Special Characters: Yes or No?

[Melissia]

Do you have a point aside from annoying me and making me roll my eyes?

I stated that there are some broken builds, but for the most part the codex is fine. Nob bikers are somewhat broken (Though honestly, they aren't as bad as some people make them out to be), yes, but that's one subsection of one unit in the codex.

[B_Steele]

I stated that there are some broken builds, but for the most part the codex is fine.

(Emphasis bolded is mine)

I think that might be another thing about the new generation of 40k gaming that falls in line with my dislike for Special Characters in regular games. Builds. I cringe even at the term. It is like people put together specific army lists and never stray from them...or that using one unit over another makes an army fit to some written guide.

I blame the internet for this insanity.

I'm not saying that a few combos aren't normal, or that an army could not be assembled around specific units...but wrapping it all nicely in a bow for everyone else to use makes me just a little nutso (as if I'm not already).

I know I'm different than most folk, but I NEVER play the same army twice (except at a tournament, where the army gets played that day and that day only). It's my own wacky superstition. I might shift a meltabomb or three around, add extra armour or something else...but I never field the same army twice if I can help it. Lumping army styles together used to be: "I'm a Shooty Army" or "I'm gonna crush you in close combat."

Now it seems more like someone ordering something at Starbucks: "I'm a Flying Circus Eldar force that leans toward Anti-Mech Support".

Argh!

[Shavnir]

Now it seems more like someone ordering something at Starbucks: "I'm a Flying Circus Eldar force that leans toward Anti-Mech Support".

Argh!

Well apologies that you can't keep up with the pace of the metagame but I see the trending towards the same units as a natural progression.

Personally I think its very odd that a community will bemoan the use of power units (i.e. my tooled nob squads, you know how mean I can be with them Steele ) while at the same time fully reinforce the skipping of the opposite end of the spectrum, the flash gitz and the deffkoptas.

So I'm curious why is it okay to rely on common sense when it comes to what units not to take but not so when it comes for which units to take?

[ChrisW]

i'll play Kharn from time to time as he is a giggle and a true terror in hand to hand. but i may never play abbadon.

as for my space marines the characters have the ability to break the game with their extra rules (god of war & various tactics rules), but the high points may cover that (sub question: are they price pointed properly?)

[murrburger]

There isn't really that much wrong with the Ork codex. Probably the closest ones to being broken is Guard, and they're not even that bad. Nothing compared to Fantasy Daemons.

I don't see anything wrong with special characters, and I don't mind if my opponents use them. I use Khan in my Space Marines army because it is mostly bike based.

Honestly, if I wasn't using Khan, I would be using biker captain with relic blade and storm shield. Maybe it's just the way I am, but I hate to see things like Captain - Power Weapon, Digital Weapons, Combat Shield, Astartes Grenade Launcher.

I always try and go for the most points-effective characters and load up on troops, whether they're special or not. I'm not a fan of the uber character, or uber unit, and I never have been.

[Shavnir]

(sub question: are they price pointed properly?)

That's the interesting thing. The relative value of a lot of the characters varies depending on the point level so, as a general rule of thumb, the larger games value them more. This is not always the case but I think it might be put in (probably accidentally, knowing GW's track record of rule writing) as a check, not a hard and fast rule about what levels you can take what characters at but a setup that makes the characters "worth it" more in a 2500 pt game over a 500pt one.

[B_Steele]

Personally I think its very odd that a community will bemoan the use of power units while at the same time fully reinforce the skipping of the opposite end of the spectrum, the flash gitz and the deffkoptas.

That is EXACTLY my point! What I'm saying is that more players should set their Nobs squads back in the box and learn how to win games with those gitz and koptas!

I mean, who here can deny that the better general (ie. tactical player) is the one that can win games with the weaker forces as well as the stronger ones?

To show how this line of thought links up with my thread and isn't just ranting - I think the same thing goes for Special Characters. I think the Salamanders player (a green-painted marine force with lots of melta, flamers and such) that wins games without needing Hestan is a better tactical general than the player that ever says these words: "You HAVE to take Hestan to play Salamanders."

-Bry

[Shavnir]

That is EXACTLY my point! What I'm saying is that more players should set their Nobs squads back in the box and learn how to win games with those gitz and koptas!

I mean, who here can deny that the better general (ie. tactical player) is the one that can win games with the weaker forces as well as the stronger ones?

-Bry

It may have been exactly your point but my point was the opposite...if we can all agree not to field crap such as flash gitz we might be someday able to embrace using the good units in our respective codexes.

I think the major point of confusion between our views is the separation of army building and playing. I see the one as a logical extension from the other and if I lose because I brought a weak force it was a flaw in my army construction as well as my play ability that contributed to it. When I'm building an army I'm usually already strategizing on various deploys versus certain match ups, what to do in dawn of war (ugh, its always an annoying scenario), etc etc.

To phrase it differently why do people make concessions during the army building phase ("Take flash gitz") and not make similar concessions during play (such as foregoing a fortuitous charge)?

[B_Steele]

...we can all agree not to field crap such as flash gitz...

Why should we ever agree on that?!?

Maybe someone really likes the Flash Gitz models and wants to see them on the field? Or maybe they (like myself) are a fluff-fiend and feel like the Flashy Boyz deserve some table time too?

Not to mention I don't think ANY unit is useless or "crap". Everything has its place if a player is good enough to use them, perhaps in ways that other players have yet to notice (because they are too busy finding the new build on the interweb!) that can be all the new rage.

New units bring new tactics and fresh reactions to the game as a whole; using the same, boring army list, units and characters is tiresome and becomes tedious.

-Bry

[Sangre]

Do you have a point aside from annoying me and making me roll my eyes?

Giggle!

I stated that there are some broken builds, but for the most part the codex is fine. Nob bikers are somewhat broken (Though honestly, they aren't as bad as some people make them out to be), yes, but that's one subsection of one unit in the codex.

But yeah, the point is they are the poster boys for broken armies. If you take your average powergaming personality with no experience of 40k, make him study each codex for a week, then give him a thousand pounds, push him into a GW store and tell him to come out with the most powerful army he can, he'll come out with nob bikers. I guarantee it.