PDA

View Full Version : How do you feel about dead characters



xeno106
26-02-2010, 11:58
Hi there, I have a fairly general question: How do you feel about playing "dead" characters. I for one have no problem with that. Heck just kill some of the guys off and introduce new ones. You don't have to cut the out, you can even give the kick *** ruels. Just let the fluff go on. (And please no ranting about ongoing fluff). Somehow I think that most people don't like to play with historic characters. Therefore we get things like the retcon with Lysander. And I'm quite sure in the new Eldar book Eldrad will make his return. So please tell me your opinions.

stephan harkon
26-02-2010, 12:55
TBH, i dont mind if you want to take any 'dead' characters in your list.
as long as they have up to date rules of course....
But then i will probably take tycho when the new blood angels codex comes out...

Jagged
26-02-2010, 13:02
Blame it on the warp if it bothers you.

marv335
26-02-2010, 13:02
I don't see it as a problem.
who's to say when the game takes place in the timeline.

AndrewGPaul
26-02-2010, 13:13
Using characters who could never meet because one died before the other is born is no different to using characters who could never meet because they're on opposite sides of the Galaxy; Usarkar Creed vs Commander Shadowsun, for example.

That said, GW do seem to be making an effort to have all their special characters with stats be around in 999.M41. Not sure how this'll work with Tycho and Eldrad.

yabbadabba
26-02-2010, 13:14
Can't see any issues.

sigur
26-02-2010, 13:16
There are no "dead" characters because we are not at any specific point of the background. People should understand this fact.

Askari
26-02-2010, 13:17
Who voted absolute no go?

It's fine.

I could just as easily say "Oh you're using him? He wasn't even born yet" for confusion on your opponent.

Mannimarco
26-02-2010, 13:27
doesnt bother me at all

codex ultramarines (sorry I mean 5th ed space marines) gives us a whole host of characters who technically arny that guy anyway, just sombody similar with similar combat skills so just because tycho couldnt have fought shadowsun doesnt mean there isnt another marine out there similar to tycho who could

just becuase theres no massive tyranid fleet attacking cadia doesnt mean there isnt a similar general to creed getting butchered by the swarmlord somwhere else etc

its wierd, that actually made more sense thinking it but I hope everybody can inderstand what I mean

AndrewGPaul
26-02-2010, 14:19
Yeah, that's what all the people who complain about using Vulkan painted blue or red or whatever don't seem to understand.

Aurellis
26-02-2010, 14:39
I don't mind at all, as you can theme the battle anytime you like.

I play games which are 'pre-heresy' as well as 'modern day' in the timeline.

yabbadabba
26-02-2010, 14:48
So we have had 5 votes for no, but no justifications. anyone want to volunteer a reason :)?

nightgant98c
26-02-2010, 15:25
I think it's fine. It's really just a game after all, despite the weight some people attach to the fluff.

Hypaspist
26-02-2010, 15:48
The only reason I can see people voting 'No' is that :

1) They are extreme fluff Puritans (they would have to object to 'counts as' as well...)
2) There is a thematic campaign going on.

1)... is fine if you are also playing with fluff Puritans, but not fun if you are playing PUG's.
2)... is situational and within the remit of the campaign, but this then also shouldn't extend to a wider issue of using 'dead' characters outside of that environment.

Personally I couldn't give two hoots.
:)

Nezalhualixtlan
26-02-2010, 15:48
So long as you have a valid and rules legal unit from current Codex, I honestly don't care what the fluff is behind your characters. Field Eldrad and call him Eldrad or something different the next big new Eldar Psyker taking his place, really makes no difference to me. They're all just prey from my perspective anyway. :)

Oh, and I do see potential problems if you have a fluff-centric campaign going on, where fluff itself is the point, but again I'm open, a dead character could easily be a new character with the same stats like they encourage you to do with the named Space Marine commanders when you make up your own Chapters. So I'm still open to whatever the story has the potential to be.

wazatdingder
26-02-2010, 17:37
This question makes no sense, you play with a live character. When he dies you remove him from play and are therefore no longer playing with him. Unless you got Saint Celestine, she can be played after she's dead.:D

Dangersaurus
26-02-2010, 18:34
It's a static background, not a moving timeline, so generally anything goes. If you're playing a campaign set in a specific time or place you may want to limit the use of certain characters or even whole armies.

Parad0x
26-02-2010, 19:33
To tell you the truth, I'd much rather see the dead characters then CERTAIN individuals from a marine codex I don't see the end of, in every single battle, they somehow manage to creep in!:D

starlight
26-02-2010, 19:54
I've never played anyone who cared, and I hope I never do. :p

Thud
26-02-2010, 20:52
As long as it's legal I'm fine with anything.

Tae
26-02-2010, 20:54
Out of the 3 core games, 40k seems to have the least impact in terms of 'dead' characters.

WFB has numerous characters (most of the Orc & Goblin ones, for example) who are either dead or not in their 'current' condition (i.e. Eltharion the Grim is 'currently' blind, but in the High Elf army book has both eyes :p )

LoTR/WoTR however is a little bit different due to it being a much more story-based game than the other two (though all three can have a story element in them certainly). And here 2nd age characters really can't play in the same narative as 3rd age characters and still retain any semblence of storyline.

However in terms of playing games and rolling dice, it makes no difference whatsoever to any of the 3 systems.

nagash66
26-02-2010, 21:23
I voted HELL NO, now let me tell you why. I do not like using, playing against or just having dpecial haracters in my normal games. I belive they should be scenario/appoc only, i do not enjoy it when in a 1000 point battle my opponent is using 2-3 special characters. It just takes out the "special" part for me.

Bunnahabhain
27-02-2010, 01:49
I have no more problem with them than I do 'live' special characters....

i.e. Why can't they just be background only, and built from the generic template for a captain, warboss etc....

As noted above, who's to say where a battle is in the timeline, for from the book special charcaters.

If you're running a campaign, and the lieutenant who has been building up a heroic record over the last six battles gets rather eaten by a Great Unclean One, they really shouldn't pop up in the next battle right as rain ( except possibly as a plague zombie...) but that is somewhat different.

thecakewuzalie
27-02-2010, 05:58
one man....
IBRAM GAUNT !!!!!!
FOR TANITH!, FOR VERVUNHIVE!, FOR ALL THOSE WHOM WE HAVE LEFT BEHIND ....

anyways... this is what kept me from starting gaurd ...and the prices of a large gaurd army...and the fact that all of my beloved heroes die really easily... >.> in the game