you that it's not as rhetorical as you seem to want it to be.


How is it unbalanced?

Forbidding or including special characters comes with points costing for everything else in the army. If they are 'normally included' it means one thing must be done. If they are 'normally excluded' it means another. It may or may not be balanced, depending on how special characters are treated by the game design teams.


So you like the new paradgim! Good for you. Some people don't. Good for them.

Woot. We agree.


Also your Marine avatar looks cool. Do you have a link to what the rest of the army looks like?

Um, sixty of the same, plus six rhinos? I have one dready and six drop pods partially painted, but without the full flamy goodness, and have no HQ or HS done. I'll get to them eventually. I can take a picture of what I have done if you really want one.

(For the record, I stole the paint scheme blatantly from something I saw for a power weapon in a WD a couple of years ago. I'm glad you like it, but it isn't originally my idea.)

Meri

cailus
28-10-2008, 02:15
If there's going to be drama about conflicting interests, then why the heck are we playing in the first place?

Drongol

From a personal perspective I'd say that to a degree the conflicting interests of players have been doing damage to the gaming community for a long time now and they're only getting worse.

At my first club (3rd edition) the game was dominated by powergamers who played with unpainted and proxied armies designed to win. The few players that had painted armies and adhered to background stopped playing and the club went under as the powergamers got tired of playing against the same crowd.

My second club is from 4th edition on and there's two different core groups of 40K players: veterans who play based on fluff with painted armies (in decline due to perceived superiority of other systems), younger players (mainly unpainted armies with no regards for background).

Generally the two do not play against one another. There are no true powergamers left though they used to play almost exclusively against the younger players.

I suspect the second group will win out simply because they're younger and don't have any experience of 1st, 2nd or even 3rd edition 40K. So playing with an unpainted, partially assembled army whose list does not match any of the established fluff is becoming the norm.

With GW removing background from the rules, this sort of gaming will continue to expand.

Occulto
28-10-2008, 02:18
The logical extension is doing away with army lists altogether. GW would do a lot better with sales if you could for example bolster your Marine army with some Carnifexes and Harlequins in a Falcon.

I didn't see him argue that at all. You're just using a slippery slope argument.


In many ways Apocalypse is the first step to doing this. The slow removal of background driven restrictions also helps this (e.g. no restrictions on SC, dual Warboss/Chaos Lords availability, no restrictions on Chaos intergod alliances etc)..

Probably because the entire game's based around opponent's permission. Much easier to place the onus on gamers to police their own games, than try to publish restrictions for every possible combination that might be considered "wrong."

In multiplayer games in particular, the restrictions you mention are just an impediment:

Three players turn up to a mega game with legal Ork lists, but only one can use their warboss figure? Where's the logic in that?


Personally I want my games to be narrative driven. If I want to play a wargame I play Flames of War (where the lists actually are historical to a degree but I can still field 20 tanks in a single list).

Other players simply don't give a s*** about narrative - as is their choice. It's the beauty of flexible rules.


If I want to play a narrative driven game I play 40K. My games are not going to be fun if I'm playing against some implausible hodge podge of Pedro Kantor, Shrike and Tellion all in an "mperial Fists army full of lascannons masquerading as heavy bolters, chainswords as powerfists and all with about 1 model painted, 13 black spray coated models and the rest in grey plastic and only partially assembled. That is just **** and that seems to be the rough standard of many gamer's armies around be it in real life or on the web..

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

cailus
28-10-2008, 02:26
I didn't see him argue that at all. You're just using a slippery slope argument.

No but it's the logical extension of a "hey use whatever minis you like." Precedents are there too - 2nd edition allies, Apocalypse, slow removal of restrictions.



Three players turn up to a mega game with legal Ork lists, but only one can use their warboss figure? Where's the logic in that?

If you look at what each points level represents, then 3 warbosses makes sense at say 10,000 points. I do hope that the players decide who is the ultimate warboss and who are the lieutenants, preferably with a pre-game slugfest - last standing Boss wins!

But 1,500 is a small engagement and even within the context of a larger battle it still makes no background sense to have 2 warbosses leading the same small detachment.




Other players simply don't give a s*** about narrative - as is their choice. It's the beauty of flexible rules.

This is true.

And the beauty is that I get to pick and chose whom I game with.

The sad thing at my local gaming setting is that all the non-narrative players get to play their dull Marine versus Marine training exercises with the occassional Chaos or Tau encounter, while the us few remaining veterans get to game against Orks, Eldar, Chaos, Nids, Necrons etc.

Orkeosaurus
28-10-2008, 02:31
Here's my usual theory on special characters, which is that they should be cheaper than regular characters.

A special character typically has no options (or very few). With preset wargear and abilities, they should theorectically be easy to balance.

A generic character has a long list of abilities, and while these should be priced fairly, there are inevitably going to be good combinations and bad. The units have to be priced according to their most effective combo, or they'll be unbalanced. Certain combos just don't work too well together, and they may well be overcosted. Cassius vs normal Chaplain is a good example. He seems an absolute steal compared with a normal chaplain with the same wargear. But then a normal chaplain could take a jump pack, which would make him rather more effective.

I would mostly disagree with you here. Generic characters don't usually have that many variables, and many of their options are actually very similar to one another; lightning claws are a better version of power weaopn, a chainfist is a powerfist with tank killing ability, etc.

What would be unbalenced about making the chaplain 10 points cheaper and the jumpack 10 points more expensive? (Note that I don't actually have the new SM codex with me, so I'm sort of estimating the point difference). Looking at the different builds a Space Marine commander is nothing compared the combonations in the Space Marine army list, but Games Workshop is usually able to stop the most overpowered combonations from being used.

To use your Cassius vs a regular Chaplain example, I think it would make more sense for a chaplain without a jump pack to be as effective (for the points) as Cassius, and a chaplain with a jump pack to also be as effective, point for point, as Cassius is. This might require a little more playtesting, but there shouldn't be too many differences to account for (the options are nearly all close combat weapons, armor, invulnerable saves, and movement).

Occulto
28-10-2008, 02:57
No but it's the logical extension of a "hey use whatever minis you like." Precedents are there too - 2nd edition allies, Apocalypse, slow removal of restrictions.

It's in no way logical. It's merely taking a simple (and IMHO reasonably valid) concept and extending it to illogical conclusions. Textbook slippery slope fallacy.

Removing a 0-1 restriction can be just that. It's a very large leap to take it as a sign we'll all be able to start taking falcons with Nids.


If you look at what each points level represents, then 3 warbosses makes sense at say 10,000 points. I do hope that the players decide who is the ultimate warboss and who are the lieutenants, preferably with a pre-game slugfest - last standing Boss wins!

