Is 5th Ed. becoming Herohammer?

[EmeraldKnight]

Hopefully I won't get flamed over this.

If you are playing a Space Marine army, has it become impossible to win WITHOUT a named character? Having just finished at WARcon 2010, I can list my opponents armies by the named character that led them. With the exception of the Orks (who had the squig curse guy included as character killer) Every armiy I played was centered around the character. How many times do we have to see Pedro Kantor or Logan? It was almost refreshing to see Jagatai Khan riding in on his bike to decapitate my unnamed chaplain (Not too mention some of the most fun I have ever had losing a game). I have to question (fluff warning) whether the a Chapter Master has time for every piddling little skirmish. I await the response in my bunker...

[MVBrandt]

Yes and no.

Going back to at least Orks, and really further, every codex has perfectly functional builds that don't require or use special characters.

That said, instead of being strictly attached to the "fluff" of a name ... the designers have tried to use characters as springboards for army influence and design, rather than simply as "fighters" like they used to be. Compare Abaddon to Marneus.

Abaddon has NO material influence on his army. He runs around trying to kill things. Marneus, on the other hand, dramatically alters his army's nature ... they become like the "true" Ultras from the fluff - never retreating unless the situation / codex demands it. To restrict your imagination to "EVERY ONE OF THEM IS ACTUALLY MARNEUS WTF" is ... without doubt ... unimaginative. Isn't that the purpose of the fluff and why we enjoy it?

It's not herohammer ... it's themehammer. Themes and fluff are being brought more into line with competitiveness (thank you!), so that instead of a "themed" Black Legion army (Abaddon + appropriate extras) being "cool" but otherwise crap .... you've got characters being the centrepieces for thematic but competitive lists.

If you took the characters out, as they are now, you'd lose enormous variety of list build and codex depth ... it's not herohammer, it's variety/themehammer ... the characters are just an operator. If you'd like, GW could publish it so that some other random selection adjusts the force orgs / army theme and performance .... but it makes a lot more sense to have it be a special character, considering their typical nature as IC's and HQ choices.

[DarkLink]

Exactly. Taking a character is in no way necessary for any codex. You can get perfectly viable builds without one.

Additionally, many of the characters aren't taken because they themselves are powerful, but because they unlock options that make the army better. This is the case with most of the Marine Special Characters. Yes, this does require you to take a character. But you're taking the character to make your entire army better, not so you can have a deathstar unit.

And speaking of deathstars, there really aren't that many of them, and there are ways to deal with the ones that do show up.

So, no, I wouldn't say that 40k is herohammer. It's more like Warmachine, where special characters can be an integral part of your army and create a lot of unique options.

[EmeraldKnight]

Yes and no.
It's not herohammer ... it's themehammer. Themes and fluff are being brought more into line with competitiveness (thank you!), so that instead of a "themed" Black Legion army (Abaddon + appropriate extras) being "cool" but otherwise crap .... you've got characters being the centrepieces for thematic but competitive lists.

If you took the characters out, as they are now, you'd lose enormous variety of list build and codex depth ... it's not herohammer, it's variety/themehammer ... the characters are just an operator. If you'd like, GW could publish it so that some other random selection adjusts the force orgs / army theme and performance .... but it makes a lot more sense to have it be a special character, considering their typical nature as IC's and HQ choices.

I can understand what you are saying about it being themehammer. To a point I can even agree with it. These characters do bring an entire new range of options to their armies. The problem I see is that in the process of making the themes competitive the generic armies are being made too weak. I saw 2 different examples of this sat WARcon. On one hand you had the themed armies centered around their character. Opposing them were the assasin armies. (the orks have an excellent example of this with their squig curse wierdboy.). When i learned how to play 40K I had to learn the maxim that you should never haveany single "indespensable unit". The new themed armies avoid this in part becasue the effect of the character is not completely lost with the character (Sterngaurd are still scoring units even if Pedro dies as an example).

I guess my real question is whether or not the generic SM list is still competitive WITHOUT using a Named character? In the face of the Wolves, Blood Angels etc. I am for one not sure.

[Mike X]

I'm a Space Marine player who refuses to field SCs, and I win about half the time (I'm more of an average player though).

[gwensdad]

I think for me it's an "arms race" thing.
If I know my opponent isn't fielding any named characters (or ones that aren't really unbalancing) I don't field any. When I was in a Planetstrike mini-campaign with my marines against BA I had Shriek (fleet!) while my opponent-had 3-4 named characters IN EACH FIGHT. (I learned TH+SS squads=dead NCs)
But there's an Apoc game this Saturday. Right now the plan is for me to take my IG, and I don't have any NCs planned in my (most likely) list.

[RocketRollRebel]

Yeah I'm gonna regurgitate what the previous guys said with yes and no.

IG has no need for special characters really. Straken is awesome with inf lists but we can all agree that 12+ tank mech IG lists are the top dogs atm.

In armies where the special character is awesome (ie:Vulkan), its not so much that he can single handedly wipe out your whole army, but rather the boost that he gives to the rest of the army to make it boss.

Just my dunken 2 cents. :o

[carrotcolossus]

I always use special characters because they are usually good value for points and the models look pretty awesome. I never field my khorne army without using Kharn because he is just so much better than any chaos lord I could make myself. I like salamanders so when I make a SM army, it will field vulkan. And when you put them down on the table, people know they are bad arse and will treat them accordingly. Psychology is as much a factor in a game as anything.

[BuFFo]

Mephiston.... Herohammer has officially begun....

I can't wait until my Dark Eldar Lilith automatically removes enemy IC/solo infantry models from the table simply by deploying.

[tzeentchling]

My Iron Hands marines, who are led by a Master of the Forge and a generic Librarian, would beg to differ. Usually, my Salamanders/Fists don't take the appropriate special characters until over 2000. My Raven Guard, though, will take Shrike, but that's because the list is built around fleeting Assault Squads and Scouts.

Space Wolves can also easily get away without a special character, because their regular characters are pretty good as they are. BA possibly less so, but really all that's needed for a decent army is a Librarian.

[Aldramelech]

Ive never used a named character in my life, either in 40k or WHFB. I grew up in an environment where it was considered very bad form to do so. That attitude has changed alot over the years, but I still don't use them.

Ive never had a problem making a very usable list without them.

[MajorSoB]

WOW, I cant believe someone came to this conclusion other than myself!

Around these parts the name of the game is HeroHammer along with some Mech and Melta Hammer, all brought together with that shiny bow we call Math Hammer. GW has ruined this game by making the named characters in each of its books way OTT. Why bother playing the game or rolling dice when Mephiston shows up? Vulkan lists are still alive and well. Its a wonder that any Blood Angels or Salamanders once fought without these two who seem to show up at every battle. Imperial Fists cant fight without Lysander and when was the last time you saw Crimson Fists without Pedro? What ever happened to the days when you had to fulfill a minimum points requirement to field special characters AND ask your opponents permission?

