# Is it power-gaming to...



## Mighty (Jun 8, 2008)

Hey everybody I was talking to a friend about a cool tactic I was thinking about doing if I had Lysander. When It occurred to me that in order to do it, it would require Pedro Kantor and Lysander but two Special characters in an 1750pt. list surely that is not right. So I asked my friend what he thought he replied with " You dropped a unit of vanguard for Darnath I think it is okay. Plus at 1750pt. your talking about tourney lists. Thats when you pull out all the stops so quit being a pansy just add Darnath to your army." Hmm wanting to get a second opinion I asked another friend who replied with "Hell no." So I was thinking about doing it but I don't want to if it is power gaming you know cause I don't want to be "that guy". So what do you all think? Is it power gaming to use two special characters in an 1750pt. list?


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

That would be a matter of opinion, to me, I can't stand to use any special characters, and neither can my friends, because they do seem like power gamer units. However, that is just me and my friends.


----------



## dirty-dog- (May 14, 2008)

i hate gaming against special characters, because i think that theyre waaaay to overpowered, with all there special rules that make them extra hard to kill along with extra nasty in terms of damaging my guys, but then again, do play against space marines, and thay seem to be the most unbalanced armies in the games.

it really depends who your gaming against, i mean, how can it be power gaming if they don't call it that?


----------



## hippogryph (Oct 26, 2008)

As mentioned before it is an opinion question. For me if its a tourney army and you want to put some 400 some pts into two characters go ahead. But I'd avoid it for casual games.


----------



## rVctn_Khaiyn (Dec 1, 2007)

You'd be fine if the characters were there to make your list more characterful and interesting; but since they're from different chapters, and you're including them for the purpose of winning, there is -bound- to be at least one person who would complain or accuse you of power-gaming.

I'm not sure how I see it - I don't like using Special Characters, and I've very rarely been up against one - so my stance on the matter isn't set in stone. I'm not personally calling you a power-gamer, but I'm sure someone would lose against you and be quick to cover up the defeat with accusations, valid or otherwise.


----------



## CaptainFatty (Nov 9, 2008)

hippogryph said:


> As mentioned before it is an opinion question. For me if its a tourney army and you want to put some 400 some pts into two characters go ahead. But I'd avoid it for casual games.


i agree here. i know a power gamer and it sucks in casual games


----------



## Mighty (Jun 8, 2008)

Yea guys thanks for all the input like I said I don't want to be "that guy" who you play and you see there army and all you can say is seriously? I was just thinking of cools things to do with different characters but I don't think I am going to run it. I'm more into making a fluffy army any ways thanks again everyone.


----------



## rVctn_Khaiyn (Dec 1, 2007)

Mighty said:


> Yea guys thanks for all the input like I said I don't want to be "that guy" who you play and you see there army and all you can say is seriously? I was just thinking of cools things to do with different characters but I don't think I am going to run it. I'm more into making a fluffy army any ways thanks again everyone.


No problem mate, keep in mind you could always try running the list with a friend, if he's alright being your lab rat for a game. You might find out it's not that great anyway and your curiousity will be sated. :grin:


----------



## squeek (Jun 8, 2008)

Or keep it for games against mates who also like to use multiple SCs. I think I would mark you down as a power gamer if you turned up every week with that combo (since, two SCs are hardly going to hold hands with such a small force on a weekly basis), but that said I wouldn't think less of you for it. I would just take it in to consideration if you offered me a game. As in, maybe I should go pimp my list out, or just plain do I mind the strong possibility of losing badly?

Normally, I would play you anyway, as even a bad loss is better than no game, but I might not want to repeat it regularly.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

One of the things I despise about the new codex (and yes, I do have a SM army) is the mixing and matching amongst special characters in different chapters that I see since its release.
It's probably one of the most unbalanced things I've ever seen in a table-top game.


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

I miss traits...


----------



## newsun (Oct 6, 2008)

I would not care. I have yet to see something which does not have a tactic to defeat it. If I lose, no biggie, that is when I learn the most.


----------



## Mighty (Jun 8, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> One of the things I despise about the new codex (and yes, I do have a SM army) is the mixing and matching amongst special characters in different chapters that I see since its release.
> It's probably one of the most unbalanced things I've ever seen in a table-top game.