But 1,500 is a small engagement and even within the context of a larger battle it still makes no background sense to have 2 warbosses leading the same small detachment.

In this case, sense is trumped by practicality. Telling an Ork player that they can't field their HQ, just because someone doesn't like how that ties in with the fluff is ridiculous.


This is true.

And the beauty is that I get to pick and chose whom I game with.

Precisely. So if someone wants to mix Slaanesh and Khorne in the same army, it's not exactly going to affect your gaming because you won't play them. There's no need to bemoan the loss of rules like Chaos rivalries.

The problem I have with adding excessive numbers of rules/restrictions is how interesting ideas get canned along with the power gaming uber-combos. If an Iron Hands player wants to use Chronos to represent a grizzled veteran tank commander, that's not going to destroy the game. But said player wouldn't be able to do it if a restriction came in saying: "Chronos can only be taken in an army painted UM blue."


The sad thing at my local gaming setting is that all the non-narrative players get to play their dull Marine versus Marine training exercises with the occassional Chaos or Tau encounter, while the us few remaining veterans get to game against Orks, Eldar, Chaos, Nids, Necrons etc.

You think Marine vs Marine is dull, but obviously those players don't. Otherwise, they'd stop playing.

I dunno man, it sounds a lot like: "I want the rules changed so more opponents play the way I want them to."

Meriwether
28-10-2008, 02:57
No but it's the logical extension of a "hey use whatever minis you like." Precedents are there too - 2nd edition allies, Apocalypse, slow removal of restrictions.

Argumentum ad absurdium only works if the person you're arguing against has gone there. Which I haven't. What I said is that a particular codex should be a self-inclusive army list that is consistent and balanced within that list.

You give the game designers too little credit when they say that they intentionally designed these "special characters" to fill the role in any of a number of different armies. It is clearly their intent, and that you don't like it doesn't make the rest of us jerks.


The sad thing at my local gaming setting is that all the non-narrative players get to play their dull Marine versus Marine training exercises with the occassional Chaos or Tau encounter, while the us few remaining veterans get to game against Orks, Eldar, Chaos, Nids, Necrons etc.

Bah. I play seven different armies. Your stereotyping of some schmucks doesn't make me a schmuck, nor does it make me wrong. Your 'remaining veterans' comment is *at best* elitist, and can easily be interpreted as rank bigotry against relative newcomers to the hobby. I've been playing GW games for 21 years, and there are as many 'veteran' ***holes as there are 'noob' ***holes. Bah, I say.

That you are surrounded by cheesy jerks does not make the rest of us cheesy jerks. I own seven armies, only two of which are MEQs. (Orks, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Chaos EC, Daemons, Marines, and most recently Guard). Your characterization is both false and uncalled for. Furthermore, it betrays your prejudices -- never pretty.

Meri

DoktorZinieztro
28-10-2008, 03:25
There are no true powergamers left though they used to play almost exclusively against the younger players.

Typical gits, the lot of them. These ones, I really, really despise. It's the equivalent of hitting a baby after it pulled your hair, and calling it fair because they "started it".

I believe this is the true nature of most powergamers... Just cowardly nerds (even if they pump iron and listen to brutal metal) who only prey on the young and "inexperienced".

Good thing they get spotted, dotted, feathered and ignored pretty quickly.


With GW removing background from the rules, this sort of gaming will continue to expand.

Hmmm, a half truth there, Senator McCa... I mean, they are not. They have one pocket version with only rules, and the absolutterly luvverly hardback fulla background and fluffy bitz and NO DAGNABINN' MENTION OF THE FERKIN' C'TAN WHADDSOEVAH! :mad:

:D

Sure, some boys are just staring out and use the pocketbook, but they will grow to read their first short stories and then... one day will wade through the "big book o' rules" and they'll be shown a different way.

Really, the videogame mentality of "immediate satisfaction powagamin'" wears out pretty quickly, or the "offenders" move to the next big thing or just sit in front of the screen playing WoW...

While the rest of us prevail. ;)

cailus
28-10-2008, 03:30
Removing a 0-1 restriction can be just that. It's a very large leap to take it as a sign we'll all be able to start taking falcons with Nids.

Though the latter is acceptable in Apocalypse. GW is setting precedents.



In this case, sense is trumped by practicality. Telling an Ork player that they can't field their HQ, just because someone doesn't like how that ties in with the fluff is ridiculous.

It's also ridiculous that you can only field 1 Marneus Calgar type character yet multiple warbosses. GW could easily have added the Unique ruling to Warbosses or get rid of the Unique ruling at all. If Marneus is a mere upgraded Master then why the 0-1 limit, especially if you can field multiple chapter masters.

And if GW had done that you and a lot of others would have defended this ans stated that of course a limitation on SC's is ridiculous or that it's perfectly acceptable for Warbosses to be 0-1. If GW said that you had to take Marneus Calgar that would've been viewed as acceptable too.




Precisely. So if someone wants to mix Slaanesh and Khorne in the same army, it's not exactly going to affect your gaming because you won't play them. There's no need to bemoan the loss of rules like Chaos rivalries.

It does affect gaming as I will not play against these players - that means lower numnbers of opponents for me and for them. As stated my 40k gaming group is split. Interestingly enough there are no such splits in Fantasy or FoW.



The problem I have with adding excessive numbers of rules/restrictions is how interesting ideas get canned along with the power gaming uber-combos. If an Iron Hands player wants to use Chronos to represent a grizzled veteran tank commander, that's not going to destroy the game. But said player wouldn't be able to do it if a restriction came in saying: "Chronos can only be taken in an army painted UM blue."

I'd much prefer if Chronos could only be used in Ultramarine blue as he is a named Ultramarine character.

By the way someone mentioned the idea of using the little insert boxes to add for additional upgrades. This idea actually allows for a lot more flexibility than the named characters.

This would separate named Special Characters while adding a lot more flavour to the game.



You think Marine vs Marine is dull, but obviously those players don't. Otherwise, they'd stop playing.

All the more power to them.


I dunno man, it sounds a lot like: "I want the rules changed so more opponents play the way I want them to."

Yup, that's exactly what I want. I want 40K to be more narrative driven.





You give the game designers too little credit when they say that they intentionally designed these "special characters" to fill the role in any of a number of different armies. It is clearly their intent, and that you don't like it doesn't make the rest of us jerks.

I do give them enough credit. After all these are the same people that allow such background violations as Slaaneeshi Lords with Lash of Sumission leading Khorne Berzerkers. And I have seen such armies - one had a Slaaneeshi lord hanging out with Kharne.

And no, the rest of you are not jerks.