As usual, I blame that dullard Jervis Johnson! Thanks for using your "superior intellect" to ruin this hobby I once enjoyed. Way to go hero!

[DrLove42]

Personally i run a named character in every Eldar list i write (Eldrad...3 physic powers a turn is too good to skip on). But in a Tau army? Theres 3 named characters and frankly all of them are utter crap....

But i agree characters, particularly in new codexs are OTT. Take abadon. He what 400 something points? Yes hes expensive, but he packs one hell of a punch. Are you saying that one character is worth 400 points of equivilent marines, or guardians or firewarriors on the other team? Maybe.

Make it so a character is his normal bad *** self for the points he costs, and then the "upgrades" he provides (sternguard as troops, fleet etc) cost extra points on top.

The same argument can be applied to super heavys in Apoc. Is it fair for one person to play one when the other team doesn't? A warlord titan is 2500pts. Is that equivilent to that many points of tanks, when it can kill 2000 points in one turns shooting without blinking and take the equivilent amount of fire.

[MC Tic Tac]

As usual, I blame that dullard Jervis Johnson! Thanks for using your "superior intellect" to ruin this hobby I once enjoyed. Way to go hero!

Yes cos Jervis is the only rules, rulebook, codex, army book writer GW have.

Sigh.

[Leez]

WOW, I cant believe someone came to this conclusion other than myself!

Around these parts the name of the game is HeroHammer along with some Mech and Melta Hammer, all brought together with that shiny bow we call Math Hammer. GW has ruined this game by making the named characters in each of its books way OTT. Why bother playing the game or rolling dice when Mephiston shows up? Vulkan lists are still alive and well. Its a wonder that any Blood Angels or Salamanders once fought without these two who seem to show up at every battle. Imperial Fists cant fight without Lysander and when was the last time you saw Crimson Fists without Pedro? What ever happened to the days when you had to fulfill a minimum points requirement to field special characters AND ask your opponents permission?

As usual, I blame that dullard Jervis Johnson! Thanks for using your "superior intellect" to ruin this hobby I once enjoyed. Way to go hero!

Really? I've always blamed such things as incompetence, lack of skill, list worship, limited thinking, narrow mindedness, defeatist attitude, imaginary fairness rules, poor codex comprehension, laziness, etc., for why people view SCs as essential. . . but not on Jerv's side of things.





But i agree characters, particularly in new codexs are OTT. Take abadon. He what 400 something points? Yes hes expensive, but he packs one hell of a punch. Are you saying that one character is worth 400 points of equivilent marines, or guardians or firewarriors on the other team? Maybe.


Abby's only 275 points and I'm not going to waste my time arguing his value without proper context.

[MVBrandt]

Really? I've always blamed such things as incompetence, lack of skill, list worship, limited thinking, narrow mindedness, defeatist attitude, imaginary fairness rules, poor codex comprehension, laziness, etc., for why people view SCs as essential.

QFT. This isn't herohammer, at all. They aren't mandatory or OTT, in any dex. This quote is especially relevant when you talk to someone who thinks Mephiston is way overpowered. Mind numbing.

40k has - by accident or intent - actually reached an almost karmic state of balance, where you can see ally-laden SOB/DH compete to the last moment with optimized BA or IG or SW. With the sadfaced exception of Necron and Dark Angels, life's good if you're a top tier 40k player.

If you're not ... well, when you run up against someone with a better list, I suppose you'll resort to the age-old method of blaming something other than ... well, yourself. Most normally this revolves around calling your opponent, your opponent's list, or the state of the game bad/cheesy/broken/overpowered/etc. Kind of a low blow approach, if you ask me.

[Sir Biscuit]

Though to be fair, while Mephiston is okay when facing MEQs/guard he really brutalizes Tyranids. In fact, if he appears and you don't have a lash whip/bonesword guy, I have no idea what you do. Get killed, I guess.

The most *****ing I see about this seems to be about Vulkan, who shows up in an incredible amount of marine lists. I always reccomend that people get over it. Vulkan has his strengths, but he's a bit more expensive than a similarly equipped captain and you pay a pretty big price for his special. (10-15 points by most reckonings and you lose the awesome Combat Tactics.) People are very bad at seeing the full cost of a unit, so a lot only see that 10-15, but he's really a lot more than that. Opportunity cost and all that.

If you're offended that people use special characters, there's an easy way to fix this for you. Simply don't play in tournaments, and ask the people you do play to not use them. Done.

[mynameisgrax]

From what I've seen, it's not 'hero-hammer', it's 'psy-hammer'. It's not special characters that are flooding the lists, but units with psychic powers.

Let's look at a list of popular psykers right now:

Space Wolf Rune Priests/Njaal
Blood Angels Librarians/Mephiston
Blood Angels Furioso Librarian Dreadnought
Space Marine Librarians
Chaos Sorcerers
Chaos Daemon Princes
Tyranid Hive Tyrants/Swarmlord
Tyranid Doom of Malantai
IG Psyker squads
Eldar Farseers/Eldrad
Daemonhunter Grand Masters

Psychic powers are really effective right now, and I've been seeing them a lot more often than named characters.

[MarneusCalgar]

Well, here in Spain in ALL tournaments except official ones, we always play WITHOUT SC, so you must break the brain to make a competitive list and be ready for anything without using the SC...

So yes and no is my answer... GW ALWAYS gives the SC the fluff and the background of the game but you can make winner lists without them

[Lockark]

Considering the loss of Combat Tactics when you take these special characters, I wouldn't say that you always HAVE to take them! Combat Tactics can save ones behind if you use it right/Remember that nifty little rule.

;)


That's the biggest advantage for playing the list without a special character, and it's not a bad one.

Counting on how you play, gaining outflank/Fleet/Scoring Stern Guard/ect might not be worth it.

[Leez]

Well, here in Spain in ALL tournaments except official ones, we always play WITHOUT SC, so you must break the brain to make a competitive list and be ready for anything without using the SC...

Well, not really anything is it? Seeing as what you describe is an everyone or no one restriction with respect to SC's in "ALL tournaments except official ones". I think the OP was more commenting on his view that one had to use an SC to build a competitive list against against someone that was using a SC.

[MVBrandt]

Well, here in Spain in ALL tournaments except official ones, we always play WITHOUT SC, so you must break the brain to make a competitive list and be ready for anything without using the SC...

So yes and no is my answer... GW ALWAYS gives the SC the fluff and the background of the game but you can make winner lists without them

Kind of a Kool-Aid lover.


You can build competitive lists with or without them, if you're good enough. Removing them makes life harder on the people who AREN'T as good, but does nothing to the list-hammerers out there. You're not making the game more complex or varied ... you're removing variety, and also stating that the people coming up with these rules are either simpletons, or don't want to take time to deep-think their tournaments and games.

