Special Characters: Yes or No?

[B_Steele]

I got into a discussion with a friend about the seeming increase in Special Character usage in 5th Edition. I think they have become too prevalent, he thinks they are just fine. My dislike for their use is deep enough that I don't think they should be used in games less than 2000 points.

What say you, and why?

[Lord Azaghul]

I don't use them. Period. My opinion is if you can't win without them you're not a good player.

[jeffersonian000]

I have yet to use a Special Character in a game; however, the majority of my losses to date have been to armies using Special Characters. Before the new SM codex, I had a pretty good win record. After the SM codex, I keep going up against "counts as" Vulcan lists or "counts as" Shrike lists or "counts as" Grimmar list. Kind of irritating.

SJ

[Brosef Stalin]

I think they're ok, but I haven't seen them used all that often.

[Miggidy Mack]

I think we the players need to start adapting to GW's special character philosophy.

Would Grimnar be as hated if he was the exact same model but his name was "Grand Wolf" and the fluff was generic? Would a "Master of the Storm" be as reviled if he wasn't named Njal?

I personally don't use any Special Characters because I like having the item customization of the generic choices. I have nothing against them though.

Counts as units should be much more prevalent.
Trying to come up with some mechanicum assassin in your guard army? Counts as Marbo!
Rogue Apothecary? Smart Chaos Spawn? Devoted of Vaul?

All these can be done with some simple counts as loving. I just don't think anyone would have as many problems if they had different names. Would you hate "Chapter Master Vikrum" if he had the exact same profile and equipment options as a Chapter Master?

It used to be they were ridiculous. Now a days they still are, but they cost a chunk of points. Njal still only has 2 wounds, you get something into hand to hand with him early and he is hurting. The hero's aren't as crazy as we like to think they are. It's time for our view of characters to evolve.

[Lerra]

I play space marines and hate tactical marines (go go Terminators), so I require special characters to make the list legal (aka Belial). That said, some special characters are absolute monsters that tear things up. Some are very modest, though. It's the 250 point monsters that tend to cause problems.

[Denzark]

I don't object to them per se - I must have faith in the points giving them balance as it is that and the dice gives you a even chance of winning from the start.

What I object to is the 5th ed system of characters unlocking an ability. Yes I like your army. I like their colour scheme, your invented fluff is top quality. You have however, lowered yourself in my esteem by taking Hestan because you are a melta whore and think there is not something odd about him being seen in 85% of all marine armies.

Didn't 2ed do stuff like Al Rahem can only be taken in a Talarn arrmy? Why couldn't we have this now - if it aint Salamander etc he stays at home.

Rant over, byeeeee.

[Lerra]

What I object to is the 5th ed system of characters unlocking an ability.

I have to agree here. Rather than sticking a special army-changing rule on a named character, give it to a standard HQ. That way you don't have Vulkan He'stan running around an Ultramarines army, and you don't have to bring Belial, Master of the Deathwing, to a 1000 point game to run terminators as troops.

I'd much rather have the option to take a Captain in terminator armor that allows terminators to count as troops, or maybe some special techpriest HQ that works like Vulcan's chapter tactics.

[Denzark]

I have to agree here. Rather than sticking a special army-changing rule on a named character, give it to a standard HQ. That way you don't have Vulkan He'stan running around an Ultramarines army, and you don't have to bring Belial, Master of the Deathwing, to a 1000 point game to run terminators as troops.

I'd much rather have the option to take a Captain in terminator armor that allows terminators to count as troops, or maybe some special techpriest HQ that works like Vulcan's chapter tactics.

Here Here.

[Miggidy Mack]

I most definitely agree about that. Unlocking should be something regular commanders do. That, however, isn't the players fault. I would certainly allow my friends to field a Deathwing without the special character.

[Sangre]

Too many special characters detracts from their specialness.

[eagleboy7259]

I never realized they got rid of the army size rules... back in 3rd ed when special characters were almost never used they used to have a minimum army points size that people had to have in order to even use the SC's. Why not bring that back now? It doesn't get rid of SC's but then you wouldn't see the ridiculous ones tackling armies that don't even have a snowball's chance in hell of countering them.

[eldargal]

Apart from the odd Pheonix Lord I have never used special characters. Even with the PL I only use them in big Apocalypse games. I love the fluff for most of the special characters and own a lot of the models, even for armies I don't collect. So its not like I have something against them, I just see their constant use as a bit, well, lazy.

[Melissia]

They aren't special anymore, they're just characters.

[Commissar Lewis]

To some degree they have become overused. However, I still run Straken in my Guard because after two years of pretty much losing my entire ******* army to assaults from my friend who plays Chaos, I want someone who can do decent in melee.

Granted I suck terribly at the gaming part; my strategy consists of Indy Ploys. But I still have fun.

Thinking about getting Creed next, giving him a greenstuff beard, and making Chieftan-General Hrothgaar of the Daneland 110th.

Actually, my regiment is about 40 models Daneland Red Guard, 30 models Catachan 33rd. Currently thinking up custom fluff for Straken.

[MajorSoB]

No.

See this link, its been covered....

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=2718

[Sam]

I used to refuse to field special characters, but with the loss of doctrines for my IG I lose a lot of options if I don't take special characters. The fact is GW is putting a heavier emphasis on special character with new codices, and if you don't use them, you will most likely find yourself fighting an uphill battle all the way. That said, if you can win consistently without using them, more power to you.

[Lord Azaghul]

They aren't special anymore, they're just characters.

Agreed.

I just don't think Creed, Marbo, Pedro...ect are at every battle the Imperiam fights.

[foostoofoo]

I personally don't mind special characters as long as they're in the right army, for example marneus calgar in an ultramarines army. What I dont agree with is when people take a special character and rename him, I played a game against someone a few weeks back and he played an imperial fists army, led by vulkan hestan and pedro kantor, with telion in his scout squad, It really did just take the mick tbh, with all of the special rules the guys confer it was just a piss take, he battered me from re-rolls here and an extra attack there.

I've seen it a few times now at my local GW and its starting to frustsrate people because its a cheap dirty way to get added bonuses.

Special characters should stick to there own faction/chapter/whatever...

[Melissia]

Curious... what points level were you playing in that he won even with over 400 points taken up by three characters?

[B_Steele]

I agree. I liked Special Characters a lot more when I didn't see them appear in armies they were not intended to be in. I wish they would have kept the Calgar=Ultramarines, Hestan=Salamanders, Pedro=Fists, etc.

I mean, if you have a DYI chapter, you should pick what Founding you are sprouting from and use those characters.

I think my biggest complaint is the number of marine players that mix and match their SCs to suit what rule they want, rather than fitting them to their army.

Oh...and these Special Characters that don't cost an HQ slot (Chronus, Telion, etc.)...are just freakin' cheap and more annoying.

Cheers,
Bry

[mortal888]

The old days of doctrines and chapter traits were the best, but I think its best when people use "counts as" models. It opens up more for conversions and creativity rather than having to go buy this specific special character.

For example, I'm building a renegade guard army. Under the old rules I could have just picked a doctrine to get the rule I wanted. Now I would have to buy "joe blow" special character to get those reaccurring conscripts or a squad of rough riders to come in on outflank. How dumb would it look to actually have old joe blow leading the squad? Make a model that fits your army then count him as the special character. Next codex it will be generic anyway.

[B_Steele]

Oh no, no. I don't mean a counts as model; I don't care what model somebody uses as their characters - so long as they are fitting to the role. What I meant by "counts as" was the use of Special Characters in armies they don't belong in because of the Counts As rule.

Y'know, having Calgar in a Salamanders army, or dropping Lysander in your Raven Guard because you like the great unkillable terminator.

I wasn't talking about the models; I was talking about the characters themselves. :)

[Melissia]

Why should someone be restricted from having special characters in a DIY chapter? They can have heroes just like everyone else.

[Gotthammer]

Oh...and these Special Characters that don't cost an HQ slot (Chronus, Telion, etc.)...are just freakin' cheap and more annoying.

I use Chronus in my Rainbow Warriors army, as my chapter's contemporary or the Ultarmarine Sergeant. He's pretty expensive for being a +1BS and fancy extra armour.

Personally I think they should have kept all the 'unlocks' (such as fleet, infiltrate, sternguard scoring etc) as an upgrade to a Captain or Chapter Master for X points each, and had named characters who had these abilities, plus others. Also Chronus, Telion et al should have been kept as generic entries in the lists, Scout Master Sergeant, Master of the Armoury etc. Just use Telion as the example in the fluff.

[B_Steele]

That would be better. As a writer for the gaming industry, I am a self-proclaimed fluff-freak. I hate it when another artiste's work (the 40k fluff, in thsi case) is dragged through powergaming and other peoples' bad ideas.

I don't knock someone who has a DIY chapter from using Special Characters, just the DIY chapters that seem to be able to draw from every SM written ones for Special Characters. I mean, DIY is cool and all...but you should have to pick a founding chapter to be from for those instances.

But hey, I'm also rubbed the wrong way when people mix opposed Marks (does anyone even remember those anymore?) in a Chaos army. :)

-Bry

ps. - Also, I think it is awesome you run Rainbow Warriors. I was working on a fan-codex for them a while back. If I can find it, I'll fire it out to you.

[Melissia]

you should have to pick a founding chapter to be from for those instances.Why?

Makes no sense to me. There are no special characters which don't belong to a specific chapter, ergo, if you cannot use them unless you are in a specific chapter, then you cannot use special characters, ever. That is an unnecessary limitation, given that GW specifically created the Counts As rule in order to contradict your beliefs in the first place. They WANT people to go out and buy a Cantor model, paint him up in DIY chapter colors, and say that "This is my DIY chapter's chapter master, and here's his background. He counts as Cantor in-game."

[Gotthammer]

I mean, DIY is cool and all...but you should have to pick a founding chapter to be from for those instances.

Then you;d just end up with armies unpainted and players 'testing' which chapter to go for before they start painting.

It's really frustrating to play marines, and like using Captains (being the commanders and all), but losing Rites of Battle outside of Sicarius. The Captain is a great fighter, but lost his special ability to boost the troop's LD with is inspiring leadership. In 4th I'd always run a Captain, just for Ld10 across the board. Now, I still do, but it's not as fun. Sicarius is too many points for me to use regularly, but it is tempting.


ps. - Also, I think it is awesome you run Rainbow Warriors. I was working on a fan-codex for them a while back. If I can find it, I'll fire it out to you.

That'd be cool, thanks. You can see the background I've gotten around to writing up here on my blog (http://collegiatitanica.blogspot.com/2009/08/rainbow-warriors-background-archive.html).

[Brother Mord]

I never really liked using special character much. On a rare occasion I used Commissar Yarrick just to put the model out on the board, he wasnt a game breaker and was very fluff oriented when facing my ork opponent. As I said I only used him maybe one in twenty games. My usual Chaos opponent would field Kharn the same way.

As mentioned before special characters in every game are not special anymore.