Yea I have to agree because I really like to read the fluff and everything, and I think if you are going to bring that special character then you should be doing that chapter. And I would rather try and make a fluffy competitive list than a Over Powered "I Just Want to Win" one. It was just some of the people I play could be considered Power gamers, so thats why I was considering it. But I wouldn't play it weekly, well now I wouldn't play it at all. Because when you start playing just to win it makes the game less fun, or maybe just to me cause I'm always on the losing end . But I'm still kinda new to the game so hopefully I will get better as I play more.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

OK, look at it this way; if you're on the losing end more often than you win, explain to your mates that you want to try new tactics, and try the two-SC combo. If you still lose, it isn't powergaming, is it? No one's going to point at you and say "ha! I beat your powergaming list, you powergamer!" because the obvious retort would be "with what? The uberspam beardlist of cheesedoom, that's what!" (or something).

Like others here, I really don't like the idea of having Kantor and Lysander in the same list - that's as crazy as Berzerkers and Noise Marines in the same list. But it's legal, for good or ill. We may cringe at the unfluffyness of it... but's not _really_ Lysander and Kantor, it's just some special characters. So you have Captain Leonidas and Captain Chandler, fair enough. Your mates should be OK with that, really, unless they just want you to keep losing all the time (ie they're scared :wink: )

Anyway... I suppose what I mean is, run it by your mates. Explain why you want to do it. If someone says "actually, I think it's wrong to do that because..." then listen to them. Just communicate with your opponents, be prepared to back down sometimes for the sake of a game, and enjoy the battles you fight, win or lose. It should be fine.

referring the fluffy but in its abscence will take unfluffy instead cyclops:


----------



## Revelations (Mar 17, 2008)

Is it power-gamey to run more than a single Eldar Skimmer?

Is it power-gamey to run more than a single Wraithlord?

Is it power-gamey to run more than a single Battle Wagon?

Is it power-gamey to run more than a single Daemon Prince?

Is it power-gamey to run more than a single Monolith?

Is it power-gamey to run anything that the rules allow and or incourage? 

People argue about fluff, people argue about power-gamers, people argue about balance, people argue about figs not being painted, people just plain like to argue. But I've come to realize that I have yet to see someone argue about someone who plays the game for fun. 

I mean, damn the man that just wants to have fun playing a game with their friends. 

If you want to run all HQ choices, I'd think it would still be fun to try. If you want to run nothing but special characters, knock yourself out. If you want to dance the funky chicken dance, I may even give you a chorus. And of course, if you want to run a cheesy, beardy, army of killy-doom, be my guest.


----------



## Mighty (Jun 8, 2008)

Red Orc said:


> No one's going to point at you and say "ha! I beat your powergaming list, you powergamer!" because the obvious retort would be "with what? The uberspam beardlist of cheesedoom, that's what!" (or something).



Haha thanks red orc for the input. And yea thats another thing that I am learning as I get more and more into the game. That some of the things you can do you shouldn't do fluff wise even though it is still legal. Like you said with the Berzerkers and Noise Marines when I was looking at my chaos codex I thought it would be cool too have an Slaanesh guy with lash and Berzerkers 
Only to find out that Slaanesh and Khorne hate each other and that is one of the unfluffiest things to do. But yea I think I will just make a fluffy competitive list that way win I win I can be like "ha! I beat your powergaming list, you powergamer!" haha just kidding.


----------



## torealis (Dec 27, 2006)

anyone that whines about using special characters is a pussy.

The new special characters in the front of the book are well balanced a flavousome.

The SM special characters are infact designed to replace the trait system and designed with the idea that you use them for your own chapter in mind.

My potential GT final list is Lysander, Pedro, 20 stern guard (all in pods) and 2 tacts, 1 in pod.

anyone that whines about special characters is a pussy.


----------



## Gul Torgo (Mar 31, 2008)

My club doesn't allow them anyway, but I just dislike the idea of them. I enjoy coming up with fluff, names and backstories for some of my models, so getting a "pre-packaged" one seems like it's taking the fun and uniqueness out of it.