If you're not aware of the fact that these dexes don't require characters to build top tier lists, you really shouldn't be coming up with restrictions for them. High School math teachers attempting to refute the theory of relativity. Egotistical, not right.

[Splug]

Though to be fair, while Mephiston is okay when facing MEQs/guard he really brutalizes Tyranids. In fact, if he appears and you don't have a lash whip/bonesword guy, I have no idea what you do. Get killed, I guess.He's going to create a high cost against any army - whether it's shots not fired at a land raider or an actual death toll if he makes it to close combat - but Tyranids probably have less trouble with him than a lot of other armies. Boneswords as mentioned, particularly combined with poison to get around his high toughness, create a significant problem. Poisoned attacks from the small bugs can add up to a fairly significant vulnerability as well. Genestealers actually mess him up pretty bad. If an even-cost unit (15) of them charge him, he'll kill 4-5 before they get to attack, then the remaining 10 will score 15 hits, which creates 2-3 rends and 5ish armor saves, which should likely result in another failed save. Stealers lose combat by about 1, most likely lose another body to no retreat. In the second round of combat, Mephiston kills 4-5 more, they put another 5 hits in for another rend and a couple more armor saves. This also assumes Mephiston is able to cast all his psychic powers without injuring himself from shadow in the warp, or gets shot by stray Zoanthrope fire or something on the way in, and that a priest isn't around to make the non-rending wounds insignificant. Either way, it works out to about an even fight for an even points investment.

Of course, the alternative is just to poke him with the swarmlord and his whip-toting guard, and watch him turn to dust before he gets to swing - but that's throwing 300+ points at a 250 pt character.

[MarneusCalgar]

Kind of a Kool-Aid lover.


You can build competitive lists with or without them, if you're good enough. Removing them makes life harder on the people who AREN'T as good, but does nothing to the list-hammerers out there. You're not making the game more complex or varied ... you're removing variety, and also stating that the people coming up with these rules are either simpletons, or don't want to take time to deep-think their tournaments and games.

If you're not aware of the fact that these dexes don't require characters to build top tier lists, you really shouldn't be coming up with restrictions for them. High School math teachers attempting to refute the theory of relativity. Egotistical, not right.

Ey man, not my fault hahahaha!!

They are the spanish´s tournament rules, and I didn´t make them, unfortunately... But in the other hand... There´s nothing about forbidding SC, FW stuff or so in friendly matches

[Brettila]

I must agree with the OP. SC's have spread like a California wildfire season. Sometimes it seems as if I am the only player left who does not feel it necessary to use them. And, no, it does not impair my ability to win. I agree that it seems unlikely that SC's would be in every little skirmish. Games of Apocalypse, or large games make sense.

I realize that some SM characters allow you to build particular armies. However, it is not like a person would be unable to play and win with Salamanders without Vulkan. A captain with S6 power weapon leading some TH/SS termies could walk through most anything. Heaven forbid if a chaplain happens to be tagging along...

The problem I see is the way SC's seem to lock players into limited builds, which in turn makes the game static and boring. They stop exploring their codex for new and entertaining possibilities. :(

[EmeraldKnight]

QFT. This isn't herohammer, at all. They aren't mandatory or OTT, in any dex. This quote is especially relevant when you talk to someone who thinks Mephiston is way overpowered. Mind numbing.

40k has - by accident or intent - actually reached an almost karmic state of balance, where you can see ally-laden SOB/DH compete to the last moment with optimized BA or IG or SW. With the sadfaced exception of Necron and Dark Angels, life's good if you're a top tier 40k player.

If you're not ... well, when you run up against someone with a better list, I suppose you'll resort to the age-old method of blaming something other than ... well, yourself. Most normally this revolves around calling your opponent, your opponent's list, or the state of the game bad/cheesy/broken/overpowered/etc. Kind of a low blow approach, if you ask me.

The response I HAVE to make to this is can your top tier player win WITHOUT the OTT super character? I started playing back in the bad old days of 2nd ed. when characters were an option you asked your opponent about. Believe it or not the Chapter Master is not at EVERY little skirmish. Telion is not the Sgt. of EVERY scout squad. And for the love of squats, does the Wolf Codex even have generic characters in it? And if it does, why does it when all "top tier" players only use the named character?

[EmeraldKnight]

Just once I would love to see a tournament with a "No SC"rule. I know it won't happen. GW likes the money they make off the models too much. And the "top tier" players at the independant tounaments wouldn't let it happen either. So I am going to get down off my soap box and keep turning in my middle of the pack results in tournaments. Maybe I will start putting little skulls on my chapter banner every time I kill Pedro.:p

[MarneusCalgar]

Just once I would love to see a tournament with a "No SC"rule. I know it won't happen. GW likes the money they make off the models too much. And the "top tier" players at the independant tounaments wouldn't let it happen either. So I am going to get down off my soap box and keep turning in my middle of the pack results in tournaments. Maybe I will start putting little skulls on my chapter banner every time I kill Pedro.:p

Man, just come to Spain and you will watch them every Saturday!!

[Inquisitor Hate Machine]

Just once I would love to see a tournament with a "No SC"rule. I know it won't happen. GW likes the money they make off the models too much. And the "top tier" players at the independant tounaments wouldn't let it happen either. So I am going to get down off my soap box and keep turning in my middle of the pack results in tournaments. Maybe I will start putting little skulls on my chapter banner every time I kill Pedro.:p

man, this is really bugging you. Why? I use pedro (very ineffectively I might add) because I like his model and I like pedro. I model my army around Rynns World, so YES, my chapter master will be in every little skirmish. But that is fluff, and it sounds like you are holding on to too much 2e baggage.

So you want a tourny without Special Characters, eh? What are you going to tell the deathwing or Ravenwing player?

The space wolf codex has generic HQs, most are pretty cool, but I wont begrudge people for playing powerful stuff. Its a tournament after all. You are supposed to show up with your strong tools. Its like showing up to play baseball only wearing shortss and some sneakers when everyone else is in long pants and cleats while swinging a Diablo bat (tm) (thats for you Romeo!)

[EmeraldKnight]

man, this is really bugging you. Why? I use pedro (very ineffectively I might add) because I like his model and I like pedro. I model my army around Rynns World, so YES, my chapter master will be in every little skirmish. But that is fluff, and it sounds like you are holding on to too much 2e baggage.

So you want a tourny without Special Characters, eh? What are you going to tell the deathwing or Ravenwing player?

The space wolf codex has generic HQs, most are pretty cool, but I wont begrudge people for playing powerful stuff. Its a tournament after all. You are supposed to show up with your strong tools. Its like showing up to play baseball only wearing shortss and some sneakers when everyone else is in long pants and cleats while swinging a Diablo bat (tm) (thats for you Romeo!)