I constantly read threads where every army build includes multible IG characters and just about every marine army build I read has one or two characters in the list. While I like the ability to give an army a little variety now and then I think this takes away from the game if used endlessly. Personal opinion though.

I like using a standard SM captain or IG commander for most of my games. I like playing using the army as a whole to win or lose the fight, not rely on special rules to play by. That being said if you play a lot throwing a character to have a different style of game on occassion is a great way to spice things up, if used sparingly.

My problem with the current SM codex is this... is there any real incentive to take a basic SM captain anymore? At least the current guard codex the characters seem a bit more tamed down. I haven't even seen the Space Wolf codex yet, no telling how special character heavy that thing is.

[B_Steele]

"This is my DIY chapter's chapter master, and here's his background. He counts as Cantor in-game."

I have no problem with that...I just feel the DIY chapter would have to be an successor chapter of the Crimson Fists, that's all. It makes me crazy when someone's DIY chapter is using the counts as rule to get Special Characters from different chapters into the same army. Does that make more sense?

[B_Steele]

Then you;d just end up with armies unpainted and players 'testing' which chapter to go for before they start painting.


Is that really so wrong? I'd rather my opponents do a little research before jumping into an army. :)

[Gotthammer]

I was more implying thata certain type of unscrupulous player would never paint them so they didn't get tied down to a certain build / lock out a favourite SC. Even if they did you'd end up with the horrors of the 2nd ed 'Crusade Army': BAs for Death Company, Dark Angels for plasma tac squads, Wolves for Wolf Guard Terminators and Long Fangs, Ultras for Marneus.

I still think the best option is to make named characters really special, but have regular guys easily adjustable - the new Wolf codex is a step in the right direction with the sagas and such.

[B_Steele]

[QUOTE=I still think the best option is to make named characters really special, but have regular guys easily adjustable - the new Wolf codex is a step in the right direction with the sagas and such.[/QUOTE]

You and I completely agree on this. I hope my Blood Angels see a little of the same love when we get an update (even though I would rather Dark Eldar and Necrons get codices first!).

[Chumbalaya]

The hate-on people have for special characters is insane and without any rational basis.

Vulkan is a unit option like a Librarian or Land Speeder or Land Raider. You include units in your army because they fit the particular build or strategy you are going for, same goes for any characters. You don't see people complaining about how that jerk always fields the same Land Speeder, it totally detracts from the game!

The biggest myth out there is that SCs are unbalanced in some way, that taking them amounts to an auto-win. Laughable. It's a legal option just like anything else in your Codex, where's the problem. Some SCs are just hardcore face beaters while others alter or buff your army. They all pay points and they all have their own downsides. Maybe you shouldn't run right at Lysander instead of complain about it. Vulkan is teh cheez0r, plz nurf nao! Oh wait, his army doesn't have combat tactics and is overly reliant on short ranged weapons, not to mention the price tag on that guy.

Play smarter, cry less.

[B_Steele]

The biggest myth out there is that SCs are unbalanced in some way, that taking them amounts to an auto-win.

The thing is, that isn't my problem with them. Nothing is unbeatable. My problem is from a fluff point of view.

I'm a professional writer in the gaming industry and it rakes across everything I love about the industry when people simply ignore hours and hours of work put into the story behind characters and the world they are playing in because they want to be more competitive/'arder/whatever. I feel the same way when I see people just pound on the 'X' button to get passed dialogue in a video game. It cheapens the hard work of some talented someone out there.


Play smarter, cry less.

Replies like this are juvenile and do nothing but inject hostility into an otherwise civil discussion about people's opinions. Please refrain from implying I am complaining about losing this game to Special Characters; as that this is NOT what the thread is even about.

Thanks, all. May the conversation continue...

[Sitnam]

I personally have no problem with counts as characters because that is the mean GW has selected to produce unique armies. Traits and doctrines and all that is gone. For those people who don't run a standard chapter, the only plausible way to get a non-UM succesor chapter is through Chapter Tactics. As said before, GW WANTS us to play these characters as counts-as forces. It even states so in the SM codex. Now I myself wished they made things like Chapter Tactics kind of like Marks from the CSM codex, as a upgrade you can take for your commander. But they did not, and for those players who want unique and fluffy armies then Special Characters is how they do it.

Now I say all this from a fluff gamers perspective. I wanna make my own chapter in the future, as such if a special character fits my fluff then i'll take em. But I will not take ridiculous characters like Vulkan, and I even toyed with the idea of a Sally succesor chapter. But I do agree that SC's taken in a real chapter should match the chapter their with. So no Vulkan for Ultramarines, No Kantor for White Scars, etc .But DIY chapters don't have their own SC's or established fluff, so I have no problem with them being used counts-as.

I do wish however that if players using DIY armies used special characters, they would make their own models for them. Seeing a yellow painted Shrike will probably burn my eyes, but a jazzed up Captain with the same equipment is fine by me. But meh, that's just a moot point


I'm a professional writer in the gaming industry and it rakes across everything I love about the industry when people simply ignore hours and hours of work put into the story behind characters and the world they are playing in because they want to be more competitive/'arder/whatever. I feel the same way when I see people just pound on the 'X' button to get passed dialogue in a video game. It cheapens the hard work of some talented someone out there. If it cheapened the work of those writers, then the game company (Who the writers work for) shouldn't of put things like counts-as and the X button in the game.

[Lerra]

Here's the thing: it's much better to have counts-as versus not having it at all. Without "counts-as", you'd just see a bunch of people spray painting their Ultramarines green to run He'stan, with Pedro Cantor in the list because he was taking an evening stroll and happened to run into a battle. I'd rather see a counts-as character with a good backstory over that baloney any day.

I run Fallen Dark Angels, and I'd like to think that people don't get annoyed about my count-as HQ. I'd much rather call my HQ "Morgana, the Beguiler of Tzeentch" versus calling her Belial and saying that he must have become one of the Fallen and changed genders in the process . . . (I'm pretty sure there would be some very angry DA players over that one lol).

[B_Steele]

I'd much rather call my HQ "Morgana, the Beguiler of Tzeentch" versus calling her Belial ...

Yeah, but at least you are running your army out of the Dark Angels codex with a Dark Angels Special Character.

Now, if you said you were running Ultramarines with a counts-as Hestan...THAT is what I have my issues with. :)

[Chumbalaya]

The thing is, that isn't my problem with them. Nothing is unbeatable. My problem is from a fluff point of view.

It may not be yours, but other people suffer from such delusions.


I'm a professional writer in the gaming industry and it rakes across everything I love about the industry when people simply ignore hours and hours of work put into the story behind characters and the world they are playing in because they want to be more competitive/'arder/whatever. I feel the same way when I see people just pound on the 'X' button to get passed dialogue in a video game. It cheapens the hard work of some talented someone out there.

They have counts-as and X buttons for a reason: people have different tastes. Somebody just wants to get on with the game, the fluff doesn't interest them as much. It's not wrong, just different tastes. I'd prefer if we had options open so people could pursue what interests them without worrying about retribution from somebody who feels like imposing their will on somebody else.


Replies like this are juvenile and do nothing but inject hostility into an otherwise civil discussion about people's opinions. Please refrain from implying I am complaining about losing this game to Special Characters; as that this is NOT what the thread is even about.

I wouldn't say that "all people who use SCs have no skill" or "don't care about fluff" or "don't care about fun" or "are jerks" is very nice, but I suppose passively aggressivley brow beating people to play your way is more civil than calling people out on their grox dung. You haven't whined about losing to SCs, so my bile is not directed your way ;)

[Mobious]

It seems that most people have a problem with the way some (not all) special characters are being used, and not that they are being fielded. Most of the complaints are aimed towards the players who call the commander of their blue marines Vulkan just to reap the twin linked advantage. This has nothing to do with special characters themselves.

I for one have no problem with SCs at all. In my opinion they are strong because they cost a lot of points and sacrifice certain things. The SM codex for example has a fair share of special characters that are strong, but are not over powered. Although Vulkan is a bit of a beast, he makes people take all meltas and flamers which have their own weaknesses; not to mention you give up combat tactics (one of the better things about marines). Shrike is a one trick pony, and if you know the game and see it coming it is not very hard to beat.

I personally play my BA with Dante because he adds flavor to my army and I think he is beautiful. ;) Now I could drop him and put about 100 points into another Baal, a Land Speeder, a handful of power fists, a Dread or whatever else, but I like having a named leader for my army. I don't think that it is so bad to grab a fluffly SC to lead your army. and i have certainly never lost a game because the opposing HQ was Eldrad (210)

I have certainly never lost a game because the opposing HQ was Eldrad (210), Abaddon (275), Vulkan (195), or any other SC and I would never blame it on them.

[eagleboy7259]

It seems that most people have a problem with the way some (not all) special characters are being used, and not that they are being fielded. Most of the complaints are aimed towards the players who call the commander of their blue marines Vulkan just to reap the twin linked advantage. This has nothing to do with special characters themselves.

Crazy throw backs to 3rd ed again when all SC's had "If you play a Salamanders army of 1500pts or more" or "If you play an Ulthwe army of 2000pts" etc. Qualifiers on units not meant to be included in regular play, they were fluffy little trinkets you can use if you have an army painted a special way. Sure they had stats, special rules and all that stuff, but they were just nonsense to most players. Its not that way anymore, 5th ed is here, and SC's are here unless GW decides to change the system next ed.

[B_Steele]

As a Blood Angel player, I just get very tired of my peers telling me that the only way to win with my codex is to use Dante and Corbulo. I find this especially funny when I kick their arses with my generic characters, tactical squads and Death Company armed with bolters. :)

Anyway, I digress; my problem is not with the power levels of Special Characters (hell, I have Mephiston!) my complaint is how they become a "must have" crutch for so many players. I always feel sorry for a player who ever says they cannot win without something in their lists...Special Characters just stand out as my personal grumpy.

[Pi666]

There's SC and SC. I mean, there's Abbadon, Gazghkull and so, and there's for example Belial. The first ones you take them for crush heads, in my case, i have to choose Belial if i want an exterminator captain. That's different to me.

And about the counts as and SC in other armies, is as disgusting to me as the plague marines army commanded by a Slaanesh Daemon Prince... If i find something like this, I always do the same, try to beat him as hard as I can (in the game of course) and tell him he got the Gods angry, that's why he lost...