Tough the models can be great. I modified a Lucius into my Noise Champion.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Vrykolas2k said:


> One of the things I despise about the new codex (and yes, I do have a SM army) is the mixing and matching amongst special characters in different chapters that I see since its release.
> It's probably one of the most unbalanced things I've ever seen in a table-top game.


Then I'll assume you weren't around during 4th edition 40k where every other list was an Eldar Falcon and Harlequin spam list? How in the _hell_ is taking two special characters in a single list unbalanced, exactly?

I've sat and thought of every possible combination of characters that I can think of and came up with one combination that I'd say, "Ouch," to when it's placed on the table before me.

The first is Pedro Kantor and Vulkan He'stan, probably all loaded up in Drop Pods to make the most of Pedro's +1 Attack bonus to friendly Space Marines nearby. It's also quite easy to hit things with flamers and meltaguns when you can land practically on top of them.

On the other side of the coin though, you have to realize that you're paying nearly 200 points to give your models an extra attack when near Kantor.

So, what, pray tell, is unbalanced about taking more than one special character in an army? One needs to pay the points for them after all.


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

torealis said:


> anyone that whines about special characters is a pussy.



Wow, I love your "obviously" needed input on this matter. Should I go ahead and make a statement like that and state that people who use special characters are "pussys"?

No, because that would be a retarded statement. Much like yours sir.


What people are pointing out here is that if you use a bunch of special characters just to win, that it can be considered power gaming. For example, I downgraded my chapter master to a captain after playing a game where I blew up a LR demolisher and about 9 guardsmen with that orbital bombardment before he even got a chance to use. Now using a chapter master might not be power gaming or cheap or whatever you want to call it, but I felt like a douche bag after that and can't bear to do it to my friends. 

I have the same train of thought on special characters, I don't use them because they are over powered, and I wouldn't feel right using them. That and in the vastness of the imperium, what are the odds of a named character coming back just to fight in a little skirmish over and over again. To me, they should be kept for apoc games.


----------



## CommanderAnthor (Sep 28, 2008)

Honestly, my opinion is simple.

If it's in the book. If it's not breaking rules.

DO IT, everyone else can.

Is it your fault they don't choose to 'cause "It wont make the game fun"

Maybe if both used then it would be fun.

Another excuse to whine just like the Models must be painted thing lol.


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

I would not mind. I mean you are paying alot of points for those characters and its nothing a bunch of nurglings wont tarpit for the game 

I have a few daemon lists where I run two special characters such as skulltaker and The blue scribes. Nobody has called me a powergamer yet.

Sure its unfluffy so I would look down on you for that ( I know I play a Khorne + Tzeentch list which is also unfluffy but monogod lists are hard and abit boring) but I would not call you a powergamer for it.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

i wouldnt say that two characters on their own is particularly powergaming. it depends what else you got. but on the whole, im gonna say no.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Mighty said:


> Haha thanks red orc for the input. And yea thats another thing that I am learning as I get more and more into the game. That some of the things you can do you shouldn't do fluff wise even though it is still legal. Like you said with the Berzerkers and Noise Marines when I was looking at my chaos codex I thought it would be cool too have an Slaanesh guy with lash and Berzerkers
> Only to find out that Slaanesh and Khorne hate each other and that is one of the unfluffiest things to do. But yea I think I will just make a fluffy competitive list that way win I win I can be like "ha! I beat your powergaming list, you powergamer!" haha just kidding.



Go to it!
I've seen the monty Daemon Prince with Lash+ Berzerkers sooo many times I often ask Chaos players if there's anything original left in the codex.
The sad thing is, I beat them with a 3rd edition army 9 times out of 10 (Dark Eldar).
Man, do they howl...
1 Raider Transport + Squad, in case you think I run the "usual" army (actually, if you're curious, look up what I do with 3000 pts... The Flayed Skull, should still be in the Dark Eldar lists somwhere).


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> Then I'll assume you weren't around during 4th edition 40k where every other list was an Eldar Falcon and Harlequin spam list? How in the _hell_ is taking two special characters in a single list unbalanced, exactly?
> 
> I've sat and thought of every possible combination of characters that I can think of and came up with one combination that I'd say, "Ouch," to when it's placed on the table before me.
> 
> ...