It wasn't bugging me until comments concerning the skill of other players were made. My original question was only meant to indicate that I felt that there is a tendency on GWs part to slowly inflate the codex's as released. By making the characters ever more powerful the non-character army is made weaker and weaker. This does not mean that those who use characters are lesser players or that those who do not are unimaginative.

As for the 2e baggage, yes I do carry that baggage around. The back story for WH40K was what got me into this game in the first place so many decades ago. My army is modeled after the 3rd company of my chapter and I have actaul names for my squads. I do not change the composition of my squads once I finish them. If I want another mix of weapons I build another squad. And I do know that other players do not see the story behind the game as I do. That is their thing. This is mine

And as an aside to skill I would say this.The effective general is NOT the general who can win with the army of their dreams. The effective general is the one who wins with what they are given.

[DarkLink]

Just once I would love to see a tournament with a "No SC"rule. I know it won't happen. GW likes the money they make off the models too much. And the "top tier" players at the independant tounaments wouldn't let it happen either. So I am going to get down off my soap box and keep turning in my middle of the pack results in tournaments. Maybe I will start putting little skulls on my chapter banner every time I kill Pedro.:p

Well, seeing as GW doesn't run every tournament in the entire world, there are some who don't allow them, somewhere.

However, the problem isn't in whether or not GW wants you to use SCs or not. It's in trying to explain to players why they can't use some random unit in their codex. Who are you to tell your opponent what units he can and cannot take?

[MajorSoB]

Well, seeing as GW doesn't run every tournament in the entire world, there are some who don't allow them, somewhere.

Who are you to tell your opponent what units he can and cannot take?

First off GW doesnt run any tournaments around here. GW supports tournaments but doesnt run them. Even the 'Ard Boyz is by and large run by independent retailers. GW has been out of the GT business for a while!

The answer to the second part of the question is....."The tournament organizer"! If you organize an event you can make whatever restrictions you want, its up to the players to decide whether or not they wish to play, its just that simple. Last I checked you didn't have to check with the Codex police to see if you could restrict something in your event.

[SquatCodex5thEd]

I'd certainly agree with the main post. I have a friend who's quite fond of taking Mephiston, Sanguinus, and Sanguinary Guard and flying them around as a cure-all group (near each other - can't be in the same unit, of course). They're small and mobile enough to hide behind terrain, and there's very little terrain now that doesn't give a 4+ cover save. Some mounted Death Company and a Death Company Dreadnought and maybe a flying Dreadnought, or better a pair of Lucius Pattern Drop Pods with Dreadnoughts to round that out and irk my heavy weapon teams on Round 1? A whole army not only designed around SC, but with SC serving as the core of its firepower.

Do IG players rely heavily on SC? Space Wolves seem fond of Nigel - not so vulnerable in a Terminator Squad - and Rockfist. Cannis has proven less useful than many SW players first hoped, I think, but Loki, who seems tailored to fight SC himself?

For Tyranids, there is no practical gameplay reason I can imagine to not take Doom of Malan'Tai and Swarmlord in every match.

It seems that each new codex is a little more ridiculous than the one before, and each has stronger SC than the one before. Just thinking about a Tyranid army hinging on special characters makes me do a mental boogie. Wha...? The Swarm, you say, and first I deal with MC armies with a couple of Ripper Bases in 3rd, and now I get my Gaunts back, but always have to take *named* *bugs*.

I wonder if anyone over there is keeping an eye on design consistency.

[Leez]

I'd certainly agree with the main post. I have a friend who's quite fond of taking Mephiston, Sanguinus, and Sanguinary Guard and flying them around as a cure-all group (near each other - can't be in the same unit, of course). They're small and mobile enough to hide behind terrain, and there's very little terrain now that doesn't give a 4+ cover save. Some mounted Death Company and a Death Company Dreadnought and maybe a flying Dreadnought, or better a pair of Lucius Pattern Drop Pods with Dreadnoughts to round that out and irk my heavy weapon teams on Round 1? A whole army not only designed around SC, but with SC serving as the core of its firepower.

Do IG players rely heavily on SC? Space Wolves seem fond of Nigel - not so vulnerable in a Terminator Squad - and Rockfist. Cannis has proven less useful than many SW players first hoped, I think, but Loki, who seems tailored to fight SC himself?

For Tyranids, there is no practical gameplay reason I can imagine to not take Doom of Malan'Tai and Swarmlord in every match.

It seems that each new codex is a little more ridiculous than the one before, and each has stronger SC than the one before. Just thinking about a Tyranid army hinging on special characters makes me do a mental boogie. Wha...? The Swarm, you say, and first I deal with MC armies with a couple of Ripper Bases in 3rd, and now I get my Gaunts back, but always have to take *named* *bugs*.

I wonder if anyone over there is keeping an eye on design consistency.

Well, keep an eye on who? Sales don't reflect usage. Forums are a vocal meme more typically with a neutral stance or a axe to grind. I'd suggest big turnout tournaments. It's where one would tend to think the "power" gamers go with their "listhammer WAAC" attitude, no? Two most recent large N.A. tournaments are WarGamescon and 'Ard Boyz.

WarGamesCon (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/08/40k-winners-in-detail.html) top ten only 4 with an SC if the list is detailed enough. Your "no reason" not to take Swarm and Doom for tyranids is reflected in the top tyranid player taking neither, the second highest tyranid player taking Swarm and the third taking both.

'Ard boys (http://www.baldandscreaming.com/news/results-from-2010-ard-boyz-finals/) the top three for the three venues two of eight used an SC (one list is missing).

While obviously these results are no where near comprehensive they do point in a rather plain direction. Nova Open's (http://novaopen.com/) coming up soon, I don't think I'd be going out on a limb by saying the top bracket top 10 won't be flooded with SC's.

[SquatCodex5thEd]

So are you one with an axe to grind, Leez? Please keep in mind that trash talking forums in a forum does little for your credibility.

You mention "top," but failed to mention armies that were run. Obviously, this falls out of the context of the conversation if only, say, four out of eight ran 5th edition armies, and only supports the point of this thread if the armies with SC were 5th edition.

In your own case of the Tyranids, two out of three top performers did take SC. Not only that, they took the two that I mentioned out of many choices available. Please keep in mind the context of the conversation when posting. Thanks.

[Leez]

So are you one with an axe to grind, Leez? Please keep in mind that trash talking forums in a forum does little for your credibility.

You mention "top," but failed to mention armies that were run. Obviously, this falls out of the context of the conversation if only, say, four out of eight ran 5th edition armies, and only supports the point of this thread if the armies with SC were 5th edition.

In your own case of the Tyranids, two out of three top performers did take SC. Not only that, they took the two that I mentioned out of many choices available. Please keep in mind the context of the conversation when posting. Thanks.

If you feel I've violated you or the forum rules in anyway, there is a report button. I'd encourage you to use it.