[B_Steele]

Pi666...I applaud in your direction. :)

[tabyrd]

I had to post a reply to this because I don't see what the issue is with SC. In 3rd edition the image of Shrike and the fluff behind him was so powerful that I knew I just had to have a raven guard force. Heck, I even built Shrike's wing! They might have played in one game ever. When the next marine dex came out, I was hooked on the smurfs because, that's what got me started into the hobby back in the beginning. So, I built an even bigger force of Ultramarines, however from time to time, I bust out Shrike or other special characters to join or lead the force. I think the characters themselves are cool fluffwise and the models themselves are awesome so why do I have to start a whole new marine force just to play with Vulkan? I think my 10000pts is enough and if Vulkan is hanging out on the battle barge and a fight breaks out, its not like I'm going to tell him, no... sorry no green guys allowed. So yep, I'm the guy who has a green salamanders Vulkan leading a host of blue ultramarines or a yellow Lysander IF jumping out of a landraider full of smurf assault terms. It's totally within the fluff to have them fighting together. They are MARINES! I mix and match every week all sorts of characters along with plain jane chappys and librarians. Variety is the spice of life and I don't see any fluff stating Ultramarines won't fight for/with Vulkan. Do I need to have a single squad of said SC's force along with to make it more 'fluffy' ? I'd go for that but by your reasoning, I couldn't use any of these guys unless I went out and collected umpteen different marine forces.

From a gaming perspective, you pay out the nose for these characters so even though that's not the purpose of this thread, going nuts with SCs just makes it easier for the other guy to whip your butt.

[PhoenixFlame]

I use Chronus in my Rainbow Warriors army, as my chapter's contemporary or the Ultarmarine Sergeant. He's pretty expensive for being a +1BS and fancy extra armour.

Personally I think they should have kept all the 'unlocks' (such as fleet, infiltrate, sternguard scoring etc) as an upgrade to a Captain or Chapter Master for X points each, and had named characters who had these abilities, plus others. Also Chronus, Telion et al should have been kept as generic entries in the lists, Scout Master Sergeant, Master of the Armoury etc. Just use Telion as the example in the fluff.

I've been saying the same for quite awhile now. Have the special characters be better in some ways but allow the unlocks to be purchased some other way. It would add a lot of flex and help maintain how special the characters really are. I doubt we'll see it however because from a fig sales perspective which is better people using their Capt. model for an increased point cost or people buying a unique character model for an additional $10-20 each. I already have all my SCs for the wolves so it doesn't really effect me on the pocketbook front, but I would still love to have the option open to me in list building.

2c Phoenix

[Pi666]

@ Tabyrd.

Your argument makes no sense to me, in fluff ways. I don't think that the Salamander's Forgefather would be "hanging out" on his own in an Ultramarines battle barge, without having their personal guard at least (and by personal guard I'm not only talking about Honor guard, I'd include 20 or 30 marines more) and not because they don't trust the Ultras, just because in case "a fight breaks out" he would be guarded. Same for Lysander, I don't see the IF 1st captain (btw, nice progression, i remember when lysander was just a vet sarge... yime runs fast!! lol) fighting alonside no other than his fellows IF termies.
I think saying that's fluffwise is a way to excuse the use of other chapters characters to benefit of their rules, not of their fluff.

[Ivarr]

When it comes to SCs, I am an extremist. I will not field a SC in my army. I don't like to use a character that belongs to someone else. I feel bad getting Marneus Calgar shot up or killed every Saturday when he is supposed to have survived thousands of battles over a career spanning more than 1k years. It is just a personal choice on my part. Because of this, I really do not like the newer codecies tying army abilities to SCs. I have Salamanders, but I do not want to get the Forgefather of the Salamanders killed every time the dice don't go my way. I am glad that the IG codex doesn't tie every good variant to a character...I can just play it "vanilla" if I want to and it is effective.:D

The only bummer for me is that I like some of the IC models...so I put them in my armies as normal characters...some opponents are bothered by it but I am always sure to let them know ahead of time that Sicarus is just a vet Sgt. or Shrike is just a Sgt for an assault squad. :eek: :eek:

[B_Steele]

Ivarr - I think your stance is awesome, excellent and worth striving toward in the arena of good gaming and fun players. I wish more people thought like you do.

[eagleboy7259]

Ivarr - please come join us in 5th ed. Papa Smurf can die every saturday now :p

I actually like my lists like that too, kind of a throw back to 3rd ed when I started playing. Heck I remember the first time they said an SC was okay to be in every list, I had never seen so many Maugan Ra's running around like I did during Eye of Terror

[Melissia]

Fluffwise, you can make up a bunch of crap that isn't fluffy, it's your army, I don't care. Corrupted Sisters (only one actually exists, with a few scattered mind-controlled Sororitas in certain novels, but remember that novels bend the fluff in order to make a storyline work) are a good example. I recall a Chaos Grey Knights army, had a grandmaster decorated in chaos undivided symbols, and a terminator retinue with each member decorated in the symbols of a different chaos god. It was a neat army, completely and totally unfluffy, but still neat. Hell I even remember chaos-infested Tau at one point, with a sorcerer taking the place of the Ethereal.

Don't bash other peoples' armies just because they don't mesh with your little worldview.

[DarkLink]

I agree with Melissia. The fluff is there to make the game more fun, not to put undue restrictions on the game. Fluff is subjective, and quite easy to work with. You can justify almost anything with some convoluted explanation if you want. So there's no point in getting worked up over you intolerance for other people's freedom to make up their own fluff that doesn't match yours.

[B_Steele]

So there's no point in getting worked up over you intolerance for other people's freedom to make up their own fluff that doesn't match yours.


I completely agree. That is why I am asking for peoples' opinions. Mine are one thing, and I make no secret of them - I hate seeing Special Characters in regular games of 40k. Would I tell someone their "army is crap" because they had one? No. I might point out their lack of flexibility when relying on a crutch like a Special Character (or something else they "always" or "must" take), but I agree with you.

There is no reason to worked up over this at all; it is just a game.

Still, we have heard several good opinions on SC use both for and against; I want to hear some more. Anybody have any self-regulated house rules against them? Any local tourneys ever REQUIRE you to take one? Forbid them?

I want to hear more opinions on Special Character usage. Particularly now that the 5th Ed codices seem to be pointing more and more to their commonplace use.

[Sangre]

All things said and done I do field a counts-as Marbo in my army. Farrell Cormix is a sector-reknowned thief who often ends up getting intertwined with the Astraean IXth and is somewhat tolerated by Colonel Barion because he occasionally has been known to be useful.

[B_Steele]

All things said and done I do field a counts-as Marbo in my army.

You at least put together a decent narrative element to explain his presence. Too many players just hand wave the fact that their Special Characters would not work together in (I hate to use the term) "reality" except against a truly horrendous foe - hence why I LOVE Special Characters in Apocalypse games.

Is Marbo ALWAYS in your force? Or does your narrative about sometimes working for your forces actually mean he shows up to every game? I'm curious.

[Sangre]

Even though fluffwise he shouldn't be, generally he is, mainly because he's such fun to use. He's never a gamewinner (thanks to the IXth Astraean doctrine of casually running away when losing) but he does always have fun out there.

[B_Steele]

thanks to the IXth Astraean doctrine of casually running away when losing

This line made my day.

So...anyone else out there use their own well thought out, narratively-backgrounded Special Characters?

[Nabterayl]

All of the folks I play who use special characters use them as counts-as for people they've made up their own personalities and histories for. I have a friend who uses the Space Wolf rules for his marine chapter (not that they're actually a Space Wolf successor chapter; just that the SW codex best captured the flavor he was going for) and intends to use Logan Grimnar as his chapter master. He said something once when I asked him about that that changed my opinion on special characters.


I asked, "You know, I get why you want to do that, but how many marines of Grimnar's caliber can there be in the Imperium?"

He said, "Not many, I grant you, but seeing as these are the heroes and villains of our story, I have no problem with them being larger than life."

I thought that was a good way to look at it.

[Sam]

Special character and fluff (or at least GW fluff) have nothing to do with each other in my army lists. I come up with my own fluff for my armies, pick some SCs that seem to fit, then rename them. Creed becomes Lord General Aleksei Spiridon, Kell becomes Sergej Abramm, and Marbo becomes Vladislav Aleksandr. If I have an idea for an army, I'm not going to avoid SCs that have rules to fit the army just because they wouldn't work together under GW's fluff.

[S0ULDU5T]

After just coming off a thread about how bad economic creep is getting and how GW could allow this I find these type of threads that do not support the current trend of special characters appaling and disgustingly hypocritical.

The new trend in special characters is nothing short of the marriage of GW's love of special characters since herohammer and the steady popularity of character based games like 'Hordes' and 'Warhamchine' to name a few. This, in my opinion, is the only reason the SM codex was revisted so early - apart from them being the favored child of Games Workshop it was to bring them in line with this new philosophy.

This new philosophy is simple - You have, for example, a space marine army in which you can trade a special character into the army and make it something altogether different thus getting more for your models and more for you money. This was one of the more positive points behind 'War Machine' that an entire army could change in feeling and playstyle by simply changing a 10 dollar model. Not only that, but this philosophy lends itself to a great deal of character within the overall game becuase like it or not special characters are people we can identify with (as opposed to your made up fluff which I could care less about becuase I came to play and not read a novel or hear a speech about your innane fiction) and always bring a little more solid fluff to the warhammer world. THis type of philosophy directly contradicts economy creep and breaths some life into a game where otherwise you must substitute your own; furthermore, regarldess of your opinion on substituting your own fluff I do like the direction this new philosphy brings in not making such a thing a requirement for character to exist in the warhammer world.

Not that character was entirely absent from the warhammer 40k world, but pick up the 4th edition (IMO the 5th edition too) ruleset and any codex then compare it to the any of 'War Machines' books and the canyon between the two in terms of character is readily apperant. By the way, I really hate 'War Machine', so not advocating that game or saying IN ANY WAY that it's a better overall game but it doesn't hurt for GW to see what other companies are doing right and think it might be a good idea to impliment as part of a continueingly growing process.

I am ashamed of all these players that would otherwise complain at having to buy new models or the effects of economic creep but, for no logical reason than stubborness alone would rather buy more models that have a special rule than one model that would supply that rule to currently existing models. Hypocrisy!

I think a lot of the rebuke that 40k gets towards special characters are from veterans themselves whom are more like old people not wanting to learn to program VCR's than anything else; a lack of understanding of why things must be different or change when in their opinion they were fine the way they were - the condition of getting too set in their ways.

Warhammer players are usually full of imagination and a willingness to create which is why our game has survived decades where others have failed and continue to do so, a true community of hobbist authors that get a chance to see their minds eye into the 40k world solidify onto the tabletop - it is also very concearning that this same imagination and willingness to believe is not applied to 'counts as' models or for special characters themselves becuase overall why a Salamander character would be fighting by his lonesome with Ultramines is hardly any different than 80% of the fluff behind other peoples entire armies and no respect is given to this point.

[Gotthammer]

Um, what hypocracy?

The argument is against using Margeus Calgar as Captain Bob of the Generic Marines.
Prettymuch everyone here agrees that being able to take characters that alter your armies theme would be great, but many would prefer to be able to make their own than have to take one with a 'name' already, so that they don't have to say "this is Captain West, using Sicarius' rules" but "This is Captain West, she's a captain with artificer armour, relic blade and storm bolter. I took the special rule so all my guys use her leadership.".
Also it is annoying to have to refer to them by their Codex name when the other player isn't totally familiar with your army - it destroys the illusion.
"Captain West is firing on your farseer."
"Who?"
"Sicarius"
"Ah, ok."
I use a generic captain for Captain West, but lose Rites of Battle. So West, not the greatest fighter in the Chapter but a tactician and inspiring leader, loses the one ability to do so because they game it to the Ultra's poster boy. sure I could take Sicarius, but he's 50pts more expensive and he's not Captain West anymore. I didn't create him. That's why I'm thinking of using the Wolves codex, so I can get a hold of all those sagas and such to really make some unique, but generic, officers for my Chapter.