Your 'remaining veterans' comment is *at best* elitist, and can easily be interpreted as rank bigotry against relative newcomers to the hobby.

I totally agree that I'm an elitist. Most of the vets at my local have the same idea abouyt whom they play - "if you want to play with the big boys, you have to at least paint your army. Armies whose perpetual state is Plastic Grey and powergamers need not apply."

It's the notion of the fact the game goes two ways. Not only does my opponent have to enjoy but I do to. There seems to be some preconceived notion that people should do whatever the hell they like and that people who don't like it should shut up and put up with it.

Well I and the vets at my club chose not to. We do it our way. After all GW do say "it's your hobby."



Your characterization is both false and uncalled for. Furthermore, it betrays your prejudices -- never pretty.

Meri

I never accussed you of anything. I always stated that my examples were from my own personal experiences and some observations on the internet.

And why is it so bad to have prejudices? I never understood the Western obsession with not allowing that basic human behaviour.

cailus
28-10-2008, 03:39
Hmmm, a half truth there, Senator McCa... I mean, they are not. They have one pocket version with only rules, and the absolutterly luvverly hardback fulla background and fluffy bitz and NO DAGNABINN' MENTION OF THE FERKIN' C'TAN WHADDSOEVAH! :mad:

The Codexes are full of background too but it seems to play less of a role in the game.

It used to be "Orks are hierarchical creatures where the right of mgiht rules the day. Orks will fight until one leader comes out on top" Rules effect: 1 Warboss.

The background stays the same but the new rule is 0-2 Warbosses.

The background is "Slaaneesh and Khorne don't get along, neither do Nurgle and Tzeentch." Rules effect: Limit on usage of these different mark types.

New rules: Anything goes.

Background is "Marneus Calgar is the head of the Ultramarines yadadada." Rules effect: "Marneus can only be used in games of over X amount of points and requires opponents permission."

New rule set: Use Marneus whenever you like and with what ever colour you like.




Really, the videogame mentality of "immediate satisfaction powagamin'"

To a degree you are right. Out of the latest crop of players that have started at my local in the last 2 or so years, one or two have developed nicely painted armies and get games with the vets. The rest continue with their motely assorted of unpainted, partially assembled bundles of grey plastic.

I actually think that this is why a lot of new players don't paint their armies either. It takes too much time and there's no instant gratification. I think GW would make a mint by selling pre-painted models.

I think it's also why they're not interested in campaigns or non-standard scenarios.

DoktorZinieztro
28-10-2008, 03:41
Sound judgements, go for 'em, Cailus... But prejudices might end up stopping you from getting to know or experiencing something definitely worth your time.

And the fact is basic human behaviour does not making right; it just makes it common.

But, as far making 40K narrative... Go for it, it YOUR hobby. Just don't DEMAND everyone else goes for it, too.

Still, I do hope your vet club has plenty of members, or you will eventually get bored of playing against same 10 mooks on a weekly basis, no matter how many armies each one of youhave.

I've seen it happen among "fellow" gamers in my city. Even while I had fun, it just got stale after a while, no mater how much scenearios (fluff) we threw around.

Groups that are not open to newcomers, tend to die out pretty quickly, me thinks.

Kalec
28-10-2008, 04:28
I totally agree that I'm an elitist. Most of the vets at my local have the same idea abouyt whom they play - "if you want to play with the big boys, you have to at least paint your army. Armies whose perpetual state is Plastic Grey and powergamers need not apply."

It's the notion of the fact the game goes two ways. Not only does my opponent have to enjoy but I do to. There seems to be some preconceived notion that people should do whatever the hell they like and that people who don't like it should shut up and put up with it.


Interesting, interesting.

Just how many players has your elitist method of treating them as inferior forms of life because they didn't paint their plastic toy soldiers converted to your side anyway?

And I suppose that telling people they shouldn't be using their plastic toy soldiers in a perfectly legal manner because you don't like it is fine, and in no way infringes on your opponents enjoyment of the game?


i used to like 40k when u had to ask permission to use SC....that would show em!!!

It sure did. No one ever powergamed, ever, when special characters were permission only.

I sure loved playing against marine armies that either took dual FoTD drop-pod librarians, or a chaplain leading terminators/assault marines. It sucks seeing so many different HQ's in marine armies now that SC's are actually usable for everyone. I die a little every time I see someone run an armylist that is only viable because of the new special characters instead of the delightfully fun las/plas assaultcannon gunline.

The Base
28-10-2008, 05:05
One of the driving forces when they made Apoc. was that you couldn't really play SC because they point cost and rule restrictions were too high.

So they seem to have dropped one of the negatives recently. It makes sense.

DoktorZinieztro
28-10-2008, 05:06
It sure did. No one ever powergamed, ever, when special characters were permission only.

Excuse me, but that's untrue. The term "cheese" was coined after this practice... After HeroHammer 40k was "toned down" during 3rd. edition, you could find all kinds of goofy min/max lists.

Then, does anyone remember the Iron Lords during the Chaos SM Codex's heyday for 4th Ed.? Anyone?

Argh! Dis damned yun' 'uns! No interezt in Hiztory or rezpect for der elderz! :D

szlachcic
28-10-2008, 05:06
I sure loved playing against marine armies that either took dual FoTD drop-pod librarians, or a chaplain leading terminators/assault marines. It sucks seeing so many different HQ's in marine armies now that SC's are actually usable for everyone. I die a little every time I see someone run an armylist that is only viable because of the new special characters instead of the delightfully fun las/plas assaultcannon gunline.

While I can see the other side of the argument I am going to have to agree with Kalec (after I made sure I wasn't choking on the sarcasm, j/k ;)). I can see how some people may get mad at seeing SCs in more armies than not, but I feel that with the amount they are putting in the new books and especially how the Space Marine characters can affect the entire army really helps enforce the background of the game, not hurt it.

Personally, I was inspired to start a Crimson Fists army led by Pedro Kantor. I have always liked the Fists' background and really liked the new Kantor and Sternguard models so it was a easy choice for me. I also don't see a problem with someone that wishes to use him in a non-Fist Chapter as long as he has the iconography taken off and has the correct paint job.

Granted, I don't game much in stores and the like so I am probably not as jaded as some others. My group is pretty close knit and we generally run lists that make sense within the background. I can understand people complaining about unpainted armies and the use of certain characters for power gaming, but that doesn't mean that everyone uses them that way and I for one am glad the option is there.

cailus
28-10-2008, 05:20
And I suppose that telling people they shouldn't be using their plastic toy soldiers in a perfectly legal manner because you don't like it is fine, and in no way infringes on your opponents enjoyment of the game?

Nice assumption.