In my own post I acknowledge the lack of comprehensive detail. None the less that detail is the only data provided in this thread. As to what people actually brought to the tournament, so what? Substantial herohammer complaints of real substance can't be merely about what people use, it has to be about the effectiveness of what they use. If SC's were perceived as mediocre but were in fact awesome I doubt this thread wound be here, but as it happens things are reversed and we have people maligning those that do use them. Instead of looking at their own table top judgments and lists. The very fact that people do play without SC's in what many would call an ultra competitive environment and win is pretty damning to the view that 40K has become HeroHammer "again".

And I'd like to think it's fairly obvious of which side of the "axe to grind" I am on.

[EmeraldKnight]

I would like to add that my comment was in reference to the Space Marines specifically. With the release of the Wolf and the Blood Angel Codex I wondered if they made the generic SM list (without SC) less competitive. I haven't played anything but SM since second edition and am not familar enough with the other armies to make an informed judgement. However (with the exception of the Nids) the back story behind many of the other armies seems more supportive of a SC in a small force. I am not sure how a SC is justified for the Swarm. I would thingk the hive mind would assimilate the unique creature back into the Swarm for copying if it was succesful.

Another thought that springs to my limited mind is that Special Characters are just that - SPECIAL. Synonyms of this would be words like Unique and Rare. Yet we see them all the time at tourney level.

[Unzuul the Lascivious]

Changing track slightly, does anyone relish the thought of working out how to take these SCs out? I've been busting my brain with possibly ways of taking out the Swarmlord in an upcoming game against my Chaos Marine/Chaos Daemon combo (it's just for fun, so the rules on army make-up are slightly skewed) - and have had some great feedback on here. My personal view is that I love named characters (not always the models!) and I also love it when I can take out those of my opponents! Even if I lose the game, it always feels like a small victory if I can get rid of his/her characters. Bring em on I say!

[Leez]

I would like to add that my comment was in reference to the Space Marines specifically. With the release of the Wolf and the Blood Angel Codex I wondered if they made the generic SM list (without SC) less competitive. I haven't played anything but SM since second edition and am not familar enough with the other armies to make an informed judgement. However (with the exception of the Nids) the back story behind many of the other armies seems more supportive of a SC in a small force. I am not sure how a SC is justified for the Swarm. I would thingk the hive mind would assimilate the unique creature back into the Swarm for copying if it was succesful.

Another thought that springs to my limited mind is that Special Characters are just that - SPECIAL. Synonyms of this would be words like Unique and Rare. Yet we see them all the time at tourney level.

Well recall the fluff for Old One Eye in the tyranid army. Essentially, the Imperial Army thinks the Hive mind has made multiple copies of it and "it" is on multiple planets, he's sort of the Yeti of 40K. But, all things Tyranid considered there's no reason to think the Hive Mind didn't and couldn't do that and with more then just Old One Eye.

As far as fluff for vanilla SM goes. Well, if the Chapter Master (or other SC) thinks his particular presence is needed at this or that location, you can be dang sure he's going to be at that particular location no matter the size of the engagement.

Fluff's a funny thing, you can use it to rationalize anything you want it to, it's an even "better" tool for WAAC players then RaI and in turn RaW.

[DarkLink]

So are you one with an axe to grind, Leez? Please keep in mind that trash talking forums in a forum does little for your credibility.


I didn't see anything inappropriate in Leez's comment, let alone anything I'd call trash talking. He just stated his opinion and a few facts that supported then.

[BuFFo]

I didn't see anything inappropriate in Leez's comment, let alone anything I'd call trash talking. He just stated his opinion and a few facts that supported then.

lol

Wait till he comes across the 'real' forum trolls....

His head is going to explode.

[Shotgun Justice]

there's an important distinction between the SM SCs and that's list changers / enhancers vs. walking (or flying) death machines.
Taking Cantor, Lysander, Vulkan, Shrike or Khan (also Calgar and Sicarius to a degree) is a list building option. Yes - many players may choose them for extra killy or tough rules but as individuals only Calgar is a walking smackdown.
These SCs are often not SCs as all, but rather an evolution of the disgustingly bland DA characters. It is a game mechanic, dressed up with names and unique wargear.
By drawing up the Codex Astartes archetype and then creating a fist full of divergent chapters GW created a problem for itself - how to reflect minor divergences? They went with the SC route, the handicap being the loss of Combat Tactics. I have no problem with seeing these models (or proxies) on the table as I understand that it is often a game mechanic. Not the ideal replacement for the Chapter Traits, but GW decided they needed replacing - did they though?

To answer the OP: no, I don't believe that SM SCs have reduced the relative competitiveness of non SC SM armies - my all power armour, no vehicle list fears little from Vulkan or Lysander. Only being within 18' of Cantor lists is ugly.
BA and SW special characters on the other hand seem like a throwback to 2nd ed and as someone mentioned earlier not exactly consistent with stated design philosophy

[DarkLink]

I like the game mechanic explanation there. You really can't call it Herohammer. Superficially, it looks similar, in that SCs are fairly common. But it is really quite different than what most people would consider Herohammer.



lol

Wait till he comes across the 'real' forum trolls....

His head is going to explode.

Yeah, I thought "you've been on the internet before, right?" when I saw it.

[BuFFo]

If you truly want Herohammer, most of you need to pick up a copy of the 2nd edition rules for 40k and give that game a whirl.

Watch as a single model destroys the entire opposing enemy force by itself.

That is Herohammer.

[scadugenga]

If you truly want Herohammer, most of you need to pick up a copy of the 2nd edition rules for 40k and give that game a whirl.

Watch as a single model destroys the entire opposing enemy force by itself.

That is Herohammer.

No joke.

But it could be fun too--and definitely useful when you forgot you had a date with a hot redhead before accepting a game...

[Duke]

Lol, Buffo.

I seriously remember Hero hammer of 2nd edition.

Here was my perosnal favourite.
Wolf Guard Battle leader:
- Cyclone Missile Launcher (that could shoot 12 missiles in one turn!)
- Chain Fist
- Assault cannon (Sustained fire 2d3 shots? YES PLEASE!)

He was amazing! and the best thing was you could just cut and paste him all over the army... Whaddya think of spam now?

Duke

[the jeske]

Lol, Buffo.

I seriously remember Hero hammer of 2nd edition.

Here was my perosnal favourite.
Wolf Guard Battle leader:
- Cyclone Missile Launcher (that could shoot 12 missiles in one turn!)
- Chain Fist
- Assault cannon (Sustained fire 2d3 shots? YES PLEASE!)

He was amazing! and the best thing was you could just cut and paste him all over the army... Whaddya think of spam now?

Duke
its was 3d3 for AC +it the BL didnt realy matter as you were taking 20 identicaly armed WG with him and covered the whole deployment in a cyclon template blast [and if you were lucky to get the overwatch strategy card or got first turn , it all happens before your opponent even moved a model].