It's the whole "Let's get rid of Chapters because we got rid of Legions" schtick. It's basically castrating the various armies to make them all fit in the same mold.
No, I wasn't especially happy with some Eldar armies either (and am still not pleased with how some people play them), and often gripe about them pretty much doing away with Craftworlds as well. But for two specials from two Chapters to be on the field together seems a touch much.
It's akin to fielding Eldrad with Yriel just so you can have the abilities of both, as well as making Wraithguard troops for ALL Craftworlds, instead of just Iyanden.
I don't care if you use two specials in one army, as long as they're from the same Chapter.
But really, how often to the various Chapters cooperate?
Ya, I know, it's "Just fluff"; but isn't that part of what the game's about, as well?


----------



## TheUnmarked (May 19, 2008)

Must disagree with the Idea of Kantor and Lysander fighting on the same battlefield as being an unfluffy choice, considering the crimson fists are a descendant chapter of the imperial fists, it seems quite plausible that they might co operate on some battles (granted Not all of them).

As for special characters being over powered, nah not really it depends on how you play, if you worry so much against some tough as nails SC and concentrate on it you will get absolutely nailed (just like you would against a Daemon prince or C'tan) its the rest of the army that counts.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

Hey my army has noise marines, plague marines, bezerkers and thousand sons.

I might never be allowed on to the (fluff based) moral high ground again.

If they're in the book crack on. They are part of a balanced (IMO) list and designed to shore up weak points in the army.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

the cabbage said:


> ...
> I might never be allowed on to the (fluff based) moral high ground again...


I think that's part of the problem. _Some_ fluff-gamers I think look down on people who don't play the same way. Me, I like fluff, I think it's what seperates 40k from Chess, and I wouldn't field an army I didn't have a reasonable fluff-justification for; but I don't expect everyone else to play the same way. I think some fluffers forget that theirs' isn't the only way to play.

For some reason "powergamer" is taken as worse insult than "fluffitarian" (I just had to make that up as there isn't a word for 'one who is insistent about fluff'); but both are in fact 'bad' things to be, as both "winning at all costs" and "whining about the other person's list" are really annoying to your opponent.

It's a game; we should play, and have fun. _That's_ the important bit.

:cyclops of the most important rule:


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Red Orc said:


> For some reason "powergamer" is taken as worse insult than "fluffitarian" (I just had to make that up as there isn't a word for 'one who is insistent about fluff')


Fluff gamer.  At least that's what the LOsers call it.


----------



## Vanchet (Feb 28, 2008)

There's nothing wrong with fielding two (I'd find it more challenging to face ) but if I would like to go to more of the "Fluffitarian" side to the gaming XP

(P.S Katie-Sorry for the Robbery of the "Vote Kantor" Slip ^^; )


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Vanchet said:


> (P.S Katie-Sorry for the Robbery of the "Vote Kantor" Slip ^^; )


I demand that you unhand my signature image! I made it and it was hard work.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Katie Drake said:


> Fluff gamer.  At least that's what the LOsers call it.


Fluff gamer's not an insult, though. I describe _myself_ as a fluff gamer...

Or maybe it is, and I'm too much of an idiot to realise I'm insulting myself.

erhaps just not grasping the complexity of the situation cyclops:


----------



## squeek (Jun 8, 2008)

I don't think of powergamer as an insult either though Red. To me it is just a style of play that tends to involve exploiting the most powerful combinations available (yeah multiple SCs is one of many powerful combinations), regardless of what the fluff says. There is nothing wrong with it, or unbalanced about it, indeed if you want to do well in tournies you would be fooling yourself not to attempt to maximise how powerful your list is.

To me it seems a little cheesy to take Abaddon on every little outing that a few squads of BL have, but then it isn't against the rules, it is just that fluffwise he is unlikely to spend all his spare weekends helping out a couple of squads in some minor battles. There is only one type of player I dislike and that is the cheater, who is usually a bad player, with a bad list and a bad attitude.