We never told people they shouldn't be using their armies because they're unpainted or using dodgy lists (except the Kharne + Slaaneesh list whom we did bag out - player learned by himself when said Slaaneeshi sorceror manage to kill himself through 2 failed Perils of the Warp and then a plasma pistol malfunction).

We tried getting people to paint with proposed painting days, painting lessons by better painters, tournaments etc etc.

Basically what it comes down to, is that we simply don't ask each other to play.



I sure loved playing against marine armies that either took dual FoTD drop-pod librarians, or a chaplain leading terminators/assault marines. It sucks seeing so many different HQ's in marine armies now that SC's are actually usable for everyone. I die a little every time I see someone run an armylist that is only viable because of the new special characters instead of the delightfully fun las/plas assaultcannon gunline.

Wow such wit.

In about 4 years time when they release a 6th edition Marine codex, you will be here telling us that the new changes are so necessary to promote variety and get away from the Pedro/Tellion/Sternguard/whatever else rocks combos.

For all the supposed variety in 40K, not much of it gets used. With the new Marine codex, it seems that Tellion is already the norm in many new lists. Pedro seems to be coming a close second.

It's the way of 40K - only the most powerful options will get used. This is why Dark Angels codex was so stripped down - it tried to balance the lists to make everything useful.

Warpcrafter
28-10-2008, 06:25
If they would have kept all the trivial but characterful bits of wargear and special skills and other stuff from previous editions, people could make up their own interesting characters and they would be encouraged to convert a model for said character to make it WYSIWYG. That way, you've have more of a connection to your little soldiers, rather than just chuckling evilly while you throw all sort of barely relevent tournament-winning recipies together.

holmcross
28-10-2008, 08:13
I prefer lists to stay true to the fluff. For every 1 well-painted original army with a decent background story, you have 50 chapters of "The Dark Knights" (black spray painted space marines with red eyes) with 'Calgar the Black' leading the charge.

I'm not a fan of the new rules with special characters, but I'd never whine about somebody's list while playing them. I'd just prefer they put in an effort to make their army presentable and within the story that makes 40k so appealing.

synapse
28-10-2008, 08:55
i think what alot of people here are missing is theres a big difference to using, say, marneus calgars model and rules in an iron hands army; and, using marneus calgars rules and a fully converted model re[presenting him thats fits in more with the iron hands imagery. i have no problem with either, but i feel obliged to disagree with people who dont like the latter option - if someone went out of their way to convert a unique model with twin power fists and stormboltes attached to the fists, i see no reason why he cant use the marneus calgar rules even if its not a marine army (for one its 100% legal, and 2; terminator characters dont ahve the option for twin power fists:( so thats the only way to get them)

Shangrila
28-10-2008, 10:12
i think what alot of people here are missing is theres a big difference to using, say, marneus calgars model and rules in an iron hands army; and, using marneus calgars rules and a fully converted model re[presenting him thats fits in more with the iron hands imagery. i have no problem with either, but i feel obliged to disagree with people who dont like the latter option - if someone went out of their way to convert a unique model with twin power fists and stormboltes attached to the fists, i see no reason why he cant use the marneus calgar rules even if its not a marine army (for one its 100% legal, and 2; terminator characters dont ahve the option for twin power fists:( so thats the only way to get them)



I think people are pissed because some don't take the time to convert/create leaders and just copy and paste someone else s.

Drongol
28-10-2008, 13:03
i think what alot of people here are missing is theres a big difference to using, say, marneus calgars model and rules in an iron hands army; and, using marneus calgars rules and a fully converted model re[presenting him thats fits in more with the iron hands imagery. i have no problem with either, but i feel obliged to disagree with people who dont like the latter option - if someone went out of their way to convert a unique model with twin power fists and stormboltes attached to the fists, i see no reason why he cant use the marneus calgar rules even if its not a marine army (for one its 100% legal, and 2; terminator characters dont ahve the option for twin power fists:( so thats the only way to get them)

Sorry, sir, but you're using a tiny little outlier to justify a practice that, while legal, just isn't cricket, mate.

A converted model to represent Calgar would never be a problem in a non-Ultamarines force (although personally, I don't see why anyone would take him myself). I highly doubt anyone would take issue with someone for making a good-looking model to represent an Iron Hands Calgar/Cantor/Whatever.

However, what's far more likely is a bare metal, unconverted character plunked down amongst the grey plastic. And that, in and of itself, is a tragedy.

Yeah, yeah, I know, converting and painting aren't some people's bag, baby. That's entirely their right, and bully for them if they want to play with an unpainted army for umpteen years. I'm sure they'll have lots of fun playing against the Grey and Metallic Legions of Lord Whatsisface--I'll be over at the table with two fully painted armies and some darn nice scenery. Makes it more narrative, don'tchaknow?

Seriously, though, I've found that the simple act of painting an army forces someone to take the fluff into account. An unpainted army, no matter the intentions of the owner, is never finished. Once the paint's dry and the little bits of rock and flock and static grass have dried, you don't have a collection of little plastic toys any more. You have an army.

There's a lot to be said for that, even if you're not the best painter in the world.

Drongol

eek107
28-10-2008, 14:26
The way I see it (and from how I'm reading the little box on p127, GW do too) is that they're not so much the Special Characters of old days, rather they're a bunch of Captains/Chaplains/whatever with pre-selected gear and a couple of fancy rules, along with a single suggested name and theme. I really don't think it's worth anyone getting their knickers in a twist about. So what if they choose their leader for the rules and bonuses? Isn't that what we all do to a certain extent? Powergamers, fluff nuts, and everyone in between will choose units based on how their abilities on the table match the concept they're aiming for with the army, whether it be for background, game-winning or (probably most often) a mix of the two.

captain ceaser
28-10-2008, 14:30
"I guess the idea that Calgar is an archetype to me anyway is pretty absurd, Calgar is Calgar his rules are made to reflect HIS story. If they released Primarch Characters, with this archetype train of thought we might end up with multiple Marines with abilities of Russ of Sanguinus or Gulliman. Yet we should from the stories know that there is only one Russ one Sanguinus and One Gulliman and only they possess the skills reflected in their rules. Why is it any different for Eldrad and Calgar?"

Because the Primarchs were 20(21) individuals who were specifically created to have certain abilities and each have certain characteristics of the emperor. Calgar is a marine, albeit a very hard and famous one but a marine none the less. There are approx 1000000 marines and to claim that no 2 marines could even be so similar as to use the same in game profile is ludicres. Afterall dont all space marine tac squads have the same stat lines and each of those is a unique person? The fluff stories are abound with certain marines being stronger than others and certain ones being faster and yet all those thousands of tac marines are exactly the same? So i think it is perfectly reasonable to have Calgar and a dood in black armour usinf 2 powerfists who happens to be a hihly experienced warrior who can lead his brethren.