Honestly it wouldnt be that bad if everyone had options to take different specials . for chaos for example the special suck compering to the cost of a DP[of course one can go over the top if normal charas too. SW have ok charas , but they normal dudes are so awesome and cheap at the same time there is need for specials] GW will never make a good shoting HQ special or not and everything that is melee has to be EW or it rather meh too. The specials in the sm book , well khan is a lot better then a bike cpt and there is no buff a normal chapter master can give to compare to vulkan or pedro. But GW had to do it after the chaos sm dex , they have to give the sm players something for traits . If there was vulkan or pedro or options to play a bike army it would only generate hate. It is enough that players who had pistol/ccw armies or jump pack ones are forced to play BA/SW [and get tons of love from the comunity for doing that].

[SquatCodex5thEd]

If you feel I've violated you or the forum rules in anyway, there is a report button. I'd encourage you to use it.

A little rudeness isn't a forum violation that I know of. You're just lacking sufficient data to support your conclusions. If armies with 5th edition codices use more SC than armies with older codices, then the premise of this thread - "becoming Herohammer" is largely supported.

On a smaller and less relevant note, you were being a tad hypocritical, and I thought pointing that out might mellow you out a little. This is all just conjecture anyway.

[Leez]

A little rudeness isn't a forum violation that I know of. You're just lacking sufficient data to support your conclusions. If armies with 5th edition codices use more SC than armies with older codices, then the premise of this thread - "becoming Herohammer" is largely supported.

On a smaller and less relevant note, you were being a tad hypocritical, and I thought pointing that out might mellow you out a little. This is all just conjecture anyway.

People far more eloquent then I both before and after you and I posted in this thread have addressed that particular line of spurious reasoning. I choose to address the anecdotal evidence people were presenting with meager evidence supporting the contrary position. As well as injecting some much needed "use versus value" into the discussion of SC's, which is critical for proper analysis of the problem, if there is one. Particularly comical are the complaints about SC's from the Space Wolf codex. Also, I don't think you know what the meaning of hypocritical is.

[Denzark]

I look upon 2e approach to SC as very good in terms of their restrictions. Want Alrahem? Better be a Tallarn Army. Want Chenkov? Better be Valhallan.

None of this mix and match. And yes, they were quite immense in hth - but I think Abaddon should be rinsing 10 IG with no problem. I think people with WS 7 should find it much easier to hit say WS 4 than 2/3 chance, whereas the return is 1/2 chance. Just remember with all the eternal warrior or invulnerable saves flashing about now, back in the day rarely did 2d6 wounds from a lascannon fail to blast said character.

Tanks could also run them over properly without them just mincing out of the way.

Its not the heroes per se being problematic - it is the must have unlocks that some of them seem to bring.

[jumai]

In 2e, the legality of special character was opt-in. Your opponent/TO had to agree they were OK before the game. Every SC also had a minimum points size for armies that wanted to field them. You could only take Abaddon in I think 2500 point games and up. Note that the 2e rulebook also recommended against playing games that big for the most part.

It *was* sort of awesome when Drach'nyen's rules were basically "and also. roll one more attack. If you hit it dies."

[Inquisitor Hate Machine]

ITT: People wanting to tell other people how to play their armies

[Imaginary Fairness Rules]

ITT: People wanting to tell other people how to play their armies

Be hold, I have come to grant your every wish!

[MaltonNecromancer]

This whole "Herohammer" thing is nonsense.

"Herohammer" seemed to be a specific problem that you could essentially build an army of one character, supported by min/maxed minions to create an essentially unkillable unit (I've not played Warhammer in 20 years, only read the columns about it on BoLS).

You can't do that in 40K. Yes Mephiston is hard. No one complains about him though. All the complaints are about The Leafblower - which is the consequence of a particularly brilliant / broken / Your Mileage May Vary synergy of units, and nothing to do with characters.

Jaws of the World Wolf is another "Herohammer" thing people were raving about just after the SW codex came out... what happened to that, eh?

You want to know what's "broken"? Listen to what people are whining about. Whining and whining and whining. It's almost always about a combination of units. Even when you consider Vulkan He'stan; no-one complains about him personally, they complain about the powers he confers on others, which is not a "Herohammer" problem.

This whole forum seems to be coming from the attitude described here:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys

I'm English, and I remember growing up watching "Zulu", and The Battle of Rorke's Drift, a quintessential demonstration of how "fair and balanced" is a slightly weird concept for wargaming. I'm not about to complain that something's unbroken or unbalanced... just if the game was fun or not, and a lot of that is how I personally come to the table and leave. Winning and losing gracefully and well are skills like any other as far as I'm concerned.

[Inquisitor Hate Machine]

Be hold, I have come to grant your every wish!

AWESOME! Lets see..... I wish to have all three of my drop pods assembled and the doors magnetized!

[Inquisitor Hate Machine]

This whole "Herohammer" thing is nonsense.

"Herohammer" seemed to be a specific problem that you could essentially build an army of one character, supported by min/maxed minions to create an essentially unkillable unit (I've not played Warhammer in 20 years, only read the columns about it on BoLS).

You can't do that in 40K. Yes Mephiston is hard. No one complains about him though. All the complaints are about The Leafblower - which is the consequence of a particularly brilliant / broken / Your Mileage May Vary synergy of units, and nothing to do with characters.

Jaws of the World Wolf is another "Herohammer" thing people were raving about just after the SW codex came out... what happened to that, eh?

You want to know what's "broken"? Listen to what people are whining about. Whining and whining and whining. It's almost always about a combination of units. Even when you consider Vulkan He'stan; no-one complains about him personally, they complain about the powers he confers on others, which is not a "Herohammer" problem.

This whole forum seems to be coming from the attitude described here:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys

I'm English, and I remember growing up watching "Zulu", and The Battle of Rorke's Drift, a quintessential demonstration of how "fair and balanced" is a slightly weird concept for wargaming. I'm not about to complain that something's unbroken or unbalanced... just if the game was fun or not, and a lot of that is how I personally come to the table and leave. Winning and losing gracefully and well are skills like any other as far as I'm concerned.

What this guy said.

[EmeraldKnight]

This whole "Herohammer" thing is nonsense.

"Herohammer" seemed to be a specific problem that you could essentially build an army of one character, supported by min/maxed minions to create an essentially unkillable unit (I've not played Warhammer in 20 years, only read the columns about it on BoLS).

You can't do that in 40K. Yes Mephiston is hard. No one complains about him though. All the complaints are about The Leafblower - which is the consequence of a particularly brilliant / broken / Your Mileage May Vary synergy of units, and nothing to do with characters.

Jaws of the World Wolf is another "Herohammer" thing people were raving about just after the SW codex came out... what happened to that, eh?

You want to know what's "broken"? Listen to what people are whining about. Whining and whining and whining. It's almost always about a combination of units. Even when you consider Vulkan He'stan; no-one complains about him personally, they complain about the powers he confers on others, which is not a "Herohammer" problem.