----------



## jlunio (Oct 21, 2008)

I personally believe SCs should have been pre-made trait characters and Traits should have been assigned to the Commander/CPT of the Army. As it is when you have a MoTF you have 6 Dreads fielded on the board as thou you had that trait honor thy ancients or something of that affects if I remember off the top of my head. All they do is have prepackaged traits assigned to them and can be given to the army. 

Honestly if you PAY for it in points it's not powergaming it's just you spending your points on something else. And there is always a counter for something that someone fields. For all you need to do is get shelled with some indirect fire a few times. You are gonna fail your saves sooner or later. If it's a timed/turn based match, all it takes is to slaughter the troops so they can't score and/or hold objectives and just play defense trying to kill that expensive HQ/SC. All in all it actually kinda fair if you look at it as a traits based chapter, but you don't have the drawbacks and SCs don't cancel out each other for combat styles. That's the problem if anything and if anyone really needs to complain about.

You have all these benefits and no drawbacks from their specials.

I hope I made some sense.


----------



## Vanchet (Feb 28, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> I demand that you unhand my signature image! I made it and it was hard work.


Aww okay then, I'll remove it then ^_^


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Powergamer is just a label, like fluffitarian. I say dont worry about using 2 specials in an army. You pay your points, you make your choice. If its with friends there should be even less of a problem, and they can come up with thier own 'beat you at your own game' list :grin:

Saying all that, is it powergamey to take 3 Leman Russ to a GT?


----------



## Darkside101 (Jun 12, 2008)

I think i come down on the side of "If its in the codex its fine by me" people, if you run it all the time against regular opponants they will soon get the hang of beating it and i wouldnt even think about asking someone how they felt about playing it till it had won a few times first. 

There are far worse combos out there for people to make up rather than go with special characters

On a final note, @ Mighty, do you fancy using tigurius and lysander in a sternguard unit instead?, im just interested in how it does and if your putting some marines together could you give it a go and see how it does ? thanks


----------



## Caledor (Jan 15, 2008)

When is a powergamer being fluffy?

When is a fluffitarian powergaming?

I guess the question is "where do you draw the line?". Is it powergamey to take Kor'sarro Khan and Shrike in the same list? Or is it fluffy? Either way, you have bikers as troops, an army that can fleet, a well developed theme (the hunt for Voldorius), and two SC's. It seems that it could be taken as both powergaming and fluffly.

From a personal view, I don't really care unless it is massivly overpowering. As long as there is still a chance for both players to win and have fun, it's fine by me. Although my regular opponent may have other views (he has objections to SC's unless he uses them:wink.


----------



## Mighty (Jun 8, 2008)

Darkside101 said:


> On a final note, @ Mighty, do you fancy using tigurius and lysander in a sternguard unit instead?, im just interested in how it does and if your putting some marines together could you give it a go and see how it does ? thanks


Umm I don't own Lysander or Tigurius but I think it sounds like a good idea having a unit of sternguard that can bounce around and reroll hits.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

calling people "power gamers" is just lame. I know this because the term runs around in any form of game not just warhammer. Calling people "power gamers" cause they use a cheap army list (or deck or strat depending on the game) that does not reflect fluff or originality is just some players way of explaining why they lost a match with their own list (deck or strat).

You can play with whatever list you want as long as it falls in the rules. The other player just has to deal with it. If they aren't prepaired to deal with all comers with their lists, and you honestly should be, then they have that loss coming to them. If they give you any crap for playing the list it only serves to show that they were just not good enough to beat it.

Personally I wouldn't put the two of hem on the same list. I think its just two much points for two models, 1 of which is not immune to instant death.


----------



## pathwinder14 (Dec 27, 2006)

I have never seen a problem with Special Characters. Yes they are powerful, but they are also costly in points. I run a 2000 point Blood Angels army and a 4000 point Ultramarines army. I have Commander Dante and Chaplain Lemartes in the 2000 point BA force. I only have Sgt. Telion in my 4000 point Ultramarines force.

The real question is, do they fit the theme of the army? Pedro and Lysander should never bee in the same force as you would never see it happen. They are both chapter masters and would never be on the same battlefield unless it was an apocalypse scale battle requiring multiple Chapters (Armageddon).