Thud
28-10-2008, 14:50
Forgive me father, for I have sinned. It has been three weeks since my last confession.

You understand, father, I like the idea of a large terminator guy running around with two powerfists and a special character driving tanks, so I take Marneus Calgar and Antaro Chronus for my Space Marine army. But,forgive me father, I think blue space marines look like poo. So I decided I'd just paint them grey instead. Then the devil took a hold of me! Father, I added a wolf pelt here and there. And I called my chapter Sons of Russ. Tell me, father, what should I do? Now, every time I go down to the local club to play games, every one curses me for not painting my miniature soldiers blue. Please, father, give me guidance!


Get a grip. :rolleyes:

captain ceaser
28-10-2008, 15:07
@ Thud

Awesome

IJW
28-10-2008, 15:12
@ Thud

Awesome
Agreed. :)

Meriwether
28-10-2008, 15:35
Thud wins the internet.

Brother Gabriel
28-10-2008, 15:38
Go Thud Go! :D

The Clairvoyant
28-10-2008, 16:29
Excuse my ignorance, calgar has terminator armour now?

That'll teach me to be away from 40k for a while! Who says the story of 40k hasn't moved on?!

captain ceaser
28-10-2008, 16:41
lol how long have you been away!? hes had the option for a long time now.

Madfool2
28-10-2008, 16:45
Thread winner = Thud.


Now we can all sleep easy :P

DoktorZinieztro
28-10-2008, 16:56
But then again... With the restructuring of the Bitz service, getting the pieces for making cool conversions to represent the wide variety of options from the wargear lists, would have been a nightmare for GW, and many of us.

@Cailus: I think he said he DISLIKED all the new options and the packmentality leading to SC soopahcombos, man.

About the DA codex... I can see some reason for the stripping down... What good is chapter if you have to make a decision about WHICH of the three configurations you will field (Ravenwing, Deathwing, Groundpounder DAs), instead of collecting everything and mixing a few things once in a while, and at the same time being able to STILL field any of the three main configurations.

It's not like they pulled a "13th. Company" on the DAs, did they?

Oh, the snivelling rats! The gits! I want the 13th. Company back!

:p

electricwolf
28-10-2008, 17:04
my opinion is that if both sides agree when someone wants to use a SC but painted up as something else then great play, but if one side doesn't agree then that character has to be removed from the game.

I personally have no problem with most things people do. If people wanted to paint rainbow colours on their marines then great go ahead. If someone wanted to have pink orks, great go ahead.

If someone wants to use the Calgar rules but with another chapter and they can give me reasonable fluff to back it up, ok no problem but their explanation has to make sense.

This game is suppose to be fun to play and enjoy.

arch_inquisitor
28-10-2008, 17:04
I think Thud pretty much cleared up this thread.

Freakiq
28-10-2008, 17:22
Hmm, most people seem to think it's okay to play with unpainted models, but woe betide of someone plays with models painted wrong. :wtf:

Drongol
28-10-2008, 17:42
Hmm, most people seem to think it's okay to play with unpainted models, but woe betide of someone plays with models painted wrong. :wtf:

"Most people" is a fallacy, sir. Until you have spoken with everyone who holds an opinion on this subject, there is no such thing as "most people."

Yes, the characters are just sets of rules that can be used to represent whatever you want, but I think the point being raised is that some effort put into modeling and painting might not go amiss.

Drongol

The Black Knight
28-10-2008, 19:09
I think it depends really.

For example, if someone wants to do a tyrannic war veterans army (sternguard as the tyrannic war veterans) then if they had Cassius and a converted Kantor (blue armour etc.) so that his veterans could capture objectives and were stubborn I think that would be perfectly acceptable.

But as others have said, a Khan/Shrike army so he can fleet his outflanking assault terminators into the flanks of vehicles is just stupid.

Gutlord Grom
28-10-2008, 19:28
But as others have said, a Khan/Shrike army so he can fleet his outflanking assault terminators into the flanks of vehicles is just stupid.

You can't do both, because as I understand it, you have to pick which Chapter tactic you're going to use that game. It's one or the other.

Eryx_UK
28-10-2008, 19:28
my opinion is that if both sides agree when someone wants to use a SC but painted up as something else then great play, but if one side doesn't agree then that character has to be removed from the game.

I personally have no problem with most things people do. If people wanted to paint rainbow colours on their marines then great go ahead. If someone wanted to have pink orks, great go ahead.

If someone wants to use the Calgar rules but with another chapter and they can give me reasonable fluff to back it up, ok no problem but their explanation has to make sense.

This game is suppose to be fun to play and enjoy.

If thats how you feel, why are you spoiling the fun and enjoyment of another player who is playing something he can legally play under the new SM codex?

Askil the Undecided
28-10-2008, 20:03
About the whole Calgar makeover part of this I have one thing to bring up.

The Gauntlets of Ultramar are unique, actually, uniquely, unique as in they are revered relics and there are no others like them in the whole galaxy. You can't have the Ultra marines ones and there are no more like them anywhere. No matter what colour you want to paint them you can't have them.

This goes for all other characters that possess actual visually unique equipment too.

Then again seeing as we are all such fans of 'counts as' rules I'm sure nobody minds the model not being anything like Calgar and in fact being an enormous chaplain with a quad-linked plasma cannon and a 50 metre long croznus arcanum riding a thunderhawk sidesaddle while drinking tea from a thermos flask, who merrily lobs virus bombs from low orbit and the Calgar model just showing roughly where he is in relation to the table at the moment.

Kellindel
28-10-2008, 20:12
Everyone thinks what they want.

I still think a scout painted a solid Blue, or White, or Red, or Black, or Yellow, or any other color is asking for a bulleyes painted on their forhead.

The Scout is not supposed to stand out, and the cloak can only cover so much when you're not moving.

Scouts should be allowed to have any Line-Breaking coloring possible.

Doesn't matter how nice your armor is when thinking about how good it is at giving protection, there's always a nicer bullet.

Lord Inquisitor
28-10-2008, 21:18
I would mostly disagree with you here. Generic characters don't usually have that many variables, and many of their options are actually very similar to one another; lightning claws are a better version of power weaopn, a chainfist is a powerfist with tank killing ability, etc.
True, but nevertheless, there are going to be combinations that are simply more effective under certain combinations. There always are - two things that are particularly effective when taken together. I'm not just talking about cassius and chaplains here, it applies to anything. Mastercrafting a plasma pistol, for example, doesn't just make it hit more - it essentially rules out overheats. So there is an added benefit to mastercrafting, which - unless you have a separate cost for mastercrafted plasma as opposed to other weapons - isn't taken into account with the points value. [Edit: I'm not sure mastercrafting exists outside of special characters anymore, but you get the point].