This whole forum seems to be coming from the attitude described here:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys

I'm English, and I remember growing up watching "Zulu", and The Battle of Rorke's Drift, a quintessential demonstration of how "fair and balanced" is a slightly weird concept for wargaming. I'm not about to complain that something's unbroken or unbalanced... just if the game was fun or not, and a lot of that is how I personally come to the table and leave. Winning and losing gracefully and well are skills like any other as far as I'm concerned.

As the OP I felt compelled to respond to this. First, my issue is with GW and their trend of creating ever more powerful SC with each Codex. I remember when the SM Codex was released the hue and cry was "OMG Marneus is SOOOO broken! Vulkan makes EVERY flamer twin-linked?" But as we all came to realize, losing combat tactics does help (in a small way) to balance the gain. 2 SM armies playing each other, 1 with SC and 1 without was a a reletively even matchup. Now compare a SM army with out SC to a Wolf army. Every Squad has a Wolf Gaurd in termy armor for a sgt (usually with a cyclone). The army leader confers a special veteran ability of his choice every players turn (need to ask da rule boyz about that...is it every players turn or every game turn). The sgt of the long fang squads allows the hvy weapons to split their fire. Now all those powers are not ALL due to the SC, but my question of whether or not a vanilla SM army with no SC in it is still competitive still needs to be answered. Now I have had amazing games where I have lost HORRIBLY. One of the BEST games I played in this last tourney was agianst Khan and the White Scars. Khan decapitated my chaplian and gutted my vangaurd veterans. On top of that it was a rematch of my round 4 battle when I had stomped him. Yet he cam back and whupped up on me and I had one of the best times playing even though I lost. This thread is not about whining. I just want to hear the boards opinion.

[Gotthammer]

Every Squad has a Wolf Gaurd in termy armor for a sgt (usually with a cyclone). The army leader confers a special veteran ability of his choice every players turn (need to ask da rule boyz about that...is it every players turn or every game turn). The sgt of the long fang squads allows the hvy weapons to split their fire.

Logan plus five Wolf Guard Terminators with a cyclone (one heavy weapon per 5 WG) comes in at 470 points before giving the WG any other equipment like fists, combi-weapons etc. Add in a six man Long Fangs squad with Missile launchers and it's 610 points. No transports.

For 495 points I can get two tac squads in rhinos (with extra armour), a power sword and melta-bombs for one sergeant, a power fist for the other. Each squad also has a missile launcher and meltagun. For 610 I can add a Predator with autocannon. heavy bolter sponsons, a storm bolter extra armour and a dozer blade.

I think the Codex marines would stand up against the Wolves rather well.

[EmeraldKnight]

Yes at that point level the SM codex would be the better choice. But when you get to the 2000 point level, I feel that the newer codex generate a distinct advantage over the older. Some of this design philosphy can be seen in the IG codex. A horde IG army at 1200 or 1500 points is manageable by an equal SM army. Boost the points to 2000 or 2500 and the balance shifts distinctly in favor of the IG. By all means NOT unwinnable for the SM, but a MUCH harder fight.

Now that i say that, I begin to wonder if the problem is not specifically codex and/or SC related. Perhaps the problem is mor involved in what size army is played? Most of the tourneys I was going to just after the release of the latest SM codex were rrunning in the 1500 point range. Most of the battles I fought at my local game store were in the 1500 or even 1250 point range. All this last year I have been playing 2000 point games in tourneys. Even the local gaming enviro has increased to at least 1850.

New Question: Are the new codexes (Space Wolf, Blood Angels etc...) beiung designed so that their optimum size is in the area of 2000 ponts? If so is this an issue for older codexes (such as vanilla SM) which seem to be optimized for the 1500 point range? And is the Holy Roman Empire either Holy or Roman?

Discuss

[Leez]

Yes at that point level the SM codex would be the better choice. But when you get to the 2000 point level, I feel that the newer codex generate a distinct advantage over the older. Some of this design philosphy can be seen in the IG codex. A horde IG army at 1200 or 1500 points is manageable by an equal SM army. Boost the points to 2000 or 2500 and the balance shifts distinctly in favor of the IG. By all means NOT unwinnable for the SM, but a MUCH harder fight.

Now that i say that, I begin to wonder if the problem is not specifically codex and/or SC related. Perhaps the problem is mor involved in what size army is played? Most of the tourneys I was going to just after the release of the latest SM codex were rrunning in the 1500 point range. Most of the battles I fought at my local game store were in the 1500 or even 1250 point range. All this last year I have been playing 2000 point games in tourneys. Even the local gaming enviro has increased to at least 1850.

New Question: Are the new codexes (Space Wolf, Blood Angels etc...) beiung designed so that their optimum size is in the area of 2000 ponts? If so is this an issue for older codexes (such as vanilla SM) which seem to be optimized for the 1500 point range? And is the Holy Roman Empire either Holy or Roman?

Discuss

Here's a link to a relatively long interview on the topic of "What point level does GW test at?" (http://bloodofkittens.com/2010/07/21/meat-for-meta-the-truth-behind-gw-playtesting/) If you also look under the Meat for Meta tab at the top you can see the interviewers opintions on 1500 points from long before the interviewee sung.

[EmeraldKnight]

Here's a link to a relatively long interview on the topic of "What point level does GW test at?" (http://bloodofkittens.com/2010/07/21/meat-for-meta-the-truth-behind-gw-playtesting/) If you also look under the Meat for Meta tab at the top you can see the interviewers opintions on 1500 points from long before the interviewee sung.

So I guess my next question has to be: If the standard (optimal) size for a game of 40K is 1500, why then do we see the trend in tournaments at 2000 or even greater? I have yet to play the Wolf or BA codex at 1500 so I have no experience to judge by.

[Leez]

So I guess my next question has to be: If the standard (optimal) size for a game of 40K is 1500, why then do we see the trend in tournaments at 2000 or even greater? I have yet to play the Wolf or BA codex at 1500 so I have no experience to judge by.

The three most common theories people have spoken up in favour of are: 1. More models = more money for GW. Especially since 2500 lists are not just expanded 2000 lists, which in turn are not just expanded 1500 lists. Or at least they aren't inherently the same if your goal is making a passable list. Odds are you'll need about 3K points to be able to make a non-garbage list at all three levels because of changes in units and unit sizes.

2. Players are more then just compliant because big lists means they can bring "more toys" so they enjoy the game more.

People often combine these two reasons with the reverse of number 2 à la interorectogestion. People feel "restricted" in a negative way when playing at lower point totals and thus enjoy the game less. It looks good on paper because at lower point totals you are restricted.

3. People on both sides have argued the codexes and/or the lists become more paper-scissor-rock at which ever point total they personally dis-favour.

[Melissia]

Nope. It's pretty easy to kill herohammer armies with REAL armies.

