So I decided to bring up an ongoing debate from my local gaming group. We have reached an impasse on the value/impact the unfettered addition of special characters has had on 40K.

I feel it only just, to begin by stating that I am FIRMLY from the old-school camp of, "You have to ask your opponent to play one." I do understand that allowing them when and wherever makes sense for them businesswise; as they can sell a plethora of expensive minis.

My objections are based upon two arguments. The first is fluff-based. Why in the world would someone like Abaddon (pronounced "uh-bad-done" BTW) be involved in some 1500-2000 skirmish? He leads Black Crusades, of almost all of Chaos, trying to destroy the false emperor; not insignificant shoot-em-ups for nothing. The same goes for Kharn, Mephiston, etc. Unless it is a game of Apocalypse, I just have a hard time buying the presence of these godlike beings.

The second reason is purely game-oriented. SC's tend to (from my observations of players in several states & 3 different time zones) cause players to build army lists that are very static. They only buy certain units that work in the, "Kharn Kills Everyone" list, or the, "Mephiston's Unlimited Jedi Power" list, etc. I see people playing armies that are right out of the yearly 'Ard Boy, rather than exploring their codex to try new builds and combinations. For example, I often think of some sort of combo I want to try, or an idea like, "How many template/blast weapons can I get in my CSM army for 1500 points?" I will work out the army list without any opponent in mind. I'll keep it in a folder until some future date when someone wants a game of that point level then play it; regardless if it is good for the mission/opponent. But armies based on SC's seem to look the same game after game, and if their opponents' reactions are any guage, are not much fun to play against.

So to sum up, where does everyone else stand?