What would be unbalenced about making the chaplain 10 points cheaper and the jumpack 10 points more expensive?
In part I agree with you. With the new codex layout they really could customise points for wargear much more than they do already. A jump pack might be more cost-effective for a chaplain than a librarian (as an example) and there are some things that really highlight it. Extra armour is far more worth it on a Land Raider transport than a Vindicator, for example. I wish they'd move away from making all upgrades the same cost as some are obviously superior on some units than others.

That said, just making jump packs more expensive isn't necessarily the solution. That can mean that jump packs are too expensive and the only time you'd take them is with the lightning-claw combo. Sometimes it DOES work (like with rhinos and extra armour), but it isn't necessarily that simple.


To use your Cassius vs a regular Chaplain example, I think it would make more sense for a chaplain without a jump pack to be as effective (for the points) as Cassius, and a chaplain with a jump pack to also be as effective, point for point, as Cassius is. This might require a little more playtesting, but there shouldn't be too many differences to account for (the options are nearly all close combat weapons, armor, invulnerable saves, and movement).
I agree - that's obviously the ideal situation! The problem is that you can end up with a situation where you have one cost for a power fist with a jump pack and one cost for when wearing terminator armour and one cost for on foot - the system doesn't really allow that sort of resolution and the easiest thing is to just give the powerfirst a points value and err on the side of caution, which can lead to slight overcosting of generics.



However, what's far more likely is a bare metal, unconverted character plunked down amongst the grey plastic. And that, in and of itself, is a tragedy.
Indeed. But then, is that the problem of the SC being used?

The thing is, the SC rule allows a player to take any SC without needing to worry about whether people are going to be upset if he doesn't paint it yellow. It allows people to convert up their own versions of the SCs, either for the model or the rules. I want an army based around Deathwatch, which I'm going to use as Sternguard. In order to make a Sternguard-heavy army to work, I really need Kantor. You can be he'll be lovingly converted in my army. Sure you'll see bare-metal Kantors running around - but then if it's a bare metal army then who the heck cares - but the point is that I'm allowed to make my army.

That's the bottom line. The codex allows people to make whatever armies they want. You may like them or you may not, but if you have a cool idea for a conversion and want to try out a SC then you are allowed to. And I think that's a good thing.

Supremearchmarshal
28-10-2008, 21:28
Then again seeing as we are all such fans of 'counts as' rules I'm sure nobody minds the model not being anything like Calgar and in fact being an enormous chaplain with a quad-linked plasma cannon and a 50 metre long croznus arcanum riding a thunderhawk sidesaddle while drinking tea from a thermos flask, who merrily lobs virus bombs from low orbit and the Calgar model just showing roughly where he is in relation to the table at the moment.

Woah, you have a fertile imagination.

Supreme Archon Orlok
28-10-2008, 21:42
@ OP: Personally I don't really care how you paint your army if you want to paint special characters in different ways than they are portrayed that's fine it's your choice. I paint my armies the way I think looks good, but don't get me started on fluff freaks I've got daemons I use nurgle and tzeentch in the same army and people start freaking out "oh my god nurgle and tzeentch in the same army it doesn't seem fluffy the world going to end aaaaaaaahhhhh!"
I don't see how it really matters, fluff ISN'T Law, hmmmm i think I'll put that in my signature!!!

Sorry if that was a bit OTT or off topic.

Brother Gabriel
28-10-2008, 22:35
A person should never be punished for painting his models, its as easy as that. And if one person ever tells me that he doesnt play against me because i painted my army the way i like and use the models i want, within and in the spirit of the rules.
Then thats really his problem and he can go to where the sun doesnt shine.

gunbunny242
28-10-2008, 22:38
I don't have any problems with people using SCs in thier armies. The people I game with will have fluffed them out, done a conversion and put some effort into it. A few of them have been using White Scars and Sallies for years anyway.
I have an Imperial Fist successor chapter and have a build that uses Cantor as my 1rst company captain, so I can take more vets and minimum troops. I'm building a model for him, have done some fluff to explain his wargear etc. I might use some of the other SCs, especially Tigurius as my chief librarian as he is the best option.
I think Vulkan is awesome and if the model looks like the artwork I will buy him, but I can't think of a reason for him to be in my army.
I wished they had done a rules bundle for each legion, with a points cost or disadvantages that you could give to any master/captain, then every army wouldn't need to have the same character.
Oh and about only using Calgar if your painted blue...my marines are half, blue half red,with DA bits, so can I use Sicarius, Mephiston and Sammael.......

Kalec
28-10-2008, 23:15
Wow such wit.

In about 4 years time when they release a 6th edition Marine codex, you will be here telling us that the new changes are so necessary to promote variety and get away from the Pedro/Tellion/Sternguard/whatever else rocks combos.

For all the supposed variety in 40K, not much of it gets used. With the new Marine codex, it seems that Tellion is already the norm in many new lists. Pedro seems to be coming a close second.

It's the way of 40K - only the most powerful options will get used. This is why Dark Angels codex was so stripped down - it tried to balance the lists to make everything useful.

Yup, every marine army is going to consist of Pedro, 3 sternguard squads, and a unit of scouts with Tellion. We aren't going to see bike-heavy lists with a biker captain, outflanking land raiders with Khan, fleeting footsloggers and assault marines led by Shrike, or melta/flamer heavy Vulkan with allied sisters.

Face it: there are a lot of powerful options in the new codex. There is going to be a lot mare variety then there was before. Will it be perfect? Of course not, and in due time I probably will be here supporting changes that I think are promoting more variety. Why are these bad things?

DoktorZinieztro
28-10-2008, 23:18
You can't do both, because as I understand it, you have to pick which Chapter tactic you're going to use that game. It's one or the other.

And with that case is proven: FLUFF is neither RULES nor COMPULSORY, and as a few mates have written: Thud WINS!

So if you want to paint FFCs of EVERYONE and use "Counts as" and keep it legal and have fun...

Nothing should stop you, for it is also very apparente that its them herren fluff-meisters the ones that come up with all this ideas about how the "unfair ones" stick it to fluff and play everything while MISINTERPRETING the rules.

So, yes. By the read of it, these mates have had rotten luck in finding great groups to have fun with on many ocassions, or suffered brat invasions, or are pretty set in their ways and frown upon what others "might" do and discriminate based only on their prejudices.

As long as you guys have fun and the "others" do, too, and feel perfectly happy with ignoring the "oppossition", all the more power to YOU fluff players. May your groups live long enough to give you all many years of fun.

I'll quote it again...