But then I define Herohammer differently I suppose.

[Sister Rosette Soulknyt]

Welll i have to agree here, killing SC's is not that hard now.
With the right army and not just another SC to face off against each other, like GQ shows in the White Dwarf issues everytime a new one is brought out.

Look at this then, i play SoB (big surprise i know), and we only have 2 SC's, and one of them is so bad its a joke, i would never take Karamov ever. Saint Celestine i take more for her looks and flavour than her ability to kill off everything like some SC's.
So that leaves me with only her to use, and against troops she is great, against a SC she is dead very quickly.

Herohammer is just silly, most people buy the SC because they look great as miniatures firstly, then next they look to there rules. Im painting my freinds Astoroth and Sanguinor atm, and i dont fear them at all, most these days there out on there own, cant join squads and die like the rest of them. Shread them with overwhelming fire and they cant make that many saves.

Let people pay Herohammer armies, i like it when i kill of all the SC, its so much more enjoyable to watch there so much loved SC's be killed.

[thecactusman17]

I think that more than any real benefit of taking the big named heroes, the real reason you are seeing more special characters on the board is because finally they are doing something. In the Ork codex, for example,it used to be that a few Nobs with a Boss was no big deal because it wasn't hard to fit them into the elites spot. You could take Nobs with a Mekboy or something without seeing much difference. Now, those Nobs become a key point of your army due to the new scoring system.

Older heroes still suffer from frankly not doing anything of note on the field except looking cool and occasionally doing something entertaining and fluffy. Newer special characters tend to not only satisfy the need for thematics, they also typically give your army an edge or a boost in some area that you wouldn't otherwise see. I know Vulkan is rather disliked because of his spam netlists, but he was the first 5th edition character that really made people say "wow, I didn't know that a character could impact my game like that." Since then we see guys like Njall, Mephiston, Th Doom of Malan'tai and others really changing how we look at the options available to a player in each new codex release.

[Old_Paladin]

Not to sound like some kind of cranky old man, in my rocking chair, yelling at kids on my lawn, but...

If you feel that 5th ed is herohammer, you've never played 2nd edition (or 4th edition Fantasy).
The old days when you could spend a large percentage of your points on just a single decked-out character, their equipment and unique wargear cards.

There's only a few things that even come close to that any more.
Mepheston, A thunderwolf lord with saga of the warriorborne, bloodthursters, BA dreads with talons.

And with 5thed rules about limited saves, how the number of hits in combat are determined (the biggest equalizer), not being able to consolidate into new combats, rules about joining units or being picked out in combat, instant death, etc. These units cause less damage and are a lot easier to take out then they used to be.


Things like eldar Farseers and warlocks, space marine chaplains or captians with the old "rites of battle", imperial preachers, etc. have always given bonuses to other units; making the army better through their use.
Army synergy from your commander, is vastly different from actual "herohammer"

[Sister Rosette Soulknyt]

Old Paladin i agree, i used to play way way way back in 2nd ed, oh the fun of uba-kitted characters that could make a killing on the battlefields like no other, 5th ed doesnt come close to carnage they could deliver.

5th ed heroes are there to look good, and be inspiration and used against other SC's these days, they tend to be either anti-infantry or anti-tank in design.

Points wise there cheaper now, more trended towards helping select units, with combat tactics and all.

[Melissia]

I actually find myself amused when people take deathstar armies focused around special characters and their retinue...

[thecactusman17]

Which army does that? Blood Angels, maybe. Other than that, I haven't seen it that often. Typically, I see maybe one named character in any given army, and more often than not they're guys like Marbo or Doom who can deliver their payload in one turn.

[Sister Rosette Soulknyt]

Ive played against Ultra-smurf armies with every named character in his list, ive played against a Ork player who also did the exact thing, and soon i plan to play against my friends Apoc army of Dark Angels and Blood Angels with every character.

Know what im looking forward to systematically killing off every character he has to prove it can be done, that im not afraid of his BA/DA army and the glee i will get with him watching me destroy his army.
By the way we think it will be around 12k per side or more.

[Melissia]

Which army does that? Blood Angels, maybe. Other than that, I haven't seen it that often. Typically, I see maybe one named character in any given army, and more often than not they're guys like Marbo or Doom who can deliver their payload in one turn.
Let's see, ones I've seen...

Space Marines (Calgar or Lysander deathstar with terminators)
Space Wolves (should really be obvious given how many characters they can have)
Blood Angels (based on one of the characters and Sanguinary Guard or Death Company)
Orks (Ghazzy with 9 meganobz in a battlewagon)

Not that any of them were very good, but that's not the point.

[scadugenga]

Which army does that? Blood Angels, maybe. Other than that, I haven't seen it that often. Typically, I see maybe one named character in any given army, and more often than not they're guys like Marbo or Doom who can deliver their payload in one turn.

You can field every named character in the IG dex in one army for under 1500 points.

You can fit a max of 4 (IIRC) SC's from the C:SM list in one army for significantly less points.

Not that I've seen that happen yet, mind you--but it's definitely possible. :)

[gwensdad]

You can field every named character in the IG dex in one army for under 1500 points.


Not really, but almost (there are 3 HQs for IG). But taking everyone except Yarrick gives you a 1475pt army-only without any upgrades anywhere.

[scadugenga]

Not really, but almost (there are 3 HQs for IG). But taking everyone except Yarrick gives you a 1475pt army-only without any upgrades anywhere.

Damnit...I always forget about Yarrick... ;)

Okay, so you can get 10 of the 11 SC's in the IG book in 1 army list for under 1500 points.

[thecactusman17]

OK, my previous statement was misinterpreted: Which army loads up on nothing but special characters and tries to make the list crazy good because of the characters? There are only two I can think of that specifically get better with named characters: Eldar (Eldrad) and Space Marines (Vulkan). Other codexes get a few decent options. Some even get great options. But there aren't many codexes where specifically the named characters are doing all that much.

Now, if the question is on unnamed heroes, well...

There's still not that much cheese.

Oh sure the newer 5th edition heroes get some beef on them, but stood up next to each other they are hardly overpowering. Even against some 3rd and 4th edition units and heroes they'll still get their butts handed to them on the end of a power weapon. In fact, I'll even go out on a limb and say that by and large newer 5th ed HQ units aren't as impressive as some of the late 4th edition ones--nowadays, if you want to mess around with your force organization for example, you have to invest extra points in named characters. But the Orks can take complex units as troops for less than 200 extra points, and mind you a Warboss on a bike is nothing at all to sneeze at.

[DarkLink]

And Vulkan lists only rely on Vulkan as an accessory. Vulkan doesn't act as some sort of hero-deathstar that singlehandedly takes apart his opponents. No, he just gives a slight but meaningful boost to his entire army. The army as a whole becomes stronger, rather than directly relying on the strength of the character. Not quite what I'd call Herohammer.