----------



## Vanchet (Feb 28, 2008)

pathwinder14 said:


> I have never seen a problem with Special Characters. Yes they are powerful, but they are also costly in points. I run a 2000 point Blood Angels army and a 4000 point Ultramarines army. I have Commander Dante and Chaplain Lemartes in the 2000 point BA force. I only have Sgt. Telion in my 4000 point Ultramarines force.
> 
> The real question is, do they fit the theme of the army? Pedro and Lysander should never bee in the same force as you would never see it happen. They are both chapter masters and would never be on the same battlefield unless it was an apocalypse scale battle requiring multiple Chapters (Armageddon).


It would be okay to use them they did have a battle where Raven Guard and White Scars worked together. (and Lysander is a 1st company captain,not a Chapter Master like Pedro)


----------



## CommanderAnthor (Sep 28, 2008)

Vanchet said:


> It would be okay to use them they did have a battle where Raven Guard and White Scars worked together. (and Lysander is a 1st company captain,not a Chapter Master like Pedro)


He's basically considered the chapter master seeing as the original chapter master is barely mentioned.


----------



## Vanchet (Feb 28, 2008)

CommanderAnthor said:


> He's basically considered the chapter master seeing as the original chapter master is barely mentioned.


The Imperial Fist chapter master is called Lord Vladimir Pugh-more here http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Vladimir_Pugh


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Caledor said:


> I guess the question is "where do you draw the line?". Is it powergamey to take Kor'sarro Khan and Shrike in the same list? Or is it fluffy? Either way, you have bikers as troops, an army that can fleet, a well developed theme (the hunt for Voldorius), and two SC's. It seems that it could be taken as both powergaming and fluffly.


This army can't be taken as powergaming because there is no combo between shrike and khan. Bikes can never fleet, with the exception of khan who has a specific rule saying he can, because they can't run. They have turbo boost instead.

Whether it's power gaming or not depends on your reasons for doing it. If you have two guys teaming up for a hunt, maybe even playing special scenarios as they look for him, then it's obviously not power gaming. If it's about having bikes with fleet then maybe it is - or would be if it worked.

Power gaming is about an attitude, not which units you use. Your attitude may inform the units you use but that's all. In your case you have seen two units that you think will work well together and you want to try them out in an army. In gaming terms it is no different to using any other two units in the codex. In fluff terms it may or may not make sense, depending on the story you make for it.

So personally I don't think it's power gaming at all to use two SCs. I don't even think it's very effective and it is *definitely* not unbalanced. The codex is very clearly allows you to do this, intentionally, so go right ahead.

My advice would be to have a go. If your friends hate it then stop, but I can't really see why they would.


----------



## Mighty (Jun 8, 2008)

Someguy said:


> Power gaming is about an attitude, not which units you use. Your attitude may inform the units you use but that's all. In your case you have seen two units that you think will work well together and you want to try them out in an army. In gaming terms it is no different to using any other two units in the codex. In fluff terms it may or may not make sense, depending on the story you make for it.
> 
> So personally I don't think it's power gaming at all to use two SCs. I don't even think it's very effective and it is *definitely* not unbalanced. The codex is very clearly allows you to do this, intentionally, so go right ahead.
> 
> My advice would be to have a go. If your friends hate it then stop, but I can't really see why they would.


Well see I bought a unit of sternguard and I was using them against a friends army and they missed a bunch of there hits (some very bad dice rolls). So one of my friends said I should try using Lysander in my army in my sterguard unit, and that it would work because the crimson fist second company captain has a thunderhammer. But I was already using Pedro Kantor. Thats why I asked but instead I decided to not use Lysander and add a unit of devastators with four heavy bolters to deal with my other friends army:biggrin:.


----------



## SpaNNerZ (Jun 17, 2008)

> Power gaming is about an attitude, not which units you use.


Im with Someguy on this, its not about who or what combos you use.
Its about why you play the game, Ive been playin since 3rd Ed and over the years Ive' learnt that some people to play to win (I like to think if, they think winning a game of minitures is everything, well then they dont wint much) and some people play for the fun and socialising this game can bring, ive made many a friend through the game and, I enjoy the amazing moments this game can bring, things that make you think, chess eat your heart out. If you want to field to SC's go for it, bring it on, I might not beat the combo but if your a decent person playing the game I'll have no issues about being beaten, but if you turn around and strt acting smug that you beat me, of course im goin to call you a power gamer.
And as for the not working together part, you can always cover that up with some fancy fluff e.g.