If I could do that I'd be making more characters as I could represent them better, and buying more kits to make them come to life on the tabletop. The current codexes lack the customisation to do that outside of wargear. The only characters who affect an armies theme with marines (aside from biker captains and MotF) already have detailed backstories. Some of us find using them an unsatisfactory middle ground (me), some find it a total opposite of their view of the fluff(B Steele), others don't care so long as the unit is legal by the rules (prettymuch everyone else :p).

I dislike the Warmachine system of having to take a pre-created, named, warcaster. I think that kills creativity, as there is no room to make them your own.

[The Sin of Pride]

In my opinion... I 'd use Specials as a way to fluff my army up, but not really as a game winner.

You have to admit, there are some quality looking Specials out there though!

[S0ULDU5T]

Um, what hypocracy?

The argument is against using Margeus Calgar as Captain Bob of the Generic Marines.


The thread is called "Special characters, yes or no" so the argument is not just about using 'counts as' characters as you suggest. The statements and actions I thought were hypocritical were clearly outlined in my post. I'm sorry you don't like Warmachines lack of creativity in creating non-named heroes, and although I have my own greivances with the system it doesn't change those things I listed in my post about the strengths of the system and their implementation elsewhere.

In regards to this:
Pretty much everyone here agrees that being able to take characters that alter your armies theme would be great, but many would prefer to be able to make their own than have to take one with a 'name' already, so that they don't have to say "this is Captain West, " but "This is Captain West, she's a captain with artificer armour, relic blade and storm bolter. I took the special rule so all my guys use her leadership.".

I will use this to discredit:
"Captain West is firing on your farseer."
"Who?"
"Sicarius"
"Ah, ok."

It is much more simple to say the name of the 'counts as' model then list all the wargear and special rules of the model and expect people to remember it as opposed to something they may be more familair with. Also, special rules don't always exist with custom HQ's becuase GW needs to make sure that your not giving your template HQ this particulair special rule and then a fantastic invunerable save - that is to say, these special rules are given to non customizable characters to ensure there is a level of game balance present.

Ignoring the fact that I have my own life to live with a family and a job that demands what mental capacity there is to spare so as to not allow much room for: your wargear options, the combinations of your wargear options, all your special rules and wither or not that blue thing 'counts as' an iron halo this game - "using Sicarius' rules" is three words while " I took the special rule so all my guys use her leadership" is 12 words that involves more inane context.

This is why having a model that is easily reconizable that always has the same rules allows for a more streamlined and, in my opinin, fun experience. Furthermore if it's more fun for you to paint that model differently and make a Salamander into an Ultramarine than it's a win-win.

[Valkerie]

This line made my day.

So...anyone else out there use their own well thought out, narratively-backgrounded Special Characters?

I do. Carrion the Traitor, a commissar who found out the "truth". It drove him insane, and he now works for a chaos Guard army. He's just Yarrick with a different attitude. So far no one seems to mind. Of course, it probably helps that my win loss record doesn't change much whether I use special characters or not.

I don't use special characters much, personal preference, but see nothing really wrong with them. The only real problem that I see is that everyone's army tends to look the same. I do like the idea of allowing generic characters to unlock special abilities for extra points, allows people to use their own characters that aren't just clones of GW models and fluff. Don't think it's going to happen any time soon, more's the pity.

[Melissia]

[edit: wrong thread... how did it end up in this one? >.< ]

[B_Steele]

[edit: wrong thread... how did it end up in this one? >.< ]

Because my thread is just THAT cool. ;)

Anyway, as to Carrion the Traitor...that is pretty cool. That, and I LOVE killing Yarrick over and over again.

-Bry

[Gotthammer]

Also, special rules don't always exist with custom HQ's becuase GW needs to make sure that your not giving your template HQ this particulair special rule and then a fantastic invunerable save - that is to say, these special rules are given to non customizable characters to ensure there is a level of game balance present.

To discredit: Space Wolf Sagas.
Following on from my previous comment about missing Rites of Battle, under the SW codex I can give an HQ Saga of Majesty and allow re-rolls for failed morale checks. I can give this to my Lieutenant mini, who has a power fist, rather than every time I want to field a commander character and have some way of representing their awesome commanding abilities needing a guy with a sword and plasma pistol (Sicarius) or twin power fists (Calgar).

Now all commanders who aren't SCs do is get a high WS, which is a waste unless you're assaulting guys, which isn't always the best idea for marines.



Ignoring the fact that I have my own life to live with a family and a job that demands what mental capacity there is to spare so as to not allow much room for: your wargear options, the combinations of your wargear options, all your special rules and wither or not that blue thing 'counts as' an iron halo this game - "using Sicarius' rules" is three words while " I took the special rule so all my guys use her leadership" is 12 words that involves more inane context.


But it does allow for you to memorise every special character's rules in every codex? I explained the exact rule of Rites of Battle in 12 words. Covering Sicarius' rules if you asked what they were would take far, far more. How's "I took Rites of battle" for you? Only two extra words to listen to there, I'm sure you can spare the prescious second from your day to hear them. We're all busy people here.


Also you *****ed that people are being uncreative as oppsed to "usually full of imagination and a willingness to create", but you have no care for anyones creativity in regards to background, finding it "inane". That attitude stifles creativity and progress in the game more than any special character, economic increase or codex creep ever could.
If people are unwilling to listen to how others have changed the game through house rules, how they view the background through their own fiction, or how they love playing through tales of battle the game will stagnate and die, becoming and extremely expensive computer game (hell, even they have mod communities!).

If we, as gamers, only allow the game of 40k, and the world of the 41st millenium to be explored creatively and changed to suit us when GW decides to put out a new edition or write a new novel we cannot call ourselves "a true community of hobbiest authors that get a chance to see their minds eye into the 40k world solidify onto the tabletop". We're just playing a glorified game of chess, not the game GW created that extoles the virtue of freedom of creativity and creating "inane context" for the tabletop struggles we act out.

[MarshalAdamar]

Because my thread is just THAT cool. ;)

Anyway, as to Carrion the Traitor...that is pretty cool. That, and I LOVE killing Yarrick over and over again.

-Bry

I like the Carrion the traitor but have a special place in hell reserved for the good commissar.

I played against guard in one of the recent tourneys and killed Yaric 3 times with the emperors champ! And three times he got back up! I was inconsolable!

P.S. I look forward to drawing your name for the team tourney in Lafayette!

[S0ULDU5T]

To discredit: Space Wolf Sagas.
Following on from my previous comment about missing Rites of Battle, under the SW codex I can give an HQ Saga of Majesty and allow re-rolls for failed morale checks. I can give this to my Lieutenant mini, who has a power fist, rather than every time I want to field a commander character and have some way of representing their awesome commanding abilities needing a guy with a sword and plasma pistol (Sicarius) or twin power fists (Calgar).

Your not really discrediting anything. My point was they give rules to special characters (such as 'Wrath of the Savage' for Canis) so that GW has some measure of control over how they're used. For instance, Canis does not have an invunerable save - it's something you would trade for taking Canis and his special rule over a custom template lord that you could give a Belt of Russ too. As for anything else you've said in this paragrah, Sagas are really nothing more than specialized wargear and doesn't represent any point in this argument at all since you've always been able to give wargear to custom HQ's. Specificly, I believe chapter banners are often the wargear that help with morale checks and have been around for a very long time.


But it does allow for you to memorise every special character's rules in every codex? I explained the exact rule of Rites of Battle in 12 words. Covering Sicarius' rules if you asked what they were would take far, far more. How's "I took Rites of battle" for you? Only two extra words to listen to there, I'm sure you can spare the prescious second from your day to hear them. We're all busy people here.

I will gaurentee you that a Sicarius model is more easily reconizable and memorable than some custom job 100% of the time. Sure each model (your custom model and Sicarius) has they're own special rules but after I've played Sicarius once then I know him each and every time I see him - I have no idea if that custom model still 'counts as' anything or if you've traded wargear or if hes a sargent rather than an HQ this time, etc.


Also you *****ed that people are being uncreative as oppsed to "usually full of imagination and a willingness to create", but you have no care for anyones creativity in regards to background, finding it "inane". That attitude stifles creativity and progress in the game more than any special character, economic increase or codex creep ever could.
If people are unwilling to listen to how others have changed the game through house rules, how they view the background through their own fiction, or how they love playing through tales of battle the game will stagnate and die, becoming and extremely expensive computer game (hell, even they have mod communities!).

You don't seem to grasp the concept of approving of the idea of something while not much caring for it personally - If you want to be creative and spend all your time making up fluff for things then I'm all for it but when I show up to my LGS and I'm ready to play a game but you insist on telling me the novel that is the backstory of all your characters then no, I don't care much for that. Thats just a personal opinion, and some people absolutly love to trade such information; and little pockets of informaiton such as conversions with explanations like "this leman russ tank converted to chaos" is fine to me rather than you needing to tell me it converted to chaos becuase the mother of the tanks driver didn't love him enough when he was a kid, etc.


If we, as gamers, only allow the game of 40k, and the world of the 41st millenium to be explored creatively and changed to suit us when GW decides to put out a new edition or write a new novel we cannot call ourselves "a true community of hobbiest authors that get a chance to see their minds eye into the 40k world solidify onto the tabletop". We're just playing a glorified game of chess, not the game GW created that extoles the virtue of freedom of creativity and creating "inane context" for the tabletop struggles we act out.

Your paragraph makes no sense, while trying to be poetic. GW is the only source of accurate information in regards to the world of 40k, so you do have to allow the game of 40k to be explored definitivly through them and they're the only ones that can really change it legally to suit anyone - all your doing by creating fluff is exploring yourself, your own mind and enjoying the 40k environment they create which is why I strongly endorse the idea of it but not something I much care for myself. Furthermore, you are just playing a glroified game of chess and..."extoles the virtue of freedom of creativity" is really a clever way of saying absolutly nothing in the English language, I think you just meant that it extoles the virtue of creativity which it still does and always has regardless of anything to do with this thread, arguement or post.

[Gotthammer]

Your not really discrediting anything. My point was they give rules to special characters (such as 'Wrath of the Savage' for Canis) so that GW has some measure of control over how they're used. For instance, Canis does not have an invunerable save - it's something you would trade for taking Canis and his special rule over a custom template lord that you could give a Belt of Russ too. As for anything else you've said in this paragrah, Sagas are really nothing more than specialized wargear and doesn't represent any point in this argument at all since you've always been able to give wargear to custom HQ's. Specificly, I believe chapter banners are often the wargear that help with morale checks and have been around for a very long time.

