|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Sept 30, 2010 8:32:58 GMT -5
There's no denying that 8th ed. tries to do alot more "over the top" things with the system, be it bloodier battles or devastating magic... So the much maligned (in 7th ed at least) special characters.... Are they still too cheesy to grace the tabletop... or are they more in line with 8th ed.? or is it more complicated than just a yes or no?  ?  |
|
|
|
Post by thesanityassassin on Sept 30, 2010 14:52:01 GMT -5
So the much maligned (in 7th ed at least) special characters.... Are they still too cheesy to grace the tabletop... or are they more in line with 8th ed.? or is it more complicated than just a yes or no? ? Yes, Yes and Yes haha. The problem I have with them is that there's such a massive variance between the nastiest (IE Teclis) and those who exist primarily to grant a different army set up or what not. Some are just moronically expensive for what they can do (IE Tyrion), while others are merely interesting alterations on regular heroes. I don't think there's a simple answer to this one..... |
|
|
|
Post by fritzthedwarf on Sept 30, 2010 15:44:45 GMT -5
I like the characters that are 'interesting alterations on regular heroes', as Matt stated. I have never been a fan of the overpowered characters (except in one-time games just for fun but not as a regular choice).
With 8th edition overpowered magic and stronger shooting and deadlier war machines, I don't know if the powerful special characters are out of place or fit right in, however as Matt said, there is quite a variance of characters.
Here's a question. Do you enjoy playing the game when your opponent takes a powerful special character when that character can be game-changing (not just that someone brought one of these characters and flubbed with there powerful abilities)?
|
|
? 