You can't do both, because as I understand it, you have to pick which Chapter tactic you're going to use that game. It's one or the other.

This was only the final nail in the coffin for this debate, me thinks. Don't come up with more anecdotical or hypothetical examples to prove your point. We already know what and "why" you don't like certain aspects of the newer Marine Codex.

You, as all of here, have certain petpeeves. So find a band that sings praises to your fluff (ah! Damned be Youtube and other e-musics sites for so much uninspired, unoriginal cacketty cack*!), find like-minded individuals and...

well...

Roll well, be well.

*Still have to find one that's good, not only gimmicky, and that hasn't been torn apart by GW's IP Police warhounds.

rrchristensen
28-10-2008, 23:26
From what I can gather about this thread, the moral of the story is, You can please some of the people some of the time and Warseer people NONE of the time!

:)

THOU HAST BEEN SIGG'ED!


This is absolutely rich! You've been sigged!

EDIT:

Noo! I've been SIG-blocked!

EDIT EDIT:

I've decided that if 1000 marine chapters can have Marneus Calgar, 2 people can share a signature. So there.

cailus
28-10-2008, 23:38
Yup, every marine army is going to consist of Pedro, 3 sternguard squads, and a unit of scouts with Tellion. We aren't going to see bike-heavy lists with a biker captain, outflanking land raiders with Khan, fleeting footsloggers and assault marines led by Shrike, or melta/flamer heavy Vulkan with allied sisters.

Face it: there are a lot of powerful options in the new codex. There is going to be a lot mare variety then there was before. Will it be perfect? Of course not, and in due time I probably will be here supporting changes that I think are promoting more variety. Why are these bad things?

I never said "variety" was a bad thing. I'm all for increasing variety.

My point is that sooner or later there will be the emergence of a number of strong lists that everone will get sick of. It happens with every codex.

You actually speak as if there wasn't any variety with the old Marine codex - there were still biker armies, mobile assault armies, mobile firepower armies etc. You had these things called traits which allowed all biker armies, guys with CCW+BP, dual special weapons etc. A lot of these traits were used but others were not.

Same will happen with new Marine codex - some builds will dominate while others do not.

And I have noticed that already Sgt Tellion and Pedro Kantor are quickly becoming mainstays in many Marine armies.

Kalec
29-10-2008, 01:14
There was variety before. only problem is, it was useless competitively. The new book allows for far more competitive lists then the old one. Some builds will be better then others, no question, but it will be more then before.

Also, Pedro is the mainstay, Tellion is no where near as popular.

Occulto
29-10-2008, 01:25
Also, Pedro is the mainstay

At the moment.

The new dex hasn't been out for very long, and everyone's going "z0mg Sternguard" but eventually people will work out counters to them. After all, they're still only T4, 3+ marines.

It's simply the most obvious power combo so far.

Takitron
29-10-2008, 01:30
You can't do both, because as I understand it, you have to pick which Chapter tactic you're going to use that game. It's one or the other.

That would be correct sir.

It is amazing how many people regurgitate crap they hear from other sources without even bothering to look it up. And yes, that means that if you don't have access to or have read the new space marine book, your opinion is moot.

Discord
29-10-2008, 01:43
This thread reminds me of an old White Dwarf issue (from the 2e days, back when people wrote letters to GW with rules questions and those were actually answered on the pages of White Dwarf), where this guy asked whether it'd be okay for him to use Blood Angels special characters with his Blood Angels successor chapter (Flesh Tearers or whatever).

Funnily enough, the answer was no, they're unique characters and restricted to Blood Angels. And also that he should make up his own special characters for his successor chapter and have his friends approve them. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly like that answer. It both keeps special characters special and encourages the hobby aspect.

Lord Inquisitor
29-10-2008, 03:38
The Gauntlets of Ultramar are unique, actually, uniquely, unique as in they are revered relics and there are no others like them in the whole galaxy. You can't have the Ultra marines ones and there are no more like them anywhere. No matter what colour you want to paint them you can't have them.
This can lead to problems too. I remember many silly arguments when Inquisitor was released because the armoury contained such things as the Inferno pistol and Gauss rifle. Ultimately, the thing's there to be used. Really, Dante has the only melta pistol in the Imperium? Daft. Then suddenly everyone and their dog in the Ordo Hereticus has an Inferno pistol and the matter was put to rest.

Ultimately, people were getting upset over nothing. Sure, the gauntlets of ultramar are unique. My Iron Hands chapter master with four servo arms and massive gauntlet blasters from the dark age of technology are certainly not the same thing as the gauntlets of ultramar. But they have the same in-game effect.


This thread reminds me of an old White Dwarf issue (from the 2e days, back when people wrote letters to GW with rules questions and those were actually answered on the pages of White Dwarf), where this guy asked whether it'd be okay for him to use Blood Angels special characters with his Blood Angels successor chapter (Flesh Tearers or whatever).

Funnily enough, the answer was no, they're unique characters and restricted to Blood Angels. And also that he should make up his own special characters for his successor chapter and have his friends approve them. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly like that answer. It both keeps special characters special and encourages the hobby aspect.
Which was an age ago. I thoroughly encourage making up your own characters, but the simple truth is that for most games, unless you play within a close-knit gaming group (which is great if you do), you're going to want to use out-of-the-codex units.

The other thing is that the whole ethos of special characters have changed. Before they were just hyper-powerful versions of regular characters (sometimes still the case) but now they usually represent particular characteristics of the army in question. Samael and Wazdakka alter their army composition, Lucius and Kharn represent the only way of having true noise marine or bezerker HQ choices, Corbulo is the only way you can have a Sanguinary High Priest.

In most cases, there is a point to special characters now. The Space Marine SCs represent the new form of the old Traits system. The Traits were available to any army (although there were certainly traits particularly associated with certain armies). That's the way to look at SCs these days. They're simply chapter traits. Sure, Khan is most suited to White Scars, but then he could apply to any similar Chapter.

captain ceaser
29-10-2008, 09:51
"Ultimately, people were getting upset over nothing. Sure, the gauntlets of ultramar are unique. My Iron Hands chapter master with four servo arms and massive gauntlet blasters from the dark age of technology are certainly not the same thing as the gauntlets of ultramar. But they have the same in-game effect"

Very true. Whilst the gauntlets ARE unique. That uniqueness isnt represented ingame, they are not even master crafted WTF???

Reaver83
29-10-2008, 09:56
I think occasionally changing the colour of something is just changing the colour. I personally don't like the colour blue... so I want to do 'greentramarines' they're ultramarines in ebvery way just green.