Except, as we've been mostly using the Marine codex as an example, the current marine HQ characters (outside SCs) have no wargear options for themselves that are not weapons or armour. The Chapter Banner, while doing the re-roll, is given to a guy in the squad and is a banner. It does not come close to being a special, customisable, ability given to a generic character.




I will gaurentee you that a Sicarius model is more easily reconizable and memorable than some custom job 100% of the time. Sure each model (your custom model and Sicarius) has they're own special rules but after I've played Sicarius once then I know him each and every time I see him - I have no idea if that custom model still 'counts as' anything or if you've traded wargear or if hes a sargent rather than an HQ this time, etc.

My point on the SW codex Sagas was that you seemed to imply that such options as are given to SCs are not available to regular characters out of game balance. The sagas show that very similar abilities are usable. My previous example of Rites of Battle was available to every Captain and Commander in the previous codex.

But one of the original points of the thread was people using models aside from the official ones as named characters. Just because someone has Vulkan or Sicarius in their list doesn't mean they're using the model. Given the ungodly amount of effort required to remove all the metal chapter symbols for Sicarius I'd never use the official model. Similarly many people think the Vulkan model is ugly as sin, or they're running a Howling Griffons list, so it doesn't fit as is. You'd still have the problem of not instantly recognising the mini in that case. My position is that if GW gave 99% of the rules they gave to SCs as options to regular HQs it would be a better system.

Part of this (and any game IMO) is also being a courteous player and having a clearly written army list, so that if your opponent is unsure of a wargear loadout they can easily see who has what.



You don't seem to grasp the concept of approving of the idea of something while not much caring for it personally - If you want to be creative and spend all your time making up fluff for things then I'm all for it but when I show up to my LGS and I'm ready to play a game but you insist on telling me the novel that is the backstory of all your characters then no, I don't care much for that. Thats just a personal opinion, and some people absolutly love to trade such information; and little pockets of informaiton such as conversions with explanations like "this leman russ tank converted to chaos" is fine to me rather than you needing to tell me it converted to chaos becuase the mother of the tanks driver didn't love him enough when he was a kid, etc.

You did say that adding seven words to a rules explaination for the sake of not using a special character was inane - it didn't really come off as approving ;)
I wouldn't tell you any more than that unless you asked, and I haven't offered any more in this thread as it is not relevant. However in the context of creating an army list, if I have an idea for a character I dislike having to sacrifice something of that idea be it game effectiveness due to lack of rules (for instance my bolt pistol + power fist Lieutenant has no in game ability to represent his experience at leading an army), or the concept of the character in my head (having to give said Lt a storm bolter and run him as Pedro).
Niether of these affects my opponent or the way I play a game (except perhaps taking too long to explain all the wargear :p ) but I does needlessly restrict army creation - look at all the defunct Chaos armies because they streamlined the codex for an extreme example.



Your paragraph makes no sense, while trying to be poetic. GW is the only source of accurate information in regards to the world of 40k, so you do have to allow the game of 40k to be explored through them and they're the only ones that can really change it to suit anyone - all your doing by creating fluff is exploring yourself, your own mind and enjoying the 40k environment they create which is why I strongly endorse the idea of it but not something I much care for myself. Furthermore, you are just playing a glroified game of chess and..."extoles the virtue of freedom of creativity" is really a clever way of saying absolutly nothing in the English language, I think you just meant that it extoles the virtue of creativity which it still does and always has regardless of anything to do with this thread, arguement or post.

GW's fluff is not accurate in any way:

"Rogal Dorn died fighting onboard a Chaos ship, after attacking the first Black Crusade fleet with a vastly outnumbered force. Seeing the importance of attacking the enemy fleet while they were still preparing he relied on hit-and-run attacks until his reinforcements could arrive. Dorn died on board the Despoiler Class Battleship Sword of Sacrilege after leading a desperate attack on its bridge."

"The first Black Crusade occurred in the middle of the 31st millennium."

"The Despoiler Class Battleship was designed as a long range heavy fighter carrier in the mid-36th Millennium as part of the Gareox Prerogative, and was based upon schematics of the Death Guard vessel Terminus Est, the flagship of Typhus, found among the ruins of the perdita world of Barbarus - the former home world of the Death Guard."

Dorn died on a ship that wasn't created until five thousand years later. All official bits of fluff. It's written that way so you can change it to suit yourself (maybe Sword of Sacrilege is really Terminus Est? Typhus killed Dorn! Cue epic Fist vs Death Guard grudge match) - it says so in the rulebooks.

Lastly, yes, I was being overly hyperbolic and ratty before - I really shouldn't post until a few hours after work :o

[Sangre]

This line made my day.

So...anyone else out there use their own well thought out, narratively-backgrounded Special Characters?

Thanks. I'm proud of the Astraean Twilight Guard, whose schtick is that they're divided as to whether they care more about their beautiful paradise homeworld, or the Emperor. As such their PDF is generally of a higher military calibre than their Guard foundings, who are drawn from the cunning soldiers in the ranks of the PDF. Serving as a commissar in a Twilight Guard regiment is a stressful business, and the few that remain (with exceptions, such as Lord Commissar Archaius Grimcut of the IXth, who's in it for the long haul) are generally just waiting for their transfer paperwork to clear.

[S0ULDU5T]

Except, as we've been mostly using the Marine codex as an example, the current marine HQ characters (outside SCs) have no wargear options for themselves that are not weapons or armour. The Chapter Banner, while doing the re-roll, is given to a guy in the squad and is a banner. It does not come close to being a special, customisable, ability given to a generic character.

Saga's are wargear for all practical purposes, and template custom HQ's have had options in wargear for a very long time. It is in no way indicative of the ease of making such rules possessed by special characters available to custom ones.


My point on the SW codex Sagas was that you seemed to imply that such options as are given to SCs are not available to regular characters out of game balance. The sagas show that very similar abilities are usable. My previous example of Rites of Battle was available to every Captain and Commander in the previous codex.

I was very specific in the type of rules I meant, and why special characters have them as opposed to being optoinal for custom HQ's.


But one of the original points of the thread was people using models aside from the official ones as named characters. Just because someone has Vulkan or Sicarius in their list doesn't mean they're using the model. Given the ungodly amount of effort required to remove all the metal chapter symbols for Sicarius I'd never use the official model. Similarly many people think the Vulkan model is ugly as sin, or they're running a Howling Griffons list, so it doesn't fit as is. You'd still have the problem of not instantly recognising the mini in that case. My position is that if GW gave 99% of the rules they gave to SCs as options to regular HQs it would be a better system.

People using custom models to represent special characters absolutly does not prove the practicality of providing custom HQ's with the rules available for special characters, and my point still stands that special character models are more easily recognizable wither or not players choose to use them. In regards to it being a better system, I'm not entirely sure what planet that seems like a good idea but the last thing you want is to have the options of Abbadon at your disposal while being able to give him Typhus' Feel No Pain, etc. This is in no way, shape or form a better system for anything other than sheer exploit. Period.


Part of this (and any game IMO) is also being a courteous player and having a clearly written army list, so that if your opponent is unsure of a wargear loadout they can easily see who has what.

Having a bad idea on paper still makes it a bad idea. In regards to not having to sacrifice something to achieve a ceritan flavor in your army...sacrifice is the nature of any game and a core philsophy behind game mechanics. I understand your point of not wanting to sacrifice equipment loudouts of certian models or be forced to take something you don't need for a certian rule but it does not make it a logical means for defying the sacrificial nature of the game and breaking the balance that would otherwise exist. You have to take Belial for terminators to count as troops becuase...Terminators counting as troops is worth it! Would it just be 'keen' to not have to take belial for that? Sure, as much as it would just be super awesome if people named Souldust could take 500 more points in games than everyone else becuase it seems fair to me. Belail is there for game balance irregardless if you think he if he should or shouldn't be there for fluff purposes and taking him is the sacrifice you make to get the results you want.


GW's fluff is not accurate in any way:

Unfortunatly, and I do mean unfortunatly, I have to disagree. We all know GW has their heads firmly planted in their ***** but if they say that Space Marines are actually nothing more than trained monkeys with clown make-up, it is offical and 'accurate'.

I don't think I've come out and said this clearly but: If you think they are fun and want to use them then YES to special characters.

[MarshalAdamar]

I most definitely agree about that. Unlocking should be something regular commanders do. That, however, isn't the players fault. I would certainly allow my friends to field a Deathwing without the special character.

I'm not so sure that would be a good idea unless the generic version had some kind of point’s restriction on him. Belial costs (X) and part of the cost is the special ability so you would have to make generic characters more expensive to compensate for the abilities. And to allow a person to say; make a raven guard army with out including shrike is even more imbalancing because you get all the ups with out the cost of the special character.

I do agree however that armies (raven guard, white scars) etc should have ARMY special rules not rules attached to special characters. I think it’s silly to say, my army is raven guard! But since I don't have shrike we're just black and silver space marines. I think armies like those need at least on line codices like the BA got just so the army has something besides a half page entry in C: SM

[S0ULDU5T]

I do agree however that armies (raven guard, white scars) etc should have ARMY special rules not rules attached to special characters. I think it’s silly to say, my army is raven guard! But since I don't have shrike we're just black and silver space marines. I think armies like those need at least on line codices like the BA got just so the army has something besides a half page entry in C: SM

I think that the SM codex wasn't about the idea of "heres how you run a Raven Guard list" or "these are the troops avialable to Salamander armies". I believe it was very much about having a concrete set of vanilla rules for vanilla marines and then saying 'if you want to give it a flavor of Salamander, add this character. If you want to give it a flavor of Raven Guard, add this character'. Goes back to my original post that I would rather buy a $10 model that changes the entire playstyle and flavor of my army than have to buy new models on order to play a certian way. Not to mention producing yet another codex that people will complain about not being updated for x number of years once something changes.

Of course, no matter how logical this statement is, it's just not going to settle with players that love their armies like Raven Guard - I should know becuase I love Space Wolves and wouldn't want to deal with just one character and a half page in one book ^_^ Point is, I understand the logical decisions behind the SM codex and thier special characters.

On a side note, I really think that producing the Blood Angels codex in White Dwarf is probably something GW really regrets becuase now thats all they hear, "Why don't you give us an update/new codex, you did it for Blood Angels!?", "Why is it so hard to create a PDF, you did it for Blood Angels!?". Not saying if the point is valid or not, just saying I'm sure they regret that decision.

[B_Steele]

Dorn died on a ship that wasn't created until five thousand years later.

With how time and space is malleable within the Warp, that is completely possible.

[Big Dibs theDog]

YES

but

your opponent should know that you are using them in advance.

[Pedro]

Im dont think there is a problem using SCs as it is up the the player on how they want to use their army. Although I must admit it annoys me when I see a ultramarines army led by Vulkan. I play crimson fists and of course field pedro kantor in the majority of my battles, now I like sgt tellions rules so I have came up with some fluff to include him in the army without changing his name or using "counts as" , which I dont think there is anything wrong with.