_One day Captain Lysander & Pedro Kantor were having a lovely tea party when all of a sudden who should burst in but the evil Dr Fabius Bile, with his bullys of doom_.........etc etc

peace out:victory:


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

My understanding of special characters has changed over the last couple of years. I think, once upon a time, a special character "was" that special character. In the old marine codex, Lysander "was" Lysander, and only Lysander. You could only use him in a IF army. Likewise Calgar was Calgar, only useable with an Ultras army.

Since the DA codex (and BA too) a couple of years ago, special characters were divorced from their fluff settings. You could use Dante's rules as Captain Damenblatz of the Terribly Ragey Angels, or Azrael as Lord Orribel, High Executioner of the Sonic Death Monkeys, if you wished. And the new codex has followed that way of doing things.

So now "Lysander" isn't really Lysander any more. It's just a rule-set. _If_ you're playing Lysander of the IF, that's the ruleset you use. If, on the other hand, you're using Captain Lemonhead of the Emperor's Fancy-pants, you use those rules too. Then you can also add Captain Klondyke (Cantor) if you wish. So you're not actually using "Lysander" and "Cantor", you're just using the same rules.

In the same way, using Vanguard and bike squads doesn't mean you're mixing Raven Guard with White Scars, because those units aren't "chapter specific". Well, these days, special characters aren't "chapter specific" either.

:thinking that's a bit more than 2 penn'orth cyclops:


----------



## Scottdsp748 (Aug 3, 2008)

Taggerung said:


> To me, they should be kept for apoc games.


Where they can get obliterated without so much as a roll to wound or the hassle of rolling their invulnerable save!

Special characters aren't overpowered, as their points costs reflect their increased abilities over the "base model" character. Are some special characters significantly better than average? Yes. Do some totally suck? Yes. Like regular build-your-own characters, special characters run the gamut from borderline useless like Huron Blackheart, to very good ones such as Pedro or Vulkan. Just as some special characters are exceptionally nasty, there are some combinations on regular characters that are equally powerful, like the Flying Daemon Prince with Lash of Submission or a SM Chapter Master on bike with Relic Blade and Orbital Strike. 

I think the best of the special characters are the ones that buff your army rather than just being killing machines themselves. Take Marneus Calgar for example, amazingly destructive on his own, but really needs a Land Raider to deliver him safely into combat. Now spend his points on Hammer and Shield terminators and put them in the same land raider....who would you rather fight? 1 Calgar or 5 Assault Terminators with Hammers and Shields?

If you are a good tactician, and play what others feel are well constructed lists, and the result is you win significantly more than you lose...prepare to be labeled a power gamer by some people (especially if you play Eldar).


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

Scottdsp748 said:


> Just as some special characters are exceptionally nasty, there are some combinations on regular characters that are equally powerful, like the Flying Daemon Prince with Lash of Submission or a SM Chapter Master on bike with Relic Blade and Orbital Strike.


The problem with your example there is that a SM captain with a power fist and artificer armor is nearly as many points as some special characters without nearly any of the cool shit. So NO they are not the same, there are a lot of special characters that are incredibly broken, and not that expensive. 

That SM chapter master on a bike with a relic blade is probably pushing 200+ points, and would get torn apart by nearly all special characters at that price range.

As someone said above, power gaming is all about attitude. If you feel you need to take them to win, then yes that is power gaming. However, as I stated before what describes a power gamer is all up to the people you play, if it pisses them off don't do it. If they are ok with it then more power to them. When it comes to my group of friends, we don't like them and don't use them. There is no real argument here as it is all a matter of opinion, either you like them or don't.


----------



## CommanderAnthor (Sep 28, 2008)

Vanchet said:


> The Imperial Fist chapter master is called Lord Vladimir Pugh-more here http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Vladimir_Pugh





CommanderAnthor said:


> He's basically considered the chapter master seeing as the original chapter master is barely mentioned.


I must of miss-typed somthing.


----------