EVIL INC
29-10-2008, 15:02
I'm pretty sure that the blue painted gauntlets of ultramar ARE uniuqe. The red painted ones that are hidden in the deep bowels of the crimson fist fortress are also uniuqe. They have different iconography molded onto them. While each may be "uniuqe, there is not a single thing at all whatsoever in the fluffto say that there are not very similer items. Similer enough that the rules "in game" are identical.
Really, the only ones who tell you you cant use special characters models or rules in an army where the most famous archetype with a name is not from is going against the fluff themselves. They are going against "the most important rule" in the rulebook and are simply trying to gain an unfair advantage over you and using the lame excuse "fluff justification" (LOL :rolleyes:) to try to cover for themselves. That or they are just such super fanboiz that they actually believe thier own propoganda that goes against GW itself.

Imperialis_Dominatus
29-10-2008, 17:29
I don't use special characters to represent my characters. I prefer to make my own. I won't begrudge others too much for doing it though- I have considered Shrike, he has claws and a jump pack after all, and I can't very well hold people up to standards I have wavered on can I?

I do personally think GW should have incorporated the special characters' 'specialness' into the commander entries- i.e. 'if the CM/C takes X, his command squad may take X and units of (models with X in army list) can be taken as Troops.' I like that idea. Bikes, jump packs, Termie armor, etc.

ShadowDeth
29-10-2008, 19:17
You know, if you asked me what I thought about all this a few years ago I would definitely side with the more liberal gamers. The casual ones who don't mind off paint jobs and strange 'counts as', but...

I've started to embrace the other side of the game that doesn't involve the ruleset lately. 40K is more than just a tabletop strategy game now and I've oddly enough found the inspiration to finish painting my models I've had for years.

Now, I don't like and definitely mind seeing Slaanesh characters leading Khorne armies, team games with Space Wolves and 1KSons on the same side, or trademark special marine characters being included in armies for stat buffs, not because of their overall army backstory.

And I enjoy the game more now too, that I've allowed myself to attach to the history and story surrounding the game - and not just the numbers and dice.

Lord General Laumnem
29-10-2008, 20:32
Going back to the Original post - I wouldn't mind that as long as the character had a different name.

Also, I wouldn't mind a joint Ultra marine and Imperial fist army lead by both the SCs.

Heres the catch - I wouldn't mind it - as long as they could come up with some really (n i mean REALLY) good fluff explaining why their both together. Not just "Well it's an allied force" cus that aint good enough because they wouldn't Both lead it - their both proud men and would be competing against one another.

Gutlord Grom
29-10-2008, 20:44
Heres the catch - I wouldn't mind it - as long as they could come up with some really (n i mean REALLY) good fluff explaining why their both together. Not just "Well it's an allied force" cus that aint good enough because they wouldn't Both lead it - their both proud men and would be competing against one another.

I disagree. They're proud, but they're not stupid. If they needed to fight together, as in say, to hold the line against an enemy that they couldn't fight alone makes sense. Add in that Calgar is one of the more respected chapter Masters in the Imperium, an alllied force is something he could put together easily.

Lord General Laumnem
29-10-2008, 21:22
Yes - but isnt 40k just a small part of a much bigger battle (the close combat phase of epic)? why concentrate both in the same place? surely they have better uses elsewhere, like at the other end of the line?

EVIL INC
29-10-2008, 21:35
As has been said just because you use the "character" and it's rules does not mean that there is not a hero in a different chapter who is similer enough that in game terms, they might as well be the same.
Those who embrace the fluff of 40k in ALL of it's rich glory will understand and know that such heroes are scattered throughout the imperium and that there are multiple people within the imperium who are similer in thier heroics.
Just because you have a model using the marneous calgar rules in a crimson fist army does not mean you are using THE marneous calgar (even his gauntlets are not so unique that there arent similer relics in other chapters).
Those who follow and embrace the fluff should have no issues with you using the characters in any army they are allowed to be in. For them to say otherwise is hypocracy.
Those who play the game as a miniature wargame will also have no issues as it is clearly allowed by the rules.
Personally, I dont care if my opponant uses them or not because it is perfectly fluffy for them to do so and as a miniature wargamer, I am tickled to death to have them waste the points on such models because paying the points for those overcosted characters takes away from the more effective units they could be using.

Lord General Laumnem
29-10-2008, 21:43
I agree with Evil!

Imperialis_Dominatus
29-10-2008, 22:00
If I were ever to use a special character for my army, I would convert a different model and, using the power of counts-as, make it equivalent to the regular character model. At the very least I'd convert the regular special character model just a little- filing off godforsaken Us, for instance. But hey, that's just me. I can see the attraction in using Lysander with no conversion and painting him as a Crimson Fist. It fits fine.

DoktorZinieztro
29-10-2008, 23:48
THOU HAST BEEN SIGG'ED!

EDIT:

Noo! I've been SIG-blocked!

Ha! In yo' face! :p


EDIT EDIT:

I've decided that if 1000 marine chapters can have Marneus Calgar, 2 people can share a signature. So there.

By all means, please do... Mine is painted in a different colour! :D

Eldartank
01-11-2008, 03:13
There are so many replies to my original post that I couldn't read them all. However, I will point out that I don't actually plan on spamming my Crimson Fists army with re-painted special characters. And I don't think I will see too many others doing that. But I AM going to be using the Scout Sargeant Telion model (maybe I will call him Fezzik instead of Inigo Montoya, like someone else suggested ;) ). Since I do have the Lysander model, I will paint him up in Crimson Fist colors, and I might use him on occasion. Of course, the Chronus model is really cool, too.
All that being said, the ONLY re-painted character model that will make regular appearances in my Crimson Fists army will be the Scout Sargeant Telion model. The rest, for the most part, will usually be nothing more than part of my collection of nicely painted models sitting on my display shelf.

P.S... I'm still thinking of getting the Marneus Calgar model and painting him up in Crimson Fist colors, just to show off to those most intractable of die-hard "paintjob nazis." :evilgrin:

dark_angel
01-11-2008, 04:03
I like the idea of having a "homemade" chapter having its own special characters as powerfull as the standard chapters do ie the Fluffy Rabbits of Doom having a decent chapter master ect but think it goes a bit far when a , say, crimson fist army has 3 different chapters masters in.

Mr.terminatorbob
01-11-2008, 04:57
you should call Calgar Vizzini, Telion, Fezzik, Sicarius, Inigo, or you could call Telion Humperdinck, he is the greatest hunter. Or calgar could be the Dread Pirate Roberts! on second thought, you should do a Princess Bride themed army!

Adra
01-11-2008, 11:51
I guess rules wise i dont have as much issue with using special characters outside their home chapter, but i would have issue if they just used the same model. i mean meh....lazy!!!!

Gx