[B_Steele]

I think that the SM codex wasn't about the idea of "heres how you run a Raven Guard list" or "these are the troops avialable to Salamander armies".

The thing is, I LIKE that set up better. I would rather them say a chapter has a certain set up and bonuses, and has access to one or two Special Characters; rather than a completely vanilla army that only changes when you drop a character in it. Hell, I like a chapter changing when it gets its own Special Character. What I DON'T like is having Special Characters that can flip and flop through the chapters, working for any army they want to that happens to be drawn from the Vanilla codex.

I mean, what's next? Using counts-as Dante and Njal with an Ultramarine army? I mean, after all...they are all Space Marines, right?

I simply dislike the "same army + different chapter's Special Character = completely new army" aspect of the Space Marine Codex.

[B_Steele]

So...no other opinions on the matter?

I'm sad. :(

[Sangre]

I think they should create a system for generating special characters for each race, similar to the VD rules that used to be knocking around for 3rd edition. Naturally they'd be points-inflated compared to basic characters, to reflect that they're customised.

[Duke]

So...no other opinions on the matter?

I'm sad. :(

No, it isn't that there are no opinions, its just that were all sick of whinning about it (lol) ... Mostly I would venture to say most people agree with you.

Duke

[B_Steele]

think they should create a system for generating special characters for each race, similar to the VD rules that used to be knocking around for 3rd edition. Naturally they'd be points-inflated compared to basic characters, to reflect that they're customised.

I think that would be pretty neat, actually. Get the feel for a Special Character but be able to completely create their fluff and make them fit seamlessly (and without wacky hand-waives at written fluff) with your forces.

They would have to be well-prices and not a bunch of abusable tripe, however.

[screamingpraise]

I'm a SW player and the fluff for my army in a nutshell is pretty much:

Realizing the emperors lies were an illusion and drawn by the power of chaos, my space puppies decided to turn renegade and serve chaos.

hence my army is a space wolves army customized with khorne and chaos symbols, a darker paint scheme etc. though they still play as a normal SW army.

I was looking through the new codex however and saw that if you take Canis Wolfborn, fenrisian wolves count as troops. I have ogled over the thought of having an army made entirely of fenrisian wolves and thunderwolves. I have thought about taking my wolf lord and using him as a counts as of Canis. obviously i would not use the Canis model as Canis would never turn renegade.

I'm curious to know what fellow gamers would think of this- thoughts?

[archimbald]

i tend not to use special character, tho i use cypher and am starting to use huron, tho only cos they fit in with my budding chaos armies, tho i dont use them at the same time. csm are dear enough point wise already

[B_Steele]

I have thought about taking my wolf lord and using him as a counts as of Canis. obviously i would not use the Canis model as Canis would never turn renegade.

I'm curious to know what fellow gamers would think of this- thoughts?

Just remember that the wolf packs (not the ridden ones) can NEVER be scoring, despite being Troops choices. That is under their individual entry. It would be a neat army to see on the field, but you would have some serious issues with objective-based missions.

-Bry

[screamingpraise]

haha yea i thought about that and fielding that army is just too sweet to pass up- (i'l have a fun time fighting for a stalemate every single objective mission i play :)

if you couldn't tell i love playing for the fun of playing, if i win or lose i dont care, i just try to make sure my armies the best lookin out there and they give it there all no matter the odds! If i need to win for some reason i've got other units i could deploy.

:)

[B_Steele]

if i win or lose i dont care

If only there were more players out there like you!

I've been a gamer for a long time now, hell...it's my career. I dislike the relatively "new" attitude of win-win-win all the time, and especially those players that refuse to see that cheesy armies, tactics and the lack of your opponent's fun are bad things to do in a game.

I even had a guy try to support his lack of empathy for other players AS his reason why he plays. "I enjoy when I utterly crush my opponents, I'm an ***hole...if you can't take it, forfeit."

Oh...and to stay on topic...that was a guy who always filled his HQ slots with Special Characters. ;)

-Bry

[Sangre]

I think that would be pretty neat, actually. Get the feel for a Special Character but be able to completely create their fluff and make them fit seamlessly (and without wacky hand-waives at written fluff) with your forces.

They would have to be well-prices and not a bunch of abusable tripe, however.

Hence the relative points inflation: for example, building a "barebones" Space Marine Chapter Master from the codex on the Special Character Rules would cost about 25% more than it is in the codex.

Also I don't care if I win or lose. In fact the Astraeans rarely, if ever win the battle... they do, however, keep their dignity by nobly withdrawing to a safer planet.

[Mycroft Holmes]

This wasn't such a big deal in 4rth Ed for marines as it is now.

In the last codex it was

Ultramarine Characters and No Traits.
Other Chapter Special Characters and very specific Traits
No characters and what ever special combination of traits you wanted


They seem to have removed traits and moved all the Army differentiation to the specific characters. Plus, they did a poor job of pricing out a couple of them (Vulkan is only 190??? His gear is worth that much, much less his abilities.)

Mycroft

[B_Steele]

I liked the idea of the Traits system, so long as your opponent wasn't a cheez bag about it. I only wished that they would have worked the flaws into the traits a bit better.

Y'know, like: Your squads get Tank Hunter but you are limited to 1 Devastator squad. Or, your models have Counter Assault but suffer from Rage or somesuch.

I dunno, it's late and I'm rambling. :)

[gilbert93dt]

Personally, it really depends on what type of game is being played.

If it is a standard 2000 point game at my local store, then I don't really have a preference on special characters. I do not use a special char in my Tau or my Tyranid armys, but I often use Ahriman in my Thousand Sun army. I don't care if someone uses Telion and Calgar in his created chapter, unless they have made up fluff. If they say, "Oh, this is my chapter master for my (chapter name). In game he counts as Calgar. Also I have a special scout seagant (name). He counts as Telion". I am down for stuff like that, I think it is awesome and good for the hobby overall.

However, sometimes I get a big game with 4 of my best buds. I play Tau and Tyranids, normally with a friends who plays Eldar. We go against a CSM, a Blood Angel, and an Imperial Guard. Each army is allowed 2000 points and we play on a gigantic board, something like 8X6 feet. So it is 6000 vs 6000 points. We have epic fluff explaining why the armys are all teaming up and fighting each other. In games like these, I fully encourage using special characters. The CSM player uses Abbadon leading against the Eldar. The Blood Angel player uses Dante is his valiant charge to end his 1000 year life. The Imperial Guard player uses Yarrick, also ending his military career with a bang. The Eldar player uses Eldrad, who never died xD. My Tyranids cannot use a special character, but my Hive Tyrant is a monster. My Tau use Commander Farsight. Epic games like these deserve the real special characters. My humble opinion.

[Master Bryss]

I tend to limit the number of special characters I use in a game to 2 or less (one of which being a 'minor' character such as Telion or Snikrot) but I'm OK with people filling their entire HQ slots with specials if thats how they want their army to look. It all balances out anyway. Yes, you have Ghazghull Thraka but I've taken 70 Grotz and their Runtherds for a similar cost. And that gives him a mega combat guy but I get an enormous screen to protect my troops from him. Perfectly balanced.

[MarshalAdamar]

The thing is, I LIKE that set up better. I would rather them say a chapter has a certain set up and bonuses, and has access to one or two Special Characters; rather than a completely vanilla army that only changes when you drop a character in it. Hell, I like a chapter changing when it gets its own Special Character. What I DON'T like is having Special Characters that can flip and flop through the chapters, working for any army they want to that happens to be drawn from the Vanilla codex.

I mean, what's next? Using counts-as Dante and Njal with an Ultramarine army? I mean, after all...they are all Space Marines, right?

I simply dislike the "same army + different chapter's Special Character = completely new army" aspect of the Space Marine Codex.


I have to agree with you Man of Steele.

I think that a special characters is fine but I’ve ALWAYS had a problem with the idea that GW put out that HEY don’t worry if you have a Flesh Tearers army you can just use “counts as” Dante

WHAT! What the hell is that?

There are some truly epic heroes in the imperium and to make some Captain Bob Ballsout (counts as Sicarius) is just stupid to a degree that defies logical analysis.

I love the way you get Captain Steve and he “counts as Kor’sorro Kan” and you see Steve just HAPPENS to have a bike just like MoonDraken, coincidence really, there were two Moondraken bikes on the super cool bike lot you see.

Steve really bough his before the Kahn, he made a sweet deal on the red one when he traded in his Vespa.

OH and Steve has this sword, I know you thought that Moonfang of whatever was a super unique sword and it is really; Steve just happens to have a sword just like that but it has a little Roman numeral II at the end of the name.

See WOW I have a unique army that’s just like the super unique White Scars army! Aren’t I unique?

I think that “counts as” really dilutes the feel of special characters when someone who plays say, White Scars is facing off against the Yellow Scars successor chapter, and WOW its Kor’Sorro Kahn VS. Captain Steve “counts as Kor’Sorro Kahn”. The lame meter is pegged.


I can understand a White scars successor chapter having the same ARMY rules as the White scars.

What I would suggest is that in the White Scars army list entry it would list army wide rules, and then the White Scars special characters. THEN some other generic special characters with some war gear options that would be 0-1 HQ choices that would have maybe something like Sagas so that you could use them in a White Scars army OR they could be used in a Successor chapter. Then you don’t have Vulkan clones running around the Imperium with different names.

Don’t get me wrong I won’t throw a fit if someone does it and some characters are worse then others. Counts as Dante? That’s lame. Counts as Corbulo? Meh, I could live with that better. Same with Calgar. REALLY?! Your chapter just happens to have a guy with the exact same abilities and war gear as the leader of the Ultramarines?!. BOO I say, boo.

Who knew that Wal-mart had Gauntlets of Ultramar on clearance?

If you want Calgar, run UltraSmurfs and be proud! Or run your own second or third founding chapter and be proud that’s its all yours and don’t wet your pants because you can’t play with all the super cool Ultramarines characters.

And now for the But’s
The issue right now is that if you wanted to field a Salamanders second founding army you couldn’t really do that because they’re just funny colored Ultramarines unless you buy the special character and so you HAVE to take the stupid special character that gives your army not only the ARMY special abilities of the Salamanders but also the special character.

And even if you play straight salamanders they’re just green Ultramarines unless you buy the special character; which is in and of itself lame.

Some of the other special characters are cool and there are some that blend in pretty well as “counts as” I just wish there was an alternative to taking named characters as “counts as” model to give your army some slightly different rules.

I think that people would love to have the ability to make a special character for their successor chapter. So each entry would have rules for that armies 0-1 special character. No taking a special character created with salamanders army rules and fielding him in a crimson fists army! The characters would be for second founding armies using the rules found under the parent chapter.

As for using special characters with other armies, I have one big exception. If you painted up Calgar and wanted to use him AS Calgar who has taken command of your army for the battle I would give you serious kudos for creativity and fluff and would probably be happy to play against you win or lose.

Right now I just hate that I have to cheese it up and take a “counts as” character to play a successor army. I want a way that even home brewed armies can have a little fluff of their own with out stealing special characters from other armies and using them as their own.

But in the end I guess it really matters how you use them. Are they for fluff or just for the ability edge they give your army.

Thus endeth the rant.

All hail the Emperor (or die)

[BuFFo]

I got into a discussion with a friend about the seeming increase in Special Character usage in 5th Edition. I think they have become too prevalent, he thinks they are just fine. My dislike for their use is deep enough that I don't think they should be used in games less than 2000 points.

What say you, and why?

If it isn't special characters, players will tend to use the same uber builds for their HQs anyway.

So it really doesn't matter. People just delude themselves with the illusion of choice.

In an army where Special Characters are bad, people flock to generic HQs, like Lash Sorcerers, because its the most useful, powerful HQ. In an army where Special Characters are good, people flock to and use the same good special characters.

Except Orks... GW got that book perfectly, and I see a whole plethora of various HQs being used...

[pgarfunkle]

I use Lemartes in my 1500 pts Blood Angel army just now since I play with a jump pack death company and as he's only 5 points more than a standard chaplain with a jump pack but with better stats and equipment it would be daft not too. I don't mind playing against special characters but my personal thinking is to limit the big hitters (Dante & Mephiston for me) to larger games, say 2000 pts, and use the smaller guys or non in the smaller games as I think it fits the feel of the game more accurately.

[DarkLink]

There are some truly epic heroes in the imperium and to make some Captain Bob Ballsout (counts as Sicarius) is just stupid to a degree that defies logical analysis.

To me, taking the time to put up a 3 page rant about special characters denies logical analysis :p

[B_Steele]

Except Orks... GW got that book perfectly, and I see a whole plethora of various HQs being used...

What?!? I think you forgot your /sarcasm tags here...the Ork book is one of the WORST examples of powergameyness and untested game design I have seen in a long time. But I digress.


I use Lemartes in my 1500 pts Blood Angel army just now since I play with a jump pack death company and as he's only 5 points more than a standard chaplain with a jump pack but with better stats and equipment it would be daft not to.

Daft? I think not. Yeah, Lemartes is a better deal, but winning games without resorting to "must have" units and characters feels better than winning with them. I tell you that from experience. I used to be (several years ago) big into Special Characters, but I realised that it takes far less skill and talent as a general to win with the easy stuff (Nob bikers, Dante+Corbulo, Lash Princes, etc.) and I began to feel like I was less of a player if I couldn't win without resorting to using cheezy tactics and so-called "no brainer" units.

So I evolved as a player. I specifically go out of my way to use the things that everyone else says is "weaker" while avoiding the "uber" units and characters.

My Death Company often have bolters and not chainswords. Alot of the time they are running around on foot, too. Pariahs in my Necron army are pretty common, where Monoliths and the Veil of Darkness aren't. My World Eaters have one single Rhino in it...and it is only for the Possessed.

See where I'm coming from?

It is a lot more fun to play against something new and fresh, rather than old and "forum spawned". Some of the guys on this forum are people I commonly play against...they can tell you it is alot of fun.

-Bry

[Shavnir]

Honsetly the issue I see with a lot of special characters is really they're just rarely worth their points. Its more often than not done for some interesting side effect (outflanking bikers or the like) than true individual power and from that angle I think its one of the few cases GW gets HQ slots done correctly.

That being said I often wonder if the backlash against special characters originates in older editions of 40k/Fantasy where they were the god kings over all the land.

Basically my point is a lot of people are whiny on the issue and given that special characters usually aren't that good I just don't really see why.

[Melissia]

Most Ork players that I know aren't powergamers. There are (were?) some gamey builds, but for the most part the Ork codex is well done.

[Sangre]

Most Ork players that I know aren't powergamers. There are (were?) some gamey builds, but for the most part the Ork codex is well done.

Nob bikers.

[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.

[B_Steele]

...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...

And probably led by Wazdakka Gutsmek!!!

(You know, to bring us back on topic about Special Characters a bit! :) )

-Bry

[ForeverHero]

Well, I used Pedro Kantor in my new DA list over the weekend and he did very well. The list wasn't overpowered and in the two games I played, I went 1-1-0 on Saturday. I believe that special characters have a place in the game and in my opinion add some life and unpredictability to the game. Granted there are a few that seem to be broken and could use adjustment but overall I have no problem with them being used.

I think the game has come a long way from second edition where you could tool up an HQ and route your opponent using just him.

Just my two cents…

[sblaske]

I think special characters have a place mostly in apocolypse. I play IG, so when I field Creed, it feels wrong that the General over millions of guardsmen is leading my little band of 80 guys.

[B_Steele]

I think the game has come a long way from second edition where you could tool up an HQ and route your opponent using just him.


Ah...I remember those days! That was back when I still liked using Special Characters all the time!

Now HQs are still very important, but are not always the end-all/be-all of the game. That might be why I prefer if people used the regular versions of HQs rather than Special Characters - it shows they do not need the "unique spiffiness" to win games. Y'know?

-Bry

[sblaske]

Ah...I remember those days! That was back when I still liked using Special Characters all the time!

Now HQs are still very important, but are not always the end-all/be-all of the game. That might be why I prefer if people used the regular versions of HQs rather than Special Characters - it shows they do not need the "unique spiffiness" to win games. Y'know?



With the loss of many of the armories from the codices (I'm looking at you Guard Codex) there are less opportunities to customize your HQ to bring the cool things that were once available. Perhaps that is why many people are bringing those Special Characters more and more, to get those nifty toys that were once more freely available.

[BuFFo]

What?!? I think you forgot your /sarcasm tags here...the Ork book is one of the WORST examples of powergameyness and untested game design I have seen in a long time.

1) L2R .... I said nothing about the books balance. My post was only about HQs and Special Characters, you know, the topic of this entire thread? So quit your ranting.

2) As for power gaming.... Tell that to the 10 years Orks have had to suffer with arguably the lowest ranked codex in terms of power ever. You feel the current Ork codex is over powered? GOOD!

The pendulum swings both ways.

[Sangre]

Yeah but there shouldn't be a pendulum in the first place.

[Shavnir]

Yeah but there shouldn't be a pendulum in the first place.

In general GW's perception of balance is roughly akin to a one legged man with one too many drinks. But I digress...for what its worth I think the Ork codex had it about right, you could vary your army's composition without relying too much on the disliked special characters.

[Bean]

I have to disagree with the OP. There's nothing innately wrong with special characters, they're currently being used as a vehicle for an important set of rules, and the notion of restricting them by the point value of the game is arbitrary and, ultimately, silly.

The first point is that there's nothing wrong with having special characters in the game. They should exist. They exist in the 40k universe and it is both fun and flavorful to include them as playable for those individuals who enjoy playing them. Virtually every special character is, fluffwise, a character who goes into battle and mixes it up--none of them are ever really out of place in a game of 40k.

Your suggestion seems to be that they should, perhaps, be restricted to large games only. This sort of restriction is unnecessary and would be unhelpful, and this is true for two reasons:

Special characters aren't overpowered in smaller games. Some are good and some are not; very few are truly unfair or overpowered. Either way, the ones which are too good don't generally get less fair in smaller games, and the ones which aren't good enough generally don't get better in larger ones. As a case-in-point, take Vulkan. He's almost certainly one of the best special characters in the game right now, and he actually gets better as the game gets larger. Restricting him to large games wouldn't help balance at all--it would just remove the opportunity to add flavor to your army when playing in smaller games.

Special characters, fluff-wise, shouldn't be restricted to larger armies. While it's true that they (sometimes) are great leaders who command huge numbers of warriors, in the end, they all participate in combat, and, when they do, they have to be doing it somewhere. A game of 40k is an incredibly small-scale engagement compared to the scale of 40k fluff. A planetary invasion or defense, for instance, would almost necessarily occur over thousands of square miles, involve immense numbers of men and vast quantities of materiel--a 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or even 2500 or 3000 point game is only a tiny skirmish or small battle which makes up one small part of such an endeavor. Yet each character who is participating in combat has to be fighting somewhere. There's no real reason to presume that Abbadon, for instance, only shows up in battles involving at least 2000 points of marines. In fact, it would be more fluffy for him to do things like teleporting into an enemy with only a retinue of terminators and doing something important more or less on his own. Really, there is no fluff justification at all for restricting special characters to small games, and to say, "1500 points is too small for Abbadon to bother with, but 2000 points is enough" is just silly. The difference between a 1500 point game and a 2000 point game, in terms of the importance or significance of that battle in the fluff is non-extant.

Finally, as it stands, special characters are one of the vehicles by which players can apply "traits" or "doctrines" or equivalents to their armies. This is a clear design decision on the part of GW. It's not one I particularly like, but as long as it's around, restricting special characters is essentially the same thing as restricting chapter traits or regimental doctrines--and those rules should not be restricted. Doing so would make some armies significantly less fluffy and flavourful, and very few of them are actually overpowered. Frankly, the army 'traits' that should be restricted or done away with are generally not tied to special characters, anyway.

So, in short, there is no good reason to restrict special characters. In my opinion, players who object to them are doing nothing but ruining other people's fun.

[BuFFo]

In general GW's perception of balance is roughly akin to a one legged man with one too many drinks. But I digress...for what its worth I think the Ork codex had it about right, you could vary your army's composition without relying too much on the disliked special characters.

Exactly...

[Bean]

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

To respond to another of the OP's points, I think this is a ludicrous argument. While it's certainly true that He'stan makes a Marine army better, to assert that a Salamanders player who wins game without He'stan is better than the one who wins games with He'stan is absurd.

Several things affect the outcome of a game: the skill of both players, the compositions of their armies, and the random outcomes of the dice are certainly the most significant.

To draw a conclusion about how skilled a player is by simply presuming that he or she wins and observing whether his or her army includes one special character would be inane. It obviously doesn't involve enough data to make its assertion even marginally legitimate. Ultimately, it's both baseless and insulting to people who play He'stan (I don't, but if I did, I'd certainly be insulted.)

In reality, some special characters do make an army better. Some are basically equivalent to normal characters and some are just worse (usually because they cost way too much). Some players play the good ones because they're good, some players play whichever ones they play because they like the style, flavor, fluff, or funny doodad or trick (be it good or not) that the character brings to the game. Restricting special characters because some of them make some armies better than they would be otherwise is unnecessary overkill which would hurt the game far more than it could possibly help it.

[entendre_entendre]

now if there was a mentors legion* SC, there wouldn't be any discussion over him...

* fluff note for those who don't know: the Mentors Legion often sends out small squads all over the galaxy to fight alongside other imperial forces so they can acquire the best field data.

[sblaske]

I liked the idea of the Traits system, so long as your opponent wasn't a cheez bag about it. I only wished that they would have worked the flaws into the traits a bit better.

Y'know, like: Your squads get Tank Hunter but you are limited to 1 Devastator squad. Or, your models have Counter Assault but suffer from Rage or somesuch.

I dunno, it's late and I'm rambling. :)

I'm with you on this one. The Traits system could have worked, if they had made the disadvantages actually disadvantages. As it stood, not taking drop pods, when you planned on not taking them anyways, isn't a disadvantage.

[Inigo Montoya]

meh, part of the game. I use tiggy a lot for a cheap, (somewhat) useful HQ, and I have used others; I have no issue with them. I do not think they are overpowered - you pay a premium for the added abilities. As a general rule, I have found the extra points required to field a powerful HQ more useful in other places.

I see no value in saying " I refuse to use them on pricipal because <insert random reason here> when they are there to use. There are a good number of units, both special characters and standard characters, that I do not like. If I am building a list and the sc fits, I am not opposed to using it.

Let me make a side note here - I am opposed to sc's in friendly games. I am referring to a competitive environment when I am condoning their usage.

[sblaske]

I think one of the problems in fielding a SC model is that GW also charges you a premium for that model even though it contains the same amount of metal as another non-SC model.

[Guts87]

I think the key to understanding special characters in the current iteration of the rules is to look at them completely differently from how they used to be handled. Back in third edition there used to be clauses saying "we haven't playtested these, so get permission." Those clauses no longer exist, indicating that the unique characters we see today most likely did go through playtesting, have a reasonable point cost for their abilities, and are in every way an intentional part of their respective codex.

I simply don't understand the apparent rage directed towards named characters by the OP. Given that SC's are a legal part of the game and, as Bean pointed out, are the only way to render certain styles of army make-able (such as all bikes for Orks or White Scars, or all terminators for Dark Angels) it seems a lot like bad sportsmanship to decry one's opponent based simply on his HQ choice.

And in response to the idea that someone who wins with an inferior force is a superior general: one of the aspects of a player's skill in this or any other game that involves creating a custom force is that act of army construction. When the player can pick who fights for him, a good general will have the better troops. If my opponent takes units that are ineffective or generally work poorly with the rest of his force, he does not get a handicap for being 'original' or 'doing something different.' If he could replace those units with superior ones, then he should have done so in his role as general. As a player and a person his goal should be to have fun, but as a commander he is trying to win. If taking a special character makes your army list better, then a good general will make that decision.

Inigo made a little side note at the end of his post about not using special characters in friendly games. That distinction should make no difference to your army list construction. (Should I not be allowed to play my all-bikes army in a friendly game? Is Boss Snikrot just too competitive for casual play?) What should be different is one's attitude. A friendly game is not one where you play stupidly or make incorrect decisions, it is one where you and your opponent have agreed to take it easy. Perhaps you forget to move a unit before moving on to shooting, or you didn't roll enough dice in an attack, then your opponent can let you go back and do those things. You should still both be doing your best as tacticians, but without the killer instinct that defines true competition.

[Bean]

I think one of the problems in fielding a SC model is that GW also charges you a premium for that model even though it contains the same amount of metal as another non-SC model.

The amount of metal in a miniature is only one of several elements that determine its cost, and that's definitely the way it should be. The cost of designing the miniature and the cost of making the mold are both significant, and have to be weighed against the demand for the figure and the number of figures which are expected to sell. A model has to be priced so as to be worth the investment of time and money on GW's part, and the cost of the actual metal that goes into the model is only a small part of that investment.

Complaining because one model costs more than another while both have roughly the same amount of metal is just silly, and demonstrates little more than that you really don't understand the economics of the industry. A similar amount of metal does not and should not require models to be the same cost.

[sblaske]

Let's look at a simple example:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1020025&prodId=prod1090224
This is Kharn, listed as $20 on the US site. He is sculpted to about the same amount of detail as:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1020025&prodId=prod1090210
A Khorne HQ, listed at$15. In my opinion, they represent the same amount of detail on the miniature (taking into account how hard it might be to mold and how long the sculptor might have spent on each), about the same amount of metal (meaning that the cost of the metal should be the same in the figs), but Kharn is $5 more.
Now, I don't have sales numbers on these figs, and I don't think anyone has those except for GW.

With that in mind, everyone needs an HQ, and most people own SC models, so let's assume that the sales of those 2 figs are reasonably close. Taking those 3 assumptions into account, I don't see any need for the SC model to be 33% more expensive, other than the fact that he's a SC.

[Bean]

In my opinion, they represent the same amount of detail on the miniature (taking into account how hard it might be to mold and how long the sculptor might have spent on each), about the same amount of metal (meaning that the cost of the metal should be the same in the figs), but Kharn is $5 more.
Now, I don't have sales numbers on these figs, and I don't think anyone has those except for GW.

With that in mind, everyone needs and HQ, and most people own SC models, so let's assume that the sales of those 2 figs are reasonably close. Taking those 3 assumptions into account, I don't see any need for the SC model to be 33% more expensive, other than the fact that he's a SC.

First off, that second model isn't a Khorne HQ. He's listed as a Chaos Space Marine Lord. He has no god-specific iconography at all. The only thing Khorne-ish about him is his paint scheme, but since the model isn't sold painted, that's obviously irrelevant.

Anyway, your assumptions are that:

1.) The design of the one model cost the same as the design of the other.

2.) The materials in the one model cost the same as the materials in the other.

3.) The sales of the two models are reasonably close.

The first is pretty obviously without basis, but probably not unreasonable. The second is verifiable, so I'll presume you're right. The third is obviously without basis, but not really reasonable at all. I mean, you really think that Kharne sells as well as the generic Chaos Lord model? Any chaos player could use a Chaos Lord--the set of Chaos players who might use Kharne is obviously far smaller.

More importantly, even if all three assumption are accurate, it still isn't sufficient to justify your conclusion (that the one model is overpriced without a good reason).

Even if, in fact, the one model has sold exactly as frequently as the other, it is still entirely reasonable for GW to have presumed that Kharne wouldn't sell as well when pricing the modell. After all, as I said, the pool of players who might buy Kharne is obviously smaller than the pool of players who might purchase a generic Chaos Lord. Beyond that, players who want to field a specific character are likely to be willing to pay more for a mode that represents that character well than your average player is willing to pay for a generic character. Those reasonable presumptions on the part of GW are enough to justify the difference in cost.

To bring this back on topic, even if special characters were unreasonably overpriced in comparison to their generic counterparts, that wouldn't in any way support the assertion that their use should be restricted or lambasted.

[ferris1971]

Long time gamer, first time poster. I'd like to cast my ballot firmly into the 'yes' area for special characters. I like fluff. You could even say I love it. My wife is constantly asking me what random codex I am bringing into the bedroom prepared to roll her eyes when I say something massively geeky like "I'm reading about the Eldars role in creating Slaanesh". I also, clearly love the game.

BUT

I hate when people tell me how to play my army, or when they cast some judgement on me because my army is a fluff faux pau. I've played once with Hestan, a handfull of times with Pedro, once or twice with Calgar, etc and NONE of them were auto-wins. I've won with character-less lists against character laden lists and have lost with my uber-on-paper-Calgar-Pedro list. There is true balance in the points cost. It sort of blows me away all the people saying "You get all this great stuff at minimal cost." Minimal cost? I can get a Land Raider for the cost of Calgar. I play with characters because they are cool. I say, in all honesty, the generic HQ's are probably a better deal when it's all said and done. Want Njal? Or would you rather have a Rune Priest and have enough points for a Long Fang squad? Give me the latter for min/max, but give me Njal for fun! :)

I enjoy making lists, and it's not a min-max thing. One of my favorite armies is Chaos Daemons (yes, I mix Gods! Shudder!!!) and I lose TONS with them. I played 3 games total with Fateweaver + Bloodcrushers, which is admittedly brutal. My opponents don't complain because they know I mix it up and don't ever crutch to the same builds over and over again. And this build is nothing a few psycannons won't fix.

I guess if I had to summarize, I'd say it like this. I like the fluff and I like the game, but I see no reason to constrain the game from perfectly legal by the codex builds because it doesn't fit perfectly within someone's notion of the narrative. I enjoy playing with and against things that look different. I can understand getting annoyed playing the guy who plays Hestan EVERY single game, but the bottom line is that you should be able to beat that guy pretty easily. No build is unbeatable, and predictability can, and should be, nothing short of game suicide. Make him pay for his inflexibility! He'll change it up after his 5th loss or so.

[Commanderkais01]

i hardly use special characters even though i have 2 i play tau so there isn't really a use for them all they are doing is ading a couple more weapons that have the same stats as the normal weapon.

[The Dinosaur]

the traits were great, but sadly thats all over.
from a SM prespective i enjoy that i can now use a special character in my army without them being blue/yellow/green. oh the joy i felt when i read i could use vulkan without painting everyone green... (my housemate plays DAs).

Using characters is all well and good, but i agree with the point that if you start crossing chapters of the original characters (calgar+vulkan+telion etc) you've gone to far.
if you're a subchapter - your're a subchapter. not a hall of fame..

[the one]

[Ignoring all previous posts]

No.

[pgmason]

I'd prefer it if special characters weren't tied to army specific rules in the way they currently are. I think the traits/doctrines system was a far superior way of handling the differences between forces, at least in theiry. the implementation could have been better though. The problem came with the separation of advantages and disadvantages, making it possible to maximise the advantages while choosing disadvantages that didn't really affect the army anyway (such as 'no allies' when you weren't planning on using any). If each advantage had come with in-built disadvantages, I think the system would have been much more successful.

I prefer the idea of special characters being for special scenarios, but anything you can do army-wise with a special character, you should be able to do with an unnamed one as well.

That said, I'm a big proponent of counts-as in all its forms - be it for individual characters, different models or whole armies. I'm currently working on some conversions of counts-as characters for when I want to use my IG as Traitor Guard - an Alpha Legionnaire as a counts-as Straken (T4, 3+ Sv) to lead it, and an Operative as counts-as Marbo (appears out of nowhere for sabotage/assassination). There's no way I could afford to build a second guard army, so I'm using these characters to get more variety out of the models I have, and enable me to play the army in different ways. The army is painted as the Cadian 8th, so they can't be full on traitors - but it's not too much of a stretch to imagine they've been duped or subverted by an Alpha Legion cell. In Large games (generally 2,000+) I do use Creed, when using them as loyalists, but in smaller games they're led by a normal company commander.

I'm also planning on experimenting with using Kantor to represent a Deathwatch captain to lead my drop-podding (Sternguard) Deathwatch kill-team in my marine army, since he has the funky gun etc. It will make the team a scoring unit, but at the same time it's a huge amount of points which turns up on turn 1 in the middle of the enemy army, and stands a good chance of getting wiped out before the rest of the army can help them out.

In all these cases though, I'd much rather there were options which fitted within the normal army lists, without having to use named characters and count them as something else. I prefer to see the named heroes in apocalypse games or special narrative scenarios, rather than just used for mechanical effect. I'm not as bothered by it as I used to